FACTORS AFFECTING COLLABORATIVE
PARTICIPATION
OF STAKEHOLDERS IN THE PREPARATION
OF SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN
A Thesis
Proposal Presented to the Faculty of the Graduate School of
Notre Dame of
Jolo College and the Commission on Higher
Education –
Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
In Partial
Fulfilment of the Requirements
For the Degree
of
Master of Arts
in Education
SAMOORE S.
LADJAHALI
DECLARATION OF ORIGINALITY
I,
SAMOORE S. LADJAHALI declares that this research is original to the best of
my knowledge. I declare further that this activity is undertaken by me.
SAMOORE
S. LADJAHALI
|
Researcher
|
March
28, 2016
|
Date
Signed
|
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Content Page
Title Page i
Declaration of Originality ii
Table of Contents iii
CHAPTER I: INTRODUCTION 1
Background of the Study 1
Statement of the Problem 4
Objectives of the Study 4
Significance of the Study 5
Scope and Limitation of the Study 6
Definition of Terms 6
CHAPTER 2: REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND 8
THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
Related Literature 8
Curriculum Delivery 19
School Environment 19
Parental Involvement 20
Partners in School Improvement Planning 21
District School Board 21
Superintendent 22
Principals 23
School Councils, Parents and Other Community
Members 24
Students 25
Development of Collaborative Team 26
Theory Base 28
Conceptual Framework 29
Null Hypothesis 30
CHAPTER 3: METHODOLOGY 31
Method Used 31
Sources of Data 32
Data Gathering 32
Questionnaire 33
Focus Group Questionnaire Guide 35
Survey Questionnaire 37
Content Validity Rating (CVR) 38
Sampling Technique 41
Procedure of the Study 41
Statistical Treatment 41
Statistical Tool 42
Reliability Statistics 43
Bibliography 43
Appendices 45
Appendix A 45
Appendix B 47
Appendix C 50
Appendix D 53
Appendix E 54
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Background
of the Study
The school head
performs the functions of both instructional
leader and administrative
manager. Nevertheless, he/she forms a team with the school
teachers/learning facilitators for delivery of quality educational programs,
projects and services.
In
accordance with the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (Republic Act
9155), the Department of Education (DepEd) promotes shared governance through
School-Based Management (SBM). Under this mandate, school heads are tasked to
develop the School Improvement Plan (SIP). The formulation and implementation of
the SIP shall involve the active participation of all education stakeholders in
the school and community such as the school heads, teachers, parents, community
leaders, and the learners themselves, among others. Thus,
organization of Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), Classroom Teachers
Association, Supreme Pupil Government, Disaster Risk Reduction Management
Committee (DRRMC), Child-Protection Policy Committee, and School Governing
Council (SGC) are necessarily organized in school. The
SGC aids school head establish school and community networks and encourage the
active participation of the stakeholders in promoting school performance and
improvement. Representatives from the different organization's form
themselves into a team which is the so-called School-community Planning Team
(SPT). The SPT where a school head acts as Team Leader includes student
representative, teacher representative, parent representative, barangay LGU
representative, member of DRRMC, member of school-child protection committee,
member of SGC, NGO representative, religious group representative, ALIVE
teacher, school alumni, IP representative. The SPT is responsible for the
crafting and writing of a 3-year SIP and Annual Implementation Plan (AIP)
intended for Year 1, Year 2, and Year 3. All SPT members shall sign the SIP for
onward submission to the Schools Division Office (SDO).
However, writing of SIP and preparation of AIP in
the entire public schools of DepED-Division of Sulu, especially in Indanan South
District contrarily appears against the aforementioned mandate. School heads
disregard the collaboration of education stakeholders since the past
one-and-a-half decades ago. All SIPs and AIPs of school heads submitted to the
Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) thru the District Supervisor bore only
one signature of the school head. School head plays single person in the preparation
of SIP and AIP evidenced in the appearance of signature. Stakeholders’
signatures occupy no space in SIP and AIP.
Working together is a real success. According to
Rampa (2005), it was integrated as an improvement strategy with two other
strategies, namely Total Quality Management(TQM) and TIRISANO (the latter word means
‘working together), which sought to transform the institutional cultures of
schools into those of collaboration and team building.
Schools must endeavor to motivate teachers and prepare them thoroughly for
their improvement initiatives. Change in schools is central to school
improvement and both leadership and stakeholders need to embrace the envisioned
improvement targets. Stakeholder collaboration needs to be facilitated as this
provides for a coherent effort for school improvement(T. M. MAKOELLE).
The above citations strongly convinced the writer of this paper to raise
the problem of collaborative participation of education stakeholders in the
construction of SIP and preparation of AIP. Evidently, collaborative
participation is the most pervasive prerequisite for making SIPs more
comprehensive one as a realistic blueprint of all school heads in the entire
eleven (11) elementary schools of Indanan South District towards continuous
improvement. In this effect, the author of this investigation strongly believe
that causes which are termed ‘factors’ stand in the post of ‘Independent
Variables’. The urgency of determination for those factors that surely affect the
collaboration of education stakeholders in the scheming of SIP and preparation
of AIP requires the most suggested instruments, tools, approaches, and procedures. To discover
those ‘Independent Variables' specific research questions were carefully
constructed and validated until they are numerically given on the next page.
Statement
of the Problem
This study will empirically investigate and
carefully undertake accurate framework of strategies in order to address the
following research questions:
1.
What is the
demographic profile of respondents in terms of age, gender, educational
attainment, position and income?
2.
What is the level of
or participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of School
Improvement Plan?
3.
What are the factors
that hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders in the
preparation of SIP?
4.
Is there significant
difference between the levels of participation of the different stakeholders in
the preparation of the School Improvement Plan when the data are grouped according
to profile?
Objective
of the Study
Specific research question stated in the preceding
paragraph are the bases for the formulation of aims of this research. This
study enables to provide ample information and solutions for the problems if
the following purposes are taken into consideration.
