1.
SUPPORT: Strengthening Unified
Processes in Producing Outcomes and
Reaching Targets on School-Based
Management (SBM) System for Public
Schools District Supervisors and
School Heads
January 4-6; 11-13; 18-20; 25-27, 2023

2.
Session No. 3
The Revised School-Based
Management (SBM) Tool

3.
Terminal Objective:
At the end of the session the
participants shall be able to utilize
Revised SBM Assessment Tool.

4.
1. Discuss the characteristics and features of
the Revised SBM Assessment Tool.
2. Identify the parts of the tool and the
scoring instructions.
3. Accomplish Revised SBM tool using school
data.
Enabling Objectives:

5.
Key Contents:
• SBM Principles
• Performance Improvements
• Document Analysis, Observation,
Discussion (D-O-D)
• Level of Practice

6.
Think-pair-repair
As District Supervisor and School
Head, how would you describe your
experiences in rating the SBM Level
of Practice in your district/school?

7.
• What is your understanding of the Revised
SBM Assessment Tool?
• What is the most important feature of this
tool?
• How can you improve your SBM level of
practice using this tool?

8.
Characteristics and Features
Revised (SBM)
Assessment Tool
system
oriented
principle
guided
evidence
based
learner
centered
process
focused
non-prescriptive
user-friendly
collaborative
in approach
result/outcome
focused

9.
Parts of the SBM Assessment Tool
a. basic school/learning center information
b. principle-guided indicators
c. description of SBM practice scaled in terms of
extent of community involvement
d. learner centeredness
e. scoring instruction

10.
The users of the tool are the teachers,
school heads, learners, parents, LGU,
Private Sector and NGO/PO and the
different administrative levels of DepEd.
USERS

11.
Scoring Instructions
Leadership and Governance 30%
Curriculum and Learning
30 %
Accountability and Continuous
Improvement
25 %
Management of Resources 15%
1. The four (4) principles were assigned
percentage weights on the basis of their relative
importance to the aim of school (improved learning
outcomes and school operations)

12.
2. Each principle has several indicators.
Based on the results of the D-O-D
(Document Analysis, Observation,
Discussion), summarize the evidence, and
arrive at a consensus on the rating that
will be given to each indicator.

13.
3. Rate the items by checking the appropriate
boxes. These are the points earned by the school for
the specific indicator. The rating scale is:
0 No evidence
1
Evidence indicates early or preliminary
stages of implementation
2
Evidence indicates planned practices and
procedures are fully implemented
3
Evidence indicates practices and
procedure satisfy quality standards

14.
4. Assemble the Rubrics rated by the
respondents; edit them for errors like double
entries or incomplete responses.
5. Count the number of check marks in
each indicator and record in the appropriate
box in the summary table for the area /
standard rated.

15.
6. Multiply the number of check
marks in each column by the points (1-3).
7. Get the average rating for each
principle by dividing the total score by
the number of indicators of the principle.

16.
8. Record the average ratings for the
principle in the Summary Table for the
computation of the General Average.
9. Multiply the rating for each
principle by its percentage weight to get
the weighted average rating.

17.
10. To get the total rating for the
four principles, get the sum of all the
weighted ratings. The value derived is
the school rating based on DOD.

18.
11. The level of practice will be computed
based on the criteria below:
60% based on improvement of
outcomes;
40% according to the validated
practices using DOD

19.
12. The final scoring criteria as
described in item No. 11 will be issued
after the operational try out.

20.
Description of SBM Levels of Practice.
The resulting levels are described as
follows:

21.
Level I: DEVELOPING
Developing structures and
mechanisms with acceptable level
and extent of community
participation and impact on
learning outcomes.

22.
Level II: MATURING
Introducing and sustaining continuous
improvement process that integrates wider
community participation and improve
significantly performance and learning
outcomes.

23.
Level III: ADVANCED (ACCREDITED
LEVEL)
Ensuring the production of intended outputs/
outcomes and meeting all standards of a
system fully integrated in the local community
and is self-renewing and self-sustaining.

24.
RECOGNITION AND INCENTIVES
To accelerate implementation and reward best
practices, the revised SBM practice approaches
assessment using systematic recognition and
incentives program in terms of higher school
grant, capital outlay allocation, and
performance-based bonus (PBB)

25.
Effectivity
To accelerate implementation and
reward best practices, the revised
SBM practice approaches
assessment using systematic
recognition

26.
Part I: Introduction
The Revised School-Based Management
(SBM) Assessment Tool is guided by the
four principles of ACCESS (A Child-and
Community Centered Education System).
The indicators of SBM practice were
contextualized from the ideals of an ACCESs
school system.

27.
The unit of analysis in the school
system, which may be classified as
beginning, developing and advance
(accredited level). The SBM practice is
ascertained by the existence of
structured mechanisms, processes
and practices in all indicators.