1.
To discover the
demographic profile of respondents in terms of age, educational attainment,
position and income.
2.
To determine the
level of participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of
School Improvement Plan.
3.
To investigate the
factors that can hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders
in the preparation of SIP.
4.
To determine the significant difference between the levels of participation of the different
stakeholders in the preparation of the School Improvement Plan when the data are
grouped according to profile.
Significance
of the Study
The researcher is truly certain that this study provides significant applicability
and consequential contribution to those public schools aspiring for
comprehensive plan to go further for continuous improvement both in academic
and co-curricular performances anchored to the vision and mission of DepED
Central Office, DepED-ARMM, and DepED-Sulu Division. School-Based Management
(SBM) is a new strategy of DepED in promoting quality education. Educational
plans for programs and projects are based on the grassroots reflected on the
reports and annual plan of school heads. One of the requirements for the
entitlement of schools in the SBM Grant is the collaboratively-workable SIP of the
schools.
This
study showcases benefits primarily for the school administrators, SPT, PT
(Project Team), SGC, PTCA, and other collaborators of the SIP creation and AIP
planners and implementers.
Scope
and Limitation of the Study
This research covers only the the remaining quarter of School Year 2015-2016 until the end of School Year
2016-2017. The target place of investigation is in the entire eleven (11)
elementary schools of Indanan South District, Indanan, Sulu. It is just limited
to nine (9) identified stakeholders, namely: 1) School head; 2) SGC president;
3) Teacher representative; 4) SPG mayor; 5) Professional representative; 6)
LGU/BLGU representative; 7) DRRMC representative; 8) Parents representative;
and 9) Business representative.
Definition
of Terms
Significant words that appeared in this study are
treated as independent, dependent variables and intervening variables. It is
operationally defined.
Factors
– refers to possible causes that hinder people to fulfill their duties and responsibilities.
Collaborative
Participation – refers to working together for
the cause of vision and mission of the school planning for continuous
improvement.
Stakeholders
– refers to officially-recognized school head and selected representatives of
Parent-Teachers Association, Classroom Teachers Association, Supreme Pupil
Government, Child-Protection Policy Committee, School Disaster Risk Reduction
Management Committee and School Governing Council that form School-community
Planning Team.
School Improvement
Plan – refers to the written roadmap,
blueprint and school proposal collaboratively designed for a 3-year period and
extracted into three Annual Implementation Plans.
Chapter 2
REVIEW OF LITERATURE AND THEORETICAL
FRAMEWORK
This chapter presents the review of
related literature and studies which were used further in the formation of the
theoretical framework and conceptual framework of this study.
Related
Literature
No one can doubt that significant school improvement
requires considerable planning. Few would argue against the idea of planning
and implementing improvements. But, as too often has been the case with efforts
to improve schools, school improvement planning processes have not been
conceived in ways likely to produce desired learning outcomes for many
students. The analyses presented in the report of the School Mental Health
Project, Department of Psychology, UCLA focused on the lack of attention given
to how schools do and do not address barriers to learning and teaching (smhp@ucla.edu).
This report emphasized the increased formalization
of school improvement planning stems from the federal No Child Left Behind
Act’s emphasis on matters such as explication of standards, achievement
tests as the main accountability measure, disaggregated data to focus on the
achievement gap, and consequences for not meeting annual progress goals (smhp@ucla.edu).
Furthermore, in this report mentioned that as
delineated in the 2004 U.S. Department of Education guidance: “The purpose of
the school improvement plan is to improve the quality of teaching and learning
in the school, so that greater numbers of students achieve proficiency in the
core academic subjects of reading and mathematics. The school improvement plan
provides a framework for analyzing problems and addressing instructional issues
in a school that has not made sufficient progress in students’ achievement.
Specifically, the plan’s design must address the core academic subjects and the
strategies used to teach them, professional development, technical assistance,
parent involvement and must contain measurable goals. Policies and practices
with the greatest likelihood of ensuring that all students achieve proficiency
are those that affect the school’s teaching and learning program, both directly
and indirectly. Policies and practices that have an impact on classrooms
include those that build school infrastructures, such as regular data analysis,
the involvement of teachers and parents in decision-making, and the allocation
of resources to support core goals.” (smhp@ucla.edu).
A perspective on school improvement planning also
is found in the 2004 guide produced by the Annenberg Institute for School
Reform. That analysis stresses the importance of focus areas chosen, standards
of practice adopted, performance indicators, and rubrics.
To formulate a big picture overview of the focus
of school improvement planning, an internet search was conducted to review
guidance about such planning provided by state and local education agencies
around the country and plans formulated by specific schools.
Even a cursory analysis of what is online makes it
clear that the focus of planning is determined by the interests, agenda, and
beliefs of those who develop the frameworks or protocols used to structure
planning. Because major urban centers have been so prominently targeted in
critiques of public education, they have devoted significant resources to
developing school improvement planning guides and have been using them for a
significant period of time. After surveying a range of urban centers, it is
concluded in this report that the New York City guide was representative of lengthier
guides and the Boston Public School guide was representative of more
abbreviated guides (smhp@ucla.edu).
Clearly, the call for enhancing continuous school
improvement planning has a sound basis. In the analyses of the report, however,
suggest that the guidance for schools often does not adequately focus on the
need for schools to play a significant role in addressing barriers to learning
and teaching. This is not surprising given the narrow focus of prevailing accountability
mandates stemming from the No Child Left Behind Act (smhp@ucla.edu).
The planning guides reviewed stress meeting the
demand for standard based and result-oriented school improvement mainly by
elaborating on prevalent thinking about school practices, rather than
considering fundamental systemic change. In doing so, they reflect adherence to
the failed assumption that intensifying and narrowing the focus of school
improvement to matters directly related to instruction and behavioral
discipline are sufficient to the task of continuously raising test scores over
the long-run. This assumption ignores the need for fundamentally
restructuring school and community resources in ways that enable learning. It
also maintains the marginalization of efforts to address major barriers
to learning and teaching.