28.
A team of practitioners and
experts from the district, division,
region and central office
validates the self-
study/assessment before a level
of SBM practice is established.

29.
The highest level- “advanced” is a
candidate for accreditation after a
team of external validators
confirmed the evidence of
practices and procedures that
satisfies quality standards.

30.
Part II: Basic School Learning
Center (LC) Information:
School/Learning Center
Region/Division
Name of School Head/LC Head:
Address:

31.
Part III: Instruction to the Users:
Please indicate using a check
mark the extend of SBM
practice for each indicator
listed below (numbered)
based on the validation team’s

32.
Part III: Instruction to the Users:
consensual agreements after
systematic D-O-D (Document
Analysis-Observation-
Discussion). For indicators with
no evidence, indicate zero.

33.
Part IV: Rating Scale:
1.No evidence
2.Evidence indicates beginning
structures and mechanisms are in
place to demonstrate ACCESs.

34.
Part IV: Rating Scale:
3. Evidence indicates planned
practices and procedures are fully
implemented and aligned to
ACCESs.
4. Evidence indicates practices and
procedures satisfy quality standards.

35.
1 2 3
A. Leadership
and
Governance
A network of leadership and governance guides the
education system to achieve its shared vision, mission and
goals making them responsive and relevant to the context
of diverse environments
1. In place is a
Development
Plan developed
collaboratively by
the stakeholders
of the school
community
 The development
plan guided by
the school’s
vision, mission
and goal (VMG) is
developed
through the
leadership of the
school and the
participation of
some invited
community
stakeholders.
 The
Development
Plan is evolved
through the
shared
leadership of
the school and
the community
stakeholders.
 The Development
Plan is enhanced
with the community
performing the
leadership roles, and
the school providing
technical support.

36.
1 2 3
A. Leadership and
Governance
A network of leadership and governance guides the
education system to achieve its shared vision, mission
and goals making them responsive and relevant to the
context of diverse environments
2. The development
plan (SIP) is
regularly reviewed
by the school
community to keep
it responsive and
relevant to
emerging needs,
challenges, and
opportunities.
 The school
leads the
regular
review and
improveme
nt of the
developme
nt plan.
 The school and
community
stakeholders
working as full
partners, lead
the continual
review and
improvement of
the
development
plan.
The community
stakeholders lead
the regular review
review and
improvement
process; the
school
stakeholders
facilitate the
process.

37.
1 2 3
A. Leadership
and
Governance
A network of leadership and governance guides the
education system to achieve its shared vision, mission and
goals making them responsive and relevant to the context
of diverse environments
3. The school is
organized by a
clear structure
and work
arrangements
that promote
shared leadership
and governance
and define the
roles and
responsibilities of
the stakeholders
The school
defines
organizational
structure, and
the roles and
responsibilities
of stakeholders.
 The school and
community
collaboratively
define the
structure and
the roles and
responsibilities
of stakeholders.
 Guided by an
agreed
organizational
structure, the
community
stakeholders lead in
defining the
organizational
structure and the
roles and
responsibilities;
school provides
technical and
administrative
support.

38.
1 2 3
A. Leadership and
Governance
A network of leadership and governance guides the education
system to achieve its shared vision, mission and goals making
them responsive and relevant to the context of diverse
environments
4. leadership
network facilitates
communication
between and
among school and
community leaders
to inform decision-
making and solving
of school-
community wide
learning problems
A network has
been
collaboratively
established and
is continuously
improved by the
school
community.
The network
actively provides
stakeholders
information for
making decisions
and solving
learning and
administrative
problems.
The network
allows easy
exchange and
access to
information
sources beyond
the school
community.

39.
5. A long-term
program that
addresses the
training and
development
needs of school
and community
leaders is in
operation.
 Developing
structures are in
place and
analysis of the
competency
and
development
needs of
leaders is
conducted;
result is used to
develop a long-
term training
and
development
program.
 Leaders
undertake
training modes
that are
convenient to
them (on-line,
off-line, modular,
group, or home-
based) and which
do not disrupt
their regular
functions.
Leaders monitor
and evaluate
their own
learning
progress.
 Leaders assume
responsibility for
their own training
and
development.
School
community
leaders working
individually or in
groups, coach
and mentor one
another to
achieve their
VMG.

40.
B. Curriculum and Learning – The curriculum learning systems anchored on the
community and learners’ contexts and aspirations are collaboratively developed and
continuously improved.
1. The curriculum
provides for the
development
needs of all types
of learners in the
school
community
 All types of
learners of the
school
community are
identified, their
learning curves
assessed;
appropriate
programs with
its support
materials for
each type of
learner is
developed.
 Programs to address
the needs of all
types of learners are
fully implemented
and closely
monitored to
address performance
discrepancies,
benchmark best
practices, coach low
performers, mentor
potential leaders,
reward high
achievement, and
maintain
environment that
makes learning,
meaningful and
enjoyable.
 The educational needs
of all types of learners
are being met as
shown by continuous
improvement on
learning outcomes
and products of
learning. Teachers’ as
well as students’
performance is
motivated by intrinsic
rather than extrinsic
rewards. The Schools’
differentiated program
is frequently
benchmarked by other
schools.