Adelman (1996) stressed that encompass
comprehensive, multifaceted, and integrated approaches for enabling learning
through addressing barriers. This is especially unfortunate in schools where
large proportions of students are not doing well. Thus, one of the poignant
ironies of continuing to proceed in this way is that the aim of providing
equity of opportunity for many students is undermined. He further explained
that with a view to broadening the focus of planning, it includes a set of
guidelines for a comprehensive component to address barriers to learning and
teaching. These guidelines provide a template for assessing what tends to be
missing in school improvement planning guides.
Adelman and Taylor (1994) outlined major problems
with the ways schools currently address learning, behavior, and emotional
problems. They justified by giving example, that most programs, services, and
special projects providing learning supports at a school and district-wide are
treated as supplementary (often referred to as auxiliary services). They
defined the results of such marginalization as: 1) Planning and implementation
of a school’s approach to addressing barriers to learning and teaching usually
are conducted on an ad hoc basis; 2) Support staff tend to function in relative
isolation of each other and other stakeholders, with a great deal of the work
oriented to discrete problems and with an overreliance on specialized services
for individuals and small groups; and 3) In some schools, the deficiencies of
current policies give rise to such aberrant practices as assigning a student
identified as at risk for grade retention, dropout, and substance abuse to
three counseling programs operating independently of each other. Such
fragmentation not only is costly, it works against maximizing results.
Unfortunately, the tendency among reformers has
been to focus mainly on the symptom – fragmentation. The main prescription for
improving student supports has been to enhance coordination. Better
coordination is a good idea. But it doesn’t really address the problem that
school-owned student supports are marginalized in policy and practice.
Adelman and Taylor (1997) specified that the trend
toward fragmentation is compounded by efforts to enhance community involvement
through school-linked services’ initiatives. This happens because such
initiatives focus primarily on coordinating community services and linking
them to schools using a collocation model, rather than braiding resources
and integrating such services with the ongoing efforts of school staff.
Barnes (2004) stressed that the long-standing
marginalized status and the associated fragmentation of efforts to address
student problems are likely to go unchanged as long as educational reformers
continue to ignore the need to restructure the work of student support
professionals. Currently, most school improvement guides and plans do not focus
on using such staff to develop the type of comprehensive, multifaceted, and
integrated approaches necessary to address the many overlapping barriers to
learning and development. At best, most reformers have offered the notion of
integrated school-linked services.
Barnes 92004) had been mediating against developing
school-wide approaches to address factors interfering with learning and
teaching is the marginalized, fragmented, and flawed way in which these matters
are handled in providing on-the-job education. He further give example, little
or none of a teacher's in-service training focuses on improving classroom and
school-wide approaches for dealing effectively with mild-to-moderate behavior,
learning, and emotional problems. And little or no attention is paid to
in-service for student support staff.
With respect to changing all this, Adelman and
Taylor (2006) addressing barriers to learning and teaching must be made an
essential and high level focus in every school improvement planning guide. The
intent must be to develop a comprehensive, multifaceted, and cohesive approach.
This, of course, represents major systemic change and requires shifts in
prevailing policy and new frameworks for practice and sufficient resources to
develop an effective structural foundation and ongoing capacity building for
such change.
For those concerned with school improvement,
resource-oriented mechanisms are a particularly vital infrastructure
consideration. Few schools have a mechanism related to learning supports to
ensure appropriate use of existing resources and enhance supports. This is a
major failing since such a mechanism could make major contributions to cost
efficacy by ensuring that all learner supports are well planned, implemented,
and evaluated. Such a mechanism also provides another means for reducing
marginalization.
Adelman and Taylor (2006) explained that a
comparable mechanism is needed to link feeder patterns and families of schools
together to maximize use of limited resources. Such a mechanism can ensure that
a group of schools in a geographic area collaborates and shares programs and
personnel in many cost effective ways related to addressing barriers. This
includes achieving economies of scale by assigning learning support staff and
implementing staff development across the group of schools. It encompasses
streamlined processes to coordinate and integrate assistance to a family with
children at several schools in a feeder pattern, all of whom require learning
supports.
Barnes (2004) noted that to help in moving
forward, districts can draw on the resources of both the No Child Left Behind
and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Acts. Both acts call for
coordination of programs and services and, in doing so, provide mechanisms for
using federal dollars to move school improvement in new directions through supporting
systemic changes.
Adelman and Taylor (2006) indicated that the
efforts to enhance the involvement of many families require providing a range
of school wide and classroom interventions designed to strengthen the home
situation, enhance family problem-solving capabilities, and increase support
for student well-being. They continue to give examples that include systems and
programs to (a) address the specific learning and support needs of adults in
the home, such as offering ESL, literacy, vocational, and citizenship classes,
enrichment and recreational opportunities, and mutual support groups, (b) help
those in the home improve how basic student obligations are met, such as
providing guidance related to parenting and how to help with schoolwork, (c) improve
forms of basic communication that promote the well-being of student, family,
and school, (d) enhance the home-school connection and sense of community, (e)
foster participation in making decisions essential to a student’s well-being,
(f) facilitate home support of student learning and development, (g) mobilize
those at home to problem solve related to student needs, and (h) elicit help
(support, collaborations, and partnerships) from those at home with respect to
meeting classroom, school, and community needs. The context for some of this
activity may be a parent or family center if one has been established at
the site.
Barnes (2004) stressed that community involvement
also requires a wider range of outreach interventions to build linkages and
collaborations. He provide examples include (a) planning and implementing
outreach to recruit a wide range of community resources (e.g., public and
private agencies; colleges and universities; local residents; artists and
cultural institutions, businesses and professional organizations; service,
volunteer, and faith-based organizations; community policy and decision
makers), (b) systems to recruit, screen, prepare, and maintain the involvement
of community resources (e.g., mechanisms to orient and welcome, enhance the
volunteer pool, maintain current involvements, enhance a sense of community),
(c) reaching out to students and families who don’t come to school
regularly—including truants and dropouts, (d) connecting school and community
efforts to promote child and youth development and a sense of community, and
(e) capacity building to enhance community involvement and support (e.g.,
policies and mechanisms to enhance and sustain school-community involvement,
staff/stakeholder development to enhance the valuing of community involvement,
“social marketing”).
Not mentioned at all is the essential partnership
among school, family, and community when specialized assistance for students
and their families is needed. While specialized assistance for students and
family should be reserved for the relatively few problems that cannot be
handled without adding special interventions, they need to be available when
needed. Such assistance encompasses most of the services and related systems
referred to in integrated service models.
School Improvement
Plan
School stakeholders such as school
administrator, teachers, parents and the community are those people involved
making the school progressive and developed. Lezottee, et.al. (1990) described
that a
school improvement plan is a road map that sets out the changes a school needs
to make to improve the level of student achievement, and shows how and when
these changes will be made. School improvement plans are selective: they help
principals, teachers, and school councils answer the questions “What will we
focus on now?” and “What will we leave until later?” They encourage staff and
parents to monitor student achievement levels and other factors, such as the
school environment, that are known to influence student success. With up-to-date
and reliable information about how well students are performing, schools are
better able to respond to the needs of students, teachers, and parents.
Leithwood
(1995) stressed that a school improvement plan is also a mechanism through
which the public can hold schools accountable for student success and through
which it can measure improvement. One of the first steps—a crucial one—in
developing an improvement plan involves teachers, school councils, parents, and
other community members working together to gather and analyze information
about the school and its students, so that they can determine what needs to be
improved in their school. As the plan is implemented, schools continue to
gather this kind of data. By comparing the new data to the initial information
on which the plan was based, they— and the public—can measure the success of
their improvement strategies.
Epstein (1997)
stated that real change takes time. It is important that all partners
understand this as they enter into the school improvement planning process.
Incremental improvements are significant, and they should be celebrated, but
they do not constitute lasting change. School improvement plans are therefore
best designed as three-year plans. Year 1 is taken up with the planning process;
Year 2 is the first year of implementation; and Year 3 is the year in which
implementation continues.
Areas need to be considered for improvement. The overall objective of school
improvementplanning is an enhanced level ofstudent achievement. To effect
realchange, however, the process needs tofocus on specific priorities.Student
performance improves whenteachers use curriculum-delivery strategiesthat
specifically address the needsof their students, when the school environmentis
positive, and when parentsare involved in their children’s education.
In planning
improvements, therefore,schools should establish one priority in each of these
three areas—curriculum delivery, school environment, and parental involvement.
In effect, the planning process involves answering the important questions:
“What will we focus on now?” and “What will we leave until later?”
Curriculum Delivery
Curriculum is
the foundation of the education system. The DepEd has published curriculum
policy documents that set out expectations for student learning in each grade
and subject area. “The expectations… describe the knowledge and skills that
students are expected to develop and to demonstrate in their class work, on
tests, and in various other activities on which their achievement is assessed”
(Leithwood, 1986).
The policy documents also contain
achievement charts (“rubrics”) that help teachers assess the level of each student’s
achievement in relation to the expectations. “The achievement levels are brief
descriptions of four possible levels of student achievement. These
descriptions, which are used along with more traditional indicators like letter
grades and percentage marks, are among a number of tools that teachers use to
assess students’ learning” (Leithwood, 1995).
Joyce (1993)
emphasized that to set a goal for improving the way curriculum is delivered,
principals, teachers, school councils, parents, and other community members
participating in the improvement planning process must understand the
expectations set out by the school district and how well the students in their
school are achieving those expectations.
School Environment
Epstein (1995)
stated that effective schools share a set of characteristics that add up to an
environment that fosters student achievement.8 By setting goals to improve a
school’s environment, principals, teachers, school
councils, parents, and other community members can make their schools more
effective places in which to learn. Highly effective schools share characteristics
such as clear and focus vision, safe and orderly environment, climate of high
expectations for student success, focus on high levels of student achievement
that emphasizes activities related to learning, principal who provides
instructional leadership, frequent monitoring of student progress and strong
home-school relations.
Parental Involvement
Joyce (1993)
stated that parental involvement is one of the most significant factors
contributing to a child’s success in school. When parents are involved in their
children’s education, the level of student achievement increases. Students
attend school more regularly, complete more homework in a consistent manner,
and demonstrate more positive attitudes towards school. They also are more
likely to complete high school.10
Levine (1990)
was on the view that parental involvement helps a child succeed in school and
later in life. To ensure parents are informed about and involved in their
children’s education, schools must foster partnerships with parents. Because
parental involvement is one of the most significant factors in a child’s
success, it is crucial that all schools set a goal in their improvement plans
for increasing it.
Partners in School Improvement Planning
Barth
(1990) described that everyone involved in or interested in the operation of
schools has a role to play in the improvement planning process. District school
boards and superintendents of education play important roles in setting
directions and in supporting and monitoring school improvement plans. The most
important work, however, takes place within the school community itself. As we
said in chapter 1, an effective school improvement plan results when principals,
teachers, school councils, parents, and other community members work as a team
to establish priorities, set goals for improvement, implement strategies to
achieve those goals, and evaluate progress.
District School Board
Leithwood
(1995) stated that district school boards help set direction and provide
support for the school improvement planning process. They should establish
vision and mission statement for the board and board improvement plans, and
communicate them to schools so that schools can use them as a context for their
improvement planning. They should encourage school councils, parents and other
community members to participate in the development of board and school
improvement plans. They should establish policies to ensure that school
councils, parents and other community members have meaningful roles to play in
developing, communicating, monitoring and evaluating school improvement plans.
They should support the development of team and leadership skills for school
council members through training, conferences and forums. They should also
implement mechanisms to hold superintendents of education and principals
accountable for progress towards the goals set out in school improvement plans.