41.
B. Curriculum and Learning – The curriculum learning systems anchored on the community and learners’ contexts
and aspirations are collaboratively developed and continuously improved.
2. The implemented
curriculum is
localized to make it
more meaningful to
the learners and
applicable to life in
the community
 Local beliefs,
norms, values,
traditions,
folklores,
current events,
and existing
technologies are
documented
and used to
develop a
lasting
curriculum.
Localization
guidelines are
agreed to by
school
community and
teachers are
properly
oriented.
 The localized
curriculum is
implemented and
monitored closely
to ensure that it
makes learning
more meaningful
and pleasurable,
produces desired
learning outcomes,
and directly
improves
community life.
Ineffective
approaches are
replaced and
innovative ones
are developed.
 Best practices in
localizing the
curriculum are
mainstreamed and
benchmarked by
other schools. There
is marked increase
in number of
projects that uses
the community as
learning laboratory,
and the school as an
agent of change for
improvement of the
community

42.
3. A
representative
group of school
and community
stakeholders
develop the
methods and
materials for
developing
creative thinking
and problem
solving
A representative
team of school
and community
stakeholders
assess content
and methods
used in teaching
creative, critical
thinking and
problem solving.
Assessment
results are used
as guide to
develop
materials.
Learning materials
and approaches to
reinforce strengths
and address
deficiencies are
developed and
tested for
applicability on
school, family and
community.
Materials and
approaches are being
used in school, in the
family and in
community to
develop critical
thinking and
problem-solving
skills of learners and
are producing
desired results.

43.
4. The learning
systems are
regularly and
collaboratively
monitored by the
community using
appropriate tools
to ensure the
holistic growth
and development
of the learners
and the
community
 School-based
monitoring of
learning system
is conducted
regularly and
cooperatively;
and feedback is
shared with
stakeholders.
The system
uses a tool that
monitors the
holistic
development of
learners
The school-based
monitoring of
learning systems
generate feedback
that is used for
making decisions
that enhance the
total development
of learners.
A committee take
care of the
continuous
improvement of
the tool.
The monitoring
system is accepted
and regularly used
for collective
decision making.
The monitoring tool
has been improved
to provide both
quantitative and
qualitative data

44.
5. Appropriate
assessment tools
for teaching and
learning are
continuously
reviewed and
improved, and
assessment
results are
contextualized to
the learner and
local situation
for the
attainment of
relevant life
skills.
The
assessment
tools are
reviewed by
the school
and
assessment
results are
shared with
school’s
stakeholders.
The
assessment
tools are
reviewed by
the school
community
and results are
shared with
community
stakeholders.
School assessment
results are used to
develop learning
programs that are
suited to
community and
customized to
each learners’
context, results of
which are used for
collaborative
decision-making.

45.
6. Learning
managers and
facilitators
(Teachers,
administrators and
community
members) nurture
values and
environments that
are protective of all
children and
demonstrate
behaviors
consistent to the
organization’s
VMG.
Stakeholders
are aware of
child/learner-
centered rights-
based, and
inclusive
principles of
education.
Stakeholders
begin to practice
child/learner-
centered
principles of
education in the
design of support
to education.
Learning
environments,
methods and
resources are
community
driven, inclusive
and adherent to
child’s rights and
protection
requirements.

46.
6. Learning managers
and facilitators
(Teachers,
administrators and
community
members) nurture
values and
environments that
are protective of all
children and
demonstrate
behaviors consistent
to the organization’s
VMG.
Learning
managers and
facilitators
conduct activities
aimed to increase
stakeholders’
awareness and
commitment to
fundamental
rights of children
and the basic
principle of
educating them.
Learning
managers and
facilitators
apply the
principles in
designing …

47.
7. Methods and
resources are
learner and
community
friendly, enjoyable,
safe, inclusive,
accessible, and
aimed at
developing self-
directed learners.
Learners are
equipped with
essential
knowledge, skills,
and values to
assume
responsibility and
accountability for
their learning.
Stakeholders
are aware of
child/learner-
centered,
rights-based,
and inclusive
principles of
education.
Stakeholders
begin to practice
child/learner
centered
principles of
education in the
design of support
to education.
Learning
environments,
methods and
resources are
community driven,
inclusive, and
adherent to child’s
rights and
protection
requirements.