Lezotte (1990)
also emphasized that it is also imperative that boards understand, through
annual reports from superintendents, the goals being set by the schools in
their jurisdictions. Boards can incorporate common school goals into their own
strategic plans and allocate resources in ways that meet the common needs and
priorities of their schools.
Superintendent
Epstein (1995)
wrote that superintendents must encourage schools in planning improvements,
facilitate their strategies, and monitor each school’s success. They shoulddevelop
a thorough understanding of the nature and characteristics of each school. They
should ensure professional development and training opportunities are available
to school staff, school council members, parents, and other community members
to help them develop effective improvement plans. The should support school
councils, parents, and other community members in becoming full partners in the
improvement planning process by communicating with them regularly (for example,
attending meetings of school council chairs). They use principals’ meetings to
provide principals and vice-principals with professional development
opportunities and to model strategies (for example, teamwork) that principals
can use in the improvement planning process. They ensure that principals and
staff receive the information (for example, the board’s strategic plan) and the
resources (for example, professional development opportunities) they need to
carry out the improvement planning process. They should ensure that schools use
accurate and comprehensive information (for example, student achievement data,
summaries of responses to parent surveys) in developing their plans. They
should provide support to principals when and where needed as schools implement
their plans. They should provide opportunities and venues such as the following
for schools to work together to resolve problems and share best practices such
as regional or family-of-schools meetings, newsletters and electronic
discussion groups. They should work with staff development personnel to ensure
that their work increasingly focuses on helping schools achieve their
improvement goals.They should also review school improvement plans with
principals regularly, and request regular updates on implementation of the
plans.
Principals
Cotton (2000)
emphasized that principals are the key players in the school improvement process. They play a wide
variety of roles to ensure that the improvement plan and its implementation are
successful. One of their most important responsibilities is to ensure that
improvement plans reflect the characteristics of their own school and its
community.
In many
schools the principals, superintendents, and teachers should work in
partnership to ensure that school improvement plans reflect beliefs and values.
Principals should ensure that improvement plans maintain the school’s focus on
celebrating and enhancing students’ understanding of language, culture, and
institutions, and that the plans recognize the central role that the school
plays in francophone communities.
School Councils, Parents and Other Community Members
Cotton (2000)
stressed that to ensure that parents’ voices are heard in matters related to
their children’s education. Through a regulation to be developed under the Education Act, the DepED will require that district
school boards and principals seek the advice of school councils in a number of
areas—including the development of school improvement plans—and report back to
the councils on how their advice has been taken into account.
Leithwood
(1986) believed that school councils, a majority of whose members are parents,
must be actively involved in the school improvement planning process to ensure
that the priorities of the whole school community are reflected in the school’s
plan. Parents and community members who are not members of school councils may
also wish to participate, and should be encouraged to do so. In partnership
with the school’s principal and teaching staff, school councils should participate
in establishing priorities and setting goals and strategies for school
improvement. They should regularly encourage parents and other community
members (for example, through school council newsletters or at parent meetings)
to participate in the improvement planning process. They should review the
school’s progress in implementing the plan with the principal. They should discuss
the plan’s goals and provide updates on the school’s progress at council
meetings and in the council’s communications with the community. They work in
consultation with the school’s principal to build partnerships with social
service agencies, recreation departments and facilities, community groups,
businesses, and industries to help implement the plan. In addition, school
councils in the Catholic systems should work in consultation with the school’s
principal to build partnerships with the parish. They should provide leadership
in and resources for faith education. They should encourage parental, staff,
and parish involvement in establishing good home-school-parish links. School
councils in the French-language systems should inform the school’s community
about French-language cultural activities that are available to students and
their families. They should provide the school with resources to promote
French-language cultural activities in the community.
Other school
councils may wish to modify or augment the above list of roles with other
activities that reflect the unique needs of their schools.
Students
Lavine (1990)
described that secondary school students and students in Grades 7 and 8 may
also play a part in school improvement planning. They could participate in
setting goals and strategies. They should help communicate the plan to the
student body. They should communicate the plan to their parents. They should participate
in strategies to reach the school’s goals.
Development of Collaborative Team
Ferguson
(2005) stated that schools are required to involve parents in a “jointly” developed
written parental involvement policy that describes the
school’s plan to ensure that all students reach academic achievement standards,
processes for staff-parent communication, and ways parents can provide and support learning.
He
further explained that for many schools, the idea of involving families
actively in the decision-making and implementation efforts needed for school
improvement is intimidating. As can been seen in the School Snapshot, school leaders play a key role in
creating a school culture in which parental involvement is not only accepted
but also valued.
Current research in this field
reveals that schools, families, and communities need strong leadership if they
are going to shift away from the traditional models of involvement in which
school personnel dominate the interactions. Ferguson (2005) stressed that when
school leaders create conditions that foster collaborative relationships among
the school, families, and the community, the result can be a cohesive partnership
among all of the schools’ stakeholders. These partnerships can harness family,
community, and school resources to ensure that all students have the support
needed to succeed.
In the
expansion of his idea Ferguson (2005) explained that a first step in
beginning to initiate collaborative efforts is to define the current status of
school and family relations. What factors inhibit or foster family and
community interactions with the school and its staff? Successful administrators
are able to anticipate the inhibitors and soften their impact while promoting
research-based strategies that encourage increased involvement. The following
factors have been identified in the research on family and community connections
with schools as key to promoting family interactions like creating a family-friendly
school,
networking through community organizations, listening actively to the
concerns of individuals and influencing the creation of
policies to encourage family and community involvement.
Collaborative action teams (CAT) can be a powerful strategy in
expanding family and community connections with schools. In a 5-year research
and development project with 23 sites, SEDL (2000) found that collaborative
action teams were a successful way to increase family involvement. Furthermore,
Wynn, Meyer, and Richards-Schuster (2000) reviewed 249 family connections
programs and found that collaborative processes were a key element in the
success of family involvement efforts with schools. These researchers and
others have found that it is the collaborative culture of these efforts that
encourages family members to provide meaningful support for student learning.
When school leaders, use an activity they are taking a first step in developing
a collaborative approach to establish a “jointly” created School-Parent
Compact. Though educators tend to begin all improvement efforts with a
visioning process, developing a deeper contextual understanding of the school’s
culture can provide long-term benefits. This shared knowledge and experience
about different stakeholders’ perspectives can ultimately support a visioning
process done at a later date.
Again, a collaborative action team process is multi-stepped. This
activity is designed to be a foundation for future work. It is not a
stand-alone activity that will instantly create a collaborative culture; it is
the first of many steps that need to be taken. This activity has been modified
to address the needs of a single school, rather than a district, and is taken
from SEDL’s Creating Collaborative Action Teams: Working Together for Student
Success materials, available through the SEDL catalog.
Theory Base
Theoretically, this investigation is anchored to the study of T.M.
Makoelle (© Kamla-Raj 2014) that among the findings of his
study is that management and leadership, effective curriculum management,
effective school governance and an effective support structures are at the
heart of any school improvement success.
Wynn, Meyer
and Richards-Schuster (2000) found that collaborative processes were a key
element in the success of family involvement efforts with schools.
Ferguson
(2005) stressed that when school leaders create conditions that foster
collaborative relationships among the school, families and the community, the
result can be a cohesive partnership among all of the schools’ stakeholders.
These partnerships can harness family, community and school resources to ensure
that all students have the support needed to succeed.
Conceptual
Framework
Figure 1 shows the interaction of the variables in
this study. The factors affecting the collaborative participation of
stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan is represented in
the direction of the arrow in the Figure. The Factors are the Independent
Variable. The Collaborative Participation in the Preparation of SIP is the
Dependent Variable. The Profile of the respondents is the Intervening Variable.
The Collaborative Participation of the Stakeholders in the Preparation of SIP
will result to a comprehensive SIP (Outcome). Comprehensive SIP strengthens the
school operations and provides strong implementation of the SIP since everyone
is involved in the preparation.
Null
Hypothesis
Ho:
There is no significant difference between the levels of participation
of the different stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan
when the data are grouped according to profile.
Chapter 3
METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research methodology
which comprises to explain the method used in the study, sources of data, data
gathering instrument, sampling technique, procedure of the study and
statistical treatment.
Method
Used
To ensure discovery of the factual information for
queries, the author shall adopt descriptive approach. The description is based on documentary
analysis and responses of the respondents to the checklist questionnaire.
Descriptive method will be used to describe the nature of the situation as it
exists at the time of the study and to explore the causes of particular
phenomena (Adanza, 1999).
The descriptive research method will be used in
this study because it is considered as the most appropriate method for this
purpose and it helps the researcher in the accurate assessment of the collected
data on the factors affecting the collaborative participation of the school
stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan in the different
schools of Indanan South District.
Focus Group Discussion (FGD) will also be used to
gather qualitative data. The participants will be the school principal. It will
be conducted at MNL hotel at Alat, Jolo, Sulu.
Sources of Data
The respondents of the study are the stakeholders
in the different elementary schools in Indanan South District. It involves the
school head, PTCA officers, School Governing Council, Classroom Teachers
Association, Supreme Pupil Government, DRRMC Committee, Child-Protection Policy
Committee, LGU and other officially-recognized representatives of the different
organizations. They are target sources of data. The data is a primary data
collected through checklist questionnaire which was tested for validity and
reliability using test-retest method. FGD will be used also to solicit
qualitative data from the principals of the schools.
Data Gathering
Instrument
The researcher uses informal local stakeholders’
interview prior to the preparation of the checklist questionnaire. The
checklist questionnaire is composed of three parts. The first part inquires the
profile of the respondents. The second part inquires the level of participation
and third part inquires the factors affecting the collaborative participation
of the school stakeholders in the preparation of the School Improvement Plan.
The FGD Guide Questions will be used in the conduct of FGD.
The checklist questionnaire was launched to ten
school officials and teachers in the DepED for testing of internal validity and
reliability.
QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear
Respondent:
This question
will be used to gather data for the thesis entitled “Factors Affecting Collaborative
Participation of Stakeholder in the Preparation of School Improvement Plan
(SIP)”. Your responses to this questionnaire is very important to
continue this study. Please answer the questionnaire honestly and sincerely.
Your responses will be analyzed in group rest assured it will be kept
confidential.