48.
C. Accountability
and Continuous
Improvement
A clear, transparent, inclusive and responsive accountability
system is in place, collaboratively developed by the school
community, which monitors performance and acts appropriately
on gaps and gains
1. Roles and
responsibilities of
accountable
person/s and
collective body/ies
are clearly defined
and agreed upon
by community
stakeholders.
There is an active
party that initiates
clarification of the
roles and
responsibilities in
education
delivery.
The
stakeholders are
engaged in
clarifying and
defining their
specific roles
and
responsibilities.
Shared and
participatory
processes of
determining roles,
responsibilities,
and
accountabilities of
stakeholders in
managing and
supporting
education.

49.
C. Accountability and
Continuous
Improvement
A clear, transparent, inclusive and responsive accountability
system is in place, collaboratively developed by the school
community, which monitors performance and acts
appropriately on gaps and gains
2. Achievement of
goals is recognized
based on a
collaboratively
developed
performance
accountability
system; gaps are
addressed through
appropriate action.
 Performance
accountability is
practiced at the
school level.
 A community-
level
accountability
system is
evolving from
the school-led
initiatives.
A community-
accepted
performance
accountability,
recognition and
incentive system is
being practiced.

50.
C. Accountability and
Continuous
Improvement
A clear, transparent, inclusive and responsive
accountability system is in place, collaboratively
developed by the school community, which monitors
performance and acts appropriately on gaps and gains
3. The accountability
system that is owned
by the community is
continuously enhanced
to ensure that
management
structures and
mechanisms are
responsive to the
emerging learning
needs and demands of
the community.
Community
stakeholders are
invited to
participate in
setting up an
accountability
system for
school-based
management
processes,
structures and
mechanisms.
Community
stakeholders
contribute to
the
development of
an
accountability
system covers
both school-
based and
community-
wide
management of
education.
A community
accepted
accountability
system effects
continuous
improvement in
the management
of learning

51.
4. Accountability
assessment criteria and
tools, feedback
mechanisms, and
information collection
and validation techniques
and processes are
inclusive and
collaboratively developed
and agreed upon.
(PROCESS)
The school,
with the
participation of
stakeholders,
articulates an
accountability
assessment
framework with
basic
components,
including
implementatio
n guidelines.
Stakeholders
are engaged in
the
development
and operation
of an
appropriate
accountability
assessment
system.
Stakeholders
continuously and
collaboratively
review and
enhance
accountability
systems’
processes,
mechanisms and
tools.

52.
5. Participatory
assessment of
performance is done
regularly with the
community.
Assessment results
and lessons learned
serve as basis for
feedback, technical
assistance,
recognition and plan
adjustment.
School initiated
periodic
performance
assessments
which involve
participation of
stakeholders.
Collaborative
conduct of
performance
assessment
informs
planning, plan
adjustments
and
requirements
for technical
assistance.
School-
community-
developed
performance
assessment is
practiced and is
the basis for
improving,
monitoring and
evaluation
systems, provision
of technical
assistance,
recognition and
refinement of
plans.

53.
C. Management of
Resources
Resources are collectively and judiciously mobilized and
managed with transparency, effectiveness, and efficiency.
1. Regular resource
inventory is
collaboratively
undertaken by learning
managers, learning
facilitators, and
community stakeholders
as basis for resource
allocation and
mobilization.
 Stakeholders
are aware
that a
regular
resource
inventory is
available and
and is used
as the basis
for resource
allocation
and
mobilization.
 The resource
inventory is
characterized
by regularity,
increased
participation
by
stakeholders,
and
communicate
d to the
community as
the basis for
resource
allocation and
mobilization.
 Resource
inventories are
systematically
developed and
stakeholders are
engaged in a
collaborative
process to make
decisions on
resource
allocation and
mobilization.

54.
2. There is a regular
dialogue for planning
and resource
programming that is
accessible and inclusive
to continuously engage
stakeholders and
support the
implementation of
community education
plan.
Stakeholders are
invited to
participate in the
development of
educational plan
with resource
programming
and participate in
the
implementation.
Stakeholders
regularly engaged
in the planning
and resource
programming and
actively participate
participate in the
implementation of
the educational
plan.
Stakeholders
collaborate to
ensure timely and
need-based
planning and
resource
programming and
support continuous
implementation of
the educational
plan.

55.
3. There is in place a
community-
developed resource
management system
that drives
appropriate
behaviors of the
stakeholders to
ensure judicious,
appropriate and
effective use of
resource.
Stakeholders
support
judicious,
appropriate,
and effective
use of
resource.
Stakeholders
are engaged
and share
expertise in
the
collaborative
development
of resource
management
system.
 Stakeholders
sustain the
implementation
and
improvement of
a collaboratively
developed,
periodically
adjusted, and
constituent
focused resource
management
system.

56.
4. Regular
monitoring,
evaluation, and
reporting process of
resource
management are
collaboratively
developed and
jointly implemented
by the learning
managers,
facilitators and
community
stakeholders.
 Stakeholders
are invited to
participate in
the
development
and
implementatio
n of
monitoring,
evaluation,
and reporting
processes on
resource
management.
 Stakeholders
collaboratively
participate in the
development and
implementation
of monitoring,
evaluation, and
reporting
processes on
resource
management.
Stakeholders are
engaged,
accountable in
implementing a
collaboratively
developed system
of monitoring,
evaluation and
reporting for
resource
management.