Part
I. Demographic Profile of Respondent
Name:
_______________________________ Position/Occupation: __________
Below-30 31-40 41-50 51-Above
Gender:
Male Female
Educational
Attainment:
Elementary High School College With Master Units
Master Doctoral Units Doctor
Monthly
Income:
Below
- P 10 000 P 21 000 – P 30 000 P 41 000 - Above
P
11 000 – P 20 000 P 31 000 – P 40
000
Part
II. Level of participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of
School Improvement Plan
These
are the different stakeholders involved in the preparation of school
improvement plan. Please, evaluate
their levels of participation in the preparation of SIP using the rating
scale as follows:
5
= Vey High; 4 = High; 3 = Moderate; 2 = Low; 1 = Very Low
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
1
|
School
Head
|
|||||
2
|
Teacher
Representative
|
|||||
3
|
SPG
Mayor
|
|||||
4
|
SGC
President
|
|||||
5
|
Professional
Representative
|
|||||
6
|
Parents
Representative
|
|||||
7
|
Business
Representative
|
|||||
8
|
Barangay
Representative
|
|||||
9
|
LGU
Representative
|
|||||
Part
III. Factors hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders
in the preparation of SIP
These
statements are factors that can affect the collaborative participation of the
stakeholders in the preparation of school improvement plan. Please evaluate
using the rating scale as follows:
5
= Strongly Agree; 4 = Agree; 3 = Moderately Agree; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Strongly
Disagree
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
1
|
Non-organization
of School Planning Team (SPT)
|
|||||
2
|
Monitoring
and evaluation of SIP
|
|||||
3
|
Awareness
of School Heads
|
|||||
4
|
Non-organization
of School Governing Council
|
|||||
5
|
Copy
paste Plan/Negligence of planning/Compliance Only
|
|||||
6
|
Level
of Participation of Stakeholders
|
|||||
7
|
Orientation
and Training Workshop
|
|||||
8
|
Leadership
Style of School Heads
|
|||||
9
|
School
Vision-Mission
|
|||||
10
|
Time
constraint
|
|||||
11
|
Absence
of Meeting
|
|||||
12
|
Coordination
and Consultation
|
|||||
13
|
School
Funds
|
|||||
14
|
Attitudes
|
|||||
15
|
Facilitation
Skills
|
|||||
16
|
Inferiority
|
|||||
17
|
Documentation
and Reporting
|
|||||
18
|
Recognition
|
|||||
19
|
Assessment
of School Performance
|
|||||
20
|
Motivation
and Enthusiasm
|
|||||
21
|
School
Community Relationship
|
|||||
22
|
Organization
of PTA
|
|||||
23
|
Peace
and Order
|
|||||
24
|
LGU
Involvement
|
|||||
25
|
Status
of the School
|
|||||
26
|
Commitment
and Dedication
|
|||||
27
|
Job
Satisfaction
|
|||||
28
|
Focus
|
|||||
29
|
Family
Income
|
|||||
30
|
Educational
Attainment
|
|||||
SAMOORE S. LADJAHALI
Researcher
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDE
1.
What is the level of
or participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of School
Improvement Plan?
2.
What are the factors
that hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders in the
preparation of SIP?
Table 1
Reliability Statistics
Value
|
.922
|
||
Part 1
|
|||
N of items
|
15a
|
||
Cronbach’s
Alpa
|
Value
|
.927
|
|
Part 2
|
|||
N of items
|
15b
|
||
Total N of
items
|
30
|
||
Correlation between
forms
|
.888
|
||
Equal Length
|
.941
|
||
Speanman-Brown
Coefficient
|
|||
Unequal
Length
|
.941
|
||
Guttman
Split-Half Coefficient
|
.940
|
To the members of the
Validation Team,
Please rate the following
items of the researcher survey questionnaire as to its relevance to the
problem: Factors Affecting Collaborative
Participation of Stakeholders in the Preparation of SIP (School Improvement
Plan).
SURVEY QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTION: Please put a
corresponding check to your response on the box provided after each statement.
Scores and descriptions are provided.
Based
on the attached summary of the research proposal, on which the given survey questionnaire
is intended for use, please rate each item according to its relevance to the
research objectives using the following scale:
Score
|
Description
|
4
|
Highly
Relevant (HR)
|
3
|
Quite
Relevant (QR)
|
2
|
Somewhat
Relevant (SR)
|
1
|
Not
Relevant (NR)
|
I. Socio-Demographic Profile
ITEMS
|
1
(NR)
|
3
(SR)
|
3
(QR)
|
4
(HR)
|
1. Age
|
||||
2. Gender
|
||||
3. Educational Attainment
|
||||
4. Monthly Income
|
II. Stakeholders’ Level of Participation in SIP Preparation
ITEMS
|
1
(NR)
|
2
(SR)
|
3
(QR)
|
4
(HR)
|
1. School Head
|
||||
2. Teacher Representative
|
||||
3. SPG Mayor
|
||||
4. SGC President
|
||||
5. Professional Representative
|
||||
6.
Parent Representative
|
||||
7.
Business Representative
|
||||
8.
Barangay Representative
|
||||
9. LGU Representative
|
III. Hindering Factors for Collaborative Preparation of SIP
ITEMS
|
1
(NR)
|
2
(SR)
|
3
(QR)
|
4
(HR)
|
1. Non-organization of School
Planning Team
|
||||
2. Monitoring and Evaluation of SIP
|
||||
3. Awareness of School Heads
|
||||
4. Non-organization of School
Governing Council
|
||||
5. Copy-paste Plan/Compliance Only
|
||||
6. Level of Participation of
Stakeholders
|
||||
7. Orientation and Training Workshop
|
||||
8. Leadership Style of School Heads
|
||||
9. School Vision-Mission
|
||||
10. Time Constraint
|
||||
11. Absence of Meeting
|
||||
12. Coordination and Consultation
|
||||
13. School Funds
|
||||
14. Attitudes
|
||||
15. Facilitation Skills
|
||||
16. Inferiority
|
||||
17. Documentation and Reporting
|
||||
18. Recognition
|
||||
19. Assessment of School Performance
|
||||
20. Motivation and Enthusiasm
|
||||
21. School Community Relationship
|
||||
22.
Organization of PTA
|
||||
23.
Peace and Order
|
||||
24.
LGU Involvement
|
||||
25.
Status of the School
|
||||
26.
Commitment and Dedication
|
||||
27.
Job Satisfaction
|
||||
28.
Focus
|
||||
29.
Family Income
|
||||
30.
Educational Attainment
|
Content Validity Rating
(CVR)
Legend:
A.
Dr. Joel A. Alamia, EPS
B.
Mr. Kerwin C. Asid, P-2
C.
Mr. Jayton A. Jama, EPS
Legend:
4 - Highly Relevant (HR)
3- Quite Relevant (QR)
2- Some What Relevant (SR)
1
- Not Relevant (NR)
I. Socio-Demographic Profile
Item Number
|
Validators
|
Ratings
(Xi)
|
||
A
|
B
|
C
|
||
Item 1
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 2
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 3
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Validity Index of
the Questionnaire (Xi/4)
|
3.83
|
|||
II.