57.
5. There is a
system that
manages the
network and
linkages that
strengthen and
sustain
partnerships for
improving
resource
management.
An
engagement
procedure to
identify and
utilize partner-
ships with
stakeholders
for improving
resource
management is
evident.
Stakeholders
support a
system of
partnership for
improving
resource
management.
An established
system of
partnership is
managed and
sustained by the
stakeholders for
continuous
improvement of
resource
management.

58.
Levels
Numerical
Equivalent
Description
Level I
(Developing)
0.5 – 1.49
Developing structures and mechanisms with
acceptable level and extent of community
participation and impact on learning
outcomes.
Level Il (Maturing)
1.5 – 2.49
Introducing and sustaining continuous
improvement process that integrates wider
community participation and improve
significantly performance and learning
outcomes.
Level Ill
(Advanced) - For
Accreditation 2.5 – 3.0
Ensuring the production of intended
outputs/outcomes and meeting all standards
of a system fully integrated in the local
community and is self-renewing and self-
sustaining .
Descriptive SBM Scale

59.
The scoring matrix was developed by
a combined team of experts and
practitioners.

60.
SCORING MATRIX FOR
THE REVISED SCHOOL-
BASED MANAGEMENT
ASSESSMENT PROCESS
AND TOOL

61.
1.The Implementing Guidelines to the Revised
SBM Framework, Assessment Process and Tool
was issued through DepED Order No. 83, s.
2012. The revised process emphasizes the
centrality of learners and recognizes
differentiated SBM practice leading to
improvement of basic education delivery.

62.
2. The revised process underscores the
guiding principles of A Child- and
Community Centered Education Systems
(ACCESS).

63.
It shows how School Improvement
Planning (SIP), School Governing Council
(SCC), accountability system, and use of a
development fund (such as SBM grant)

64.
for continuous improvement projects
(CIPs), can help the school and its
stakeholders accelerate learning
performance, improve curriculum
delivery, and school governance
through SBM practice.

65.
3. With this, the connection of school
performance as the ultimate outcome
for the SBM practice becomes more
evident and quantifiable.

66.
4. For a school to determine its level of SBM
practice, it must first demonstrate
performance improvement across four (4)
thematic areas: Access, Efficiency, Quality,
and Governance. Access, efficiency, and
quality shall comprise 60% of the resulting
level of practice,

67.
while 40% shall come from the results of
the SBM peer assessment using
Document Analysis, Observation,
Discussion (D-O-D) process which shall
pertain to governance. The validation
process for governance is already
detailed in DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012.

68.
5.The determination of norms and
criteria for the identification of the
60% learning outcomes and the
final scoring matrix was established
in consultation with select experts
and field practitioners.

69.
6.The methodology used in determining
thresholds of performance was analysis of five-
year historical performance, review of literature
to appraise existing international and country
benchmarks, and existing education goals and
standards across thematic areas:

70.
access, efficiency, and quality. The
criteria used to evaluate and select
the indicators per thematic area
were availability, appropriateness,
and consistency with existing
standards.

71.
For each indicator, a scale/range was
determined by obtaining the baseline,
the historical trend for the past five (5)
years, getting the average increase
and comparing with international and
country standards.

72.
Part l. Computation for
the 60% Performance
Improvement

73.
As eligibility criteria for a school to
determine its level of practice, it must
demonstrate an acceptable performance
improvement over a period of three (3) years -
certified by the division in the following areas:

74.
access, efficiency, and quality.

75.
This shall be the prerequisite for
the school to request validation
from the division.
(For example, for schools which are
ready to conduct the assessment this
year, SY 2010-2011 shall be the baseline
year for computing the improvement).

76.
Each thematic area is given
corresponding weights based on
school mandate and expected
organizational outcomes as to:
access (45%), efficiency (25%), and
quality (35%)

77.
The performance indicator for access is
enrolment, if need be, it shall be supported by
the school-age population (6-11 for
elementary and 12 to 15 for secondary), taken
from the Barangay Hall and duly certified by
the Barangay Captain/Chairman; for efficiency:

78.
drop-out rate (DR), cohort survival rate
(CSR), and completion rate (CR); and for
quality: achievement rate in terms of
mean percentage scores (MPS) in the
National Achievement Test (NAT).

79.
For each indicator, a scale/range was
determined by determining the baseline,
the historical trend for the past five (5)
years and getting the average and
comparing this with international and
country standards.

80.
Depending on the increase in improvement, a
score will be given as to: Marginal, Average, or
High with equivalent points of 1,2, and 3
respectively. The table below shows the
increase in improvement, and the equivalent
rating and point/s for each indicator.

81.
Thematic
Areas Indicators Rating and Equivalent Point/s Weight
Access Enrolment
Increase
A. Enrolment Increase
I — Marginal: At least 3% increase
2 — Average: At least 5% increase
3 — High: At least 7% increase
B. Justification: Enrolment Rate based on
Community Mapping
I — Marginal: At least 85%
2 — Average: At least 90%
3 - High: At least 95%

82.
Efficiency
Drop-Out Rate(DR) Baseline: 7.06
I - Marginal: At least 2% decrease
2. - Average: At least 4% decrease
3. - High: Has 0 DR or more than 4%
decrease
Cohort
Survival Rate (CSR)
Baseline 75%:
1 - Marginal(At least 5% Increase) - 1
2 - Average(At least 7% Increase) - 2
3 - High At least 10% Increase or at least
95% CR
Completion Rate (CR) Baseline 75%:
I — Marginal (At least 5% Increase)
2— Average (At least 7% Increase) - 2
3— High At least 10% Increase or at least
95% CR

83.
Quality Achieveme
nt Rate (in
terms of
Mean
Percentage
Score)
OPTION 1:
Elem: Baseline - 67%
I - Marginal (At least 2% Increase)
2 - Average (At least 5% Increase or MPS)
3 - High (With 7% Increase or at least 75%
MPS)
Secondary: Baseline — 48%
I - Marginal (At least 7% Increase)
2 - Average (At least 8% Increase)
3 - High (With 10% Increase or at least
75% MPS)
OPTION 2:
I - Marginal: 76— 100%
2 - Average: 51 -
3 -Hi her: 26-50%

84.
Based on the rating, compute the
total points gathered per thematic
area and multiply it with the
assigned weight. Add up the raw
scores for all thematic areas.

85.
Based on the resulting score, the
school performance in terms of the
identified learning outcomes will be
classified as "Good", "Better", or
"Best". The table below shows the
interval score for each category.

86.
Categories Interval Scores
Good 0.5 – 1.49
Better 1.5 – 2.49
Best 2.5 - 3.0

87.
The school which shall be qualified
under the "Better" or "Best" categories
shall be eligible for validation by the
division and/or region using the D-O-D
practice as detailed in DepED Order
No. 83, s. 2012.

88.
The school which will be
classified as good is encouraged
to work more in improving its
performance to qualify for at
least Level I status.

89.
Part Il. Computation
for the 40% DOD
validation

90.
To arrive at the Level of Practice,
compute for the score in the 40%
DOD validation. As reflected in
DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012,

91.
the % weight for each principle in
relation to improving learning
outcomes and school operations, are
as follows:

92.
Leadership and Governance 30%
Curriculum and Learning
30%
Accountability and Continuous
Improvement
25%
Management of Resources 15%

93.
By applying the computation in the
said DepED Order, add up the
resulting points per principle.
Depending on the resulting score,
the school shall be classified as to
"Good", "Better", and "Best".

94.
Categories Interval Scores
Good 0.5 – 1.49
Better 1.5 – 2.49
Best 2.5 - 3.0

95.
Multiply the score gathered from
item 7.9 and multiply it to 40%,
which is the weight given to
governance [refer to DepED Order
No. 83, s. 2012 for details].

96.
Part Ill. Computation
for the Resulting Level
of Practice

97.
Add the scores gathered from
Parts I and ll. The resulting score
will be the basis for the
computation of the Level of SBM
Practice.

98.
Levels
Numerical
Equivalent
Description
Level I
(Developing)
0.5 – 1.49
Developing structures and mechanisms
with acceptable level and extent of
community participation and impact on
learning outcomes.
Level Il
(Maturing)
1.5 – 2.49
Introducing and sustaining continuous
improvement process that integrates
wider community participation and
improve significantly performance and
learning outcomes.
Level Ill
(Advanced) - For
Accreditation 2.5 – 3.0
Ensuring the production of intended
outputs/outcomes and meeting all
standards of a system fully integrated in
the local community and is self-
renewing and self-sustaining .

99.
Sample computation for a school and
a blank School Scoring Matrix

100.
The Revised
School-Based
Management
(SBM)
Assessment Tool
is guided by four
ACCESS principles
developing
maturing
Advanced or
accredited
level

101.
The determination of norms and
criteria for the identification of the
60% learning outcomes and the
final scoring matrix was done
through review of literature and
existing international and country
benchmarks, goals and
SBM NORMS IN PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS

102.
standards across the thematic
areas: access, efficiency and
quality. More specifically, the
group reviewed five-year historical
performance increase to reach the
targeted outcome in 2016.
SBM NORMS IN PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS

103.
They also considered the
population of the schools according
to enrolment, the standard
deviation and threshold in
performance within the range.
SBM NORMS IN PERFORMANCE
INDICATORS

104.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
ACCESS
(45%)
Enrollment *Philippines
A. Net Enrollment
Rate: 6.025
SY 2011-2012:
Elem: 91.21; Sec:
62.0 = 76.61
To reach EFA Goal
2016 (100%): 6.21
Average for 5
years: Elem: 6.51;
Sec: 16.23) 11.27
A. Enrollment
Increase
1–Marginal:
At least 3%
increase
2–Average: At
least 5%
increase
3–High: At
least 7%
increase
*The Marginal
starts with 3%
since it is the
least rate based
on the Average
5-Year Increase
of Sample Rural
Division X

105.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
ACCESS
(45%)
Enrollment B. Enrolment
Increase
(Average Sample
Urban Division
VS Rural
Division – Elem:
6.51; Sec:
16.23): 11.37
B. Jurisdiction:
Enrolment Rate
based on
Community
Mapping
1–Marginal:
At least 85%
Enrolment
2–Average: At
least 90%
Enrolment
3–High: At
least 95%
Enrolment
*On the
assessment
result:
Notations on
annual growth
rate at the
community
level should be
considered ;
hence,
continuity
mapping
should be
considered to
be certified by
SDS, Planning
officer & Brgy.
Captain.

106.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
*Secondary: (IU, Non-
IU, Annex HS,
W/Special
Program):16.23
Rural: Division X
(Average Increase for
5 Years): 16.0
Urban: Division Y
(Average Increase for
5 Years): 17.0
*Elementary:
(Central, Non-
Central, Multi-grade,
W/Special Program):
6.51
Rural: Division X
(Average Increase for
5 Years): 2.81
Urban: Division Y
(Average Increase for
5 Years): 10.21

107.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
C. Enrolment Rate is
based on the
Community Mapping
Certified by the
Brgy. Captain,
Division Planning
Officer & SDS
Example Only:
Enrolment (based on
annual population
growth rate)
Average rate of
pupils/students
retrieved

108.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
*Philippines
SY 2011-2012:
1.8(Elem): 2.3(Sec) –
Ave: 2.05
SOUTHEAST ASEAN
COUNTRIES
*Asia Pacific Region:
86% - 90% -
Increase: 4%
*Economic
Organization
Cooperation: 68% -
79% - Increase: 11%
Elem – 9 out of 10
Enrolled
Sec – 6 out of 10
Enrolled

109.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
EFFICIENCY
(25%)
Drop-out
Rate (DR)
*Philippines:
SY 2011-2012:
6.38(Elem); 7.84(Sec)
– Ave: 7.06
To reach EFA Goal
2016 for Zero DR:
1.75 decrease year
Average for 5 Years:
6.22(Elem); 7.03(Sec)
– Ave: 6.6
To reach EFA Goal 2016
for Zero DR: 1.6 decrease
year Source: eBEIS
*Singapore: As of
March2008, the dropout
rate is 1.6%, and has
been decreasing
considerably from 5.3% in
1997 and 3.6% in 2002.
The decrease has reflected
improvements at all levels
and amongst students of
all ethnic groups
*US Drop-out Rate as of
2008-09 is 4.1 for Grade
9-12 as of 2008-09
Baseline: 7.06
1–Marginal: At
least 2%
decrease
2–Average: At
least 3%
decrease
3–High: (Has 0
DR or has more
than 4%
decrease)
*For SY
2011-2012,
the average
DR is 7.06
(both Elem
and Sec). In
the year
2016 with
2% decrease
per year, the
national DR
will be 0.

110.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
EFFICIENCY
(25%)
Completion
Rate (CR)
*Philippines
SY 2011-12:
70.96(Elem);
74.23(Sec) – Ave:
72.5
To reach EFA Goal
2016 (100%): 6.8
Inc./Year
Average for 5 Years
74.41(Elem);
78.94(Sec) – Ave:
76.61
To reach EFA Goal
2016 (100%): 5.8%
Inc./Year
*USA: Twenty-five
percent (25%) of
Americans that start
high school do not
graduate. (75%
Completion Rate)
*Finland: 93% of
Finns graduate from
high school, 17.5
percent higher than
USA
Baseline 75%;
1–Marginal: At
least 5%
increase
2–Average: At
least 7%
increase
3–High: (At
least 10%
increase or at
least 95% CR)
*The current
CR (SY
2011-12),
has average
of 72.5
(both Elem
and Sec).
Having at
least 5%
increase per
year the
CSR will be
99.7 in the
year 2016

111.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
EFFICIENCY
(25%)
Completion
Rate (CR)
*Global/Upper
Secondary
Graduation Rates as
of 2009; Slovenia &
Portugal – 96%
Japan – 95%; United
Kingdom – 92%;
Norway & Iceland –
91%,; Switzerland &
New Zealand – 90%;
Korea – 89%
*Global Completion
Rate to Grade 5 by
Region by Sex, Most
Current Data,
2001/2002:
Latin America & the
Caribbean – 94.0
Europe & Central Asia
– 92.7
East Asia & the Pacific
– 92.25
South Asia – 75.7
Middle East & North
Africa – 72.35

112.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
EFFICIENCY
(25%)
Cohort
Survival Rate
(CSR)
*Philippines
SY 2011-2012:
73.76(Elem);
78.83%(Sec) – Ave:
76.20
To reach EFA Goal
2016 (100%): 5.9
Inc./Year
Average for 5
Years:
74.41(Elem);
78.94(Sec) – Ave:
76.68
To reach EFA Goal
2016 (100%) 5.8%
Inc./Year
*Global Average
Survival Rates to
Grade 5 by Region
by Sex, Most
Current data
2001/2002
Baseline 76%;
1–Marginal: At
least 5%
increase
2–Average: At
least 7%
increase
3–High: (At
least 10%
increase or at
least 95% CSR)
* The
current CSR
(SY 2011-
2012), has
the average
of 76.20
(both Elem
and Sec)
With at
least 5%
increase per
year the
national
CSR will be
99.8 in the
year 2016

113.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
EFFICIENCY
(25%)
Cohort
Survival Rate
(CSR)
Europe & Central
Asia – 98.15
Middle East &
North Africa – 93.95
East Asia & the
Pacific – 85.35
Latin America & the
Caribbean – 84.6
South Asia – 60.3
QUALITY
(30%)
NAT MPS HIGH: 76 – 100%
Above Average: 51
– 75%
Below Average: 26
– 50%
Poor: 0 – 25%
*Philippines
Average for 5
Years: Elem:
66.66% or 67%
To reach EFA Goal
2016 (75%) 2%
increase/Year
OPTION 1
Elem Baseline:
67%
*Marginal: At
least 2%
increase – 1
*Average: At
least 5%
increase – 2
*High: (With 7%
increase or at
least 75% MPS)
– 3

114.
AREAS INDICATORS
NORMS/
BENCHMARKS
Proposed PH
Standards
JUSTIFICATION
QUALITY
(30%)
NAT MPS OPTION 1
Secondary
Baseline: 48%
*Marginal: At
least 7%
increase – 1
*Average: At
least 8%
increase – 2
*High: (With
10% increase or
at least 75%
MPS) – 3
OPTION 2
*Marginal: (25-
505)– 1
*Average: (51-
75%– 2
*High: (76-
100%) – 3

115.
Effectivity
Using a check mark, indicate the extent
of SBM practice for each indicator listed.

116.
Thematic Area
Performance
Indicators
Rating & Equivalent
Points
Computation Results
Access
(45%)
Enrollment Increase % of Inc. 1 – Marginal: At Least 1% Increase
2 – Average: At Least 7% increase
3 – High: At Least 10% increase
Ave. % of Increase:
Efficiency
(25%)
Dropout Rate (DR) % of Inc. Baseline: 7.06
1 – Marginal: At Least 25% decrease
2 – Average: At Least 50% decrease
3 – High: Has 0 DR
Ave. % of Increase:
Completion Rate (CR) % of Inc. Baseline: 75%
1 – Marginal: At Least 5% Increase
2 – Average: At Least 7% increase
3 – High: At Least 10% increase
Ave. % of Increase:
Cohort Survival Rate
(CR)
% of Inc. Baseline:76%
1 – Marginal: At Least 5% Increase
2 – Average: At Least 7% increase
3 – High: At Least 10% increase
Ave. % of Increase:
Quality
(30%)
NAT MPS % of Inc.
1 – Marginal: 26 – 50%
2 – Average: 51 – 75%
3 – High: 76 – 100%
Ave. % of Increase:

117.
Numerical Rating Scale Description
0.5 – 1.49 Good
1.50 – 2.49 Better
2.50 – 3.00 Best
Interpretation Legend:
______ Good
______ Better
______ Best
SBM Principles Weight Cumulative Scores of
Validators per Principle
Results
Computation
Leadership 30% _______ x 0.3
Curriculum and
Learning
30% _______ x 0.3
Accountability 25% _______ x 0.25
Resource
Management
15% _______ x 0.15
Sub Total 100%
Numerical Rating Scale Description
0.5 – 1.49 Good
1.50 – 2.49 Better
2.50 – 3.00 Best
Interpretation Legend:
______ Good
______ Better
______ Best

118.
Areas Weight Computation Results
A. Performance Improvement 60% _____ x 0.60
A. SBM Assessment Score
(DOD)
40% ____ x 0.40
TOTAL 100%
Interpretation: ______ Developing (Level I)
______ Maturing (Level II)
______ Advanced (Level III)
Description of SBM Level of Practice:
Numerical Rating Scale Description
0.5 – 1.49 Developing
1.50 – 2.49 Maturing
2.50 – 3.00 Advanced

119.
References:
• DO 83, s. 2012
• SBM-PASBE