Participation Level of Stakeholders
Item Number
|
Validators
|
Ratings
(Xi)
|
||
A
|
B
|
C
|
||
Item 1
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 3
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
3.33
|
Item 4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 5
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 6
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 7
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 8
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 9
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Validity Index of the Questionnaire (Xi)/9)
|
3.92
|
|||
III.
Factors Affecting Stakeholders’ Participation
Item Number
|
Validators
|
Ratings
(Xi)
|
||
A
|
B
|
C
|
||
Item 1
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 3
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 5
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
2.66
|
Item 6
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 7
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 8
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
3.66
|
Item 9
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
3.66
|
Item 10
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 11
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 12
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 13
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
2.66
|
Item 14
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 15
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 16
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
3.33
|
Item 17
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 18
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Item 19
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Item 20
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 21
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 22
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 23
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 24
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 25
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 26
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 27
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
Item 28
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 29
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
3.33
|
Item 30
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Validity Index of the Questionnaire (Xi/30)
|
3.66
|
|||
Sampling
Technique
This study will adopt purposive sampling design. Purposive
sampling technique will be used since the school stakeholders required to
answer the checklist questionnaire is very limited and possessed
characteristics that are only capable of doing the job of SIP preparation.
Besides, the respondents of this study are those persons who are selected to
their specific positions like for example the principal, PTCA officers, Student
Council, School Board, etc. Hence, this study will use purposive sampling
design.
Procedure
of the Study
The researcher will ask permission from the
Schools Division Superintendent of DepED-Sulu Division for the launching of the
questionnaire. A letter of permission will be utilized from the Dean of the
Graduate Schoolof the Notre Dame of Jolo College. School heads and other
stakeholders who are considered as respondents shall also be given letter of
request for their consent and willingness to give accurate responses for the
questionnaire based on their feelings, beliefs, experiences, observations and
feedbacks concerning the veracity of the problem anchored to this paper.
Statistical
Treatment
The collected data in this study will be processed
and computed using Statistics Package for Social Science (SPSS) version 20. The
assistance of the personal statistician will be utilized in the analysis and
interpretation of data. Table shows the problems of the study and its
corresponding statistical tools.
Statistical Tool
Objectives
|
Statistical Tool to be Used
|
1.
To discover the
demographic profile of respondents in terms of age, educational attainment,
position and income.
2.
To determine the
level of participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of
School Improvement Plan.
3.
To investigate the
factors that can hinder collaborative participation of the different
stakeholders in the preparation of SIP.
4.
To determine the
significant difference between the levels of participation of the different
stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan when the data are
grouped according to profile.
|
Percentage
and Frequency
Mean
and Standard Deviation
Factor
Analysis
T-Test
and ANOVA
|
This study has four specific problems. The first
problems is “What is the demographic profile of respondents in terms of age,
gender, educational attainment, position and income?” Frequency and Percentage
will be used. The second question is “What is the level of participation of
stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan?” Mean and Standard
Deviation is a tool to be used. The Third Question is “What are the factors
that hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders in the
preparation of School Improvement Plan?” Factor Analysis is used to solve this
problem. The fourth question is “Is there significance difference between the
levels of participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of
School Improvement Plan when the data are grouped according to profile? T-Test
and ANOVA will be the tool for this problem.
Reliability Statistics
The fourth problem is “Is there significance
difference between the levels of participation of the different stakeholders in
the preparation of school improvement plan when the data are grouped according
to profile?” T-test and ANOVA will be used.
Ho:
There is no significant difference between the levels of participation
of the different stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan
when the data are grouped according to profile.
BIBLIOGRAPHY
Adelman, H.S. & Taylor, L. (1997). Addressing barriers to learning:
Beyond school linked services and full service schools. American Journal of Orthopsychiatry, 67, 408-421.
Adelman, H.S. (1996). Restructuring education support services and
integrating community resources: Beyond the full service school model. School Psychology Review, 25, 431-445.
Adelman, H.S., & Taylor, L. (1994). On understanding intervention in psychology andeducation. Westport CT: Praeger.
Adelman, H.S.,
& Taylor, L. (2006). The school leader’s guide to student learning
supports:New directions for addressing barriers to learning. Thousand Oaks,
CA: Corwin Press.
Barnes, F.D.
(2004). Making School Improvement Part of Daily Practice. Providence,
RI:Annenberg Institute for School Reform. At www.annenberginstitute.org/tools/index.html.
Barth, Roland S. Improving
Schools From Within: Teachers, Parents, andPrincipals Can Make the Difference. San Francisco, Calif.: Jossey-Bass
Publishers, 1990.
Cotton, Kathleen. The
Schooling Practices That Matter Most. Alexandria, Va.: Association for Supervision and Curriculum
Development, 2000.
Epstein, Joyce L., K.C. Salinas and V. Jackson. TIPS, Teachers InvolveParents In
Schoolwork: Manual for Teachers – Language Arts,Science/Health and Math. Baltimore, Md.: Johns Hopkins University,
Center on School, Family and Community Partnerships, 1995.
Epstein, Joyce L., School
and FamilyPartnerships: Report 6 (Baltimore,
Md.: Johns Hopkins University, Center on Families, Communities, Schools and
Children’s Learning, 1992).
Epstein, Joyce L., L. Coates, K.C. Salinas, M.G. Sanders, and
B.S. Simon. School,
Family and Community Partnerships: Your Handbook forAction. Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1997.
Joyce, Bruce R., James Wolf and Emily Calhoun. The Self-RenewingSchool. Alexandria, Va.: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development, 1993.
Leithwood, K.A. and Robert Aitken. Making Schools Smarter: A Systemfor Monitoring School and
District Progress.
Thousand Oaks, Calif.: Corwin Press, 1995.
Leithwood, K.A. Planned
Educational Change: A Manual of CurriculumReview, Development and
Implementation (CRDI) Concepts and Procedures. Toronto: OISE Press, 1986. Informal series, 66.
Levine, Daniel U. and Lawrence W. Lezotte. Unusually Effective Schools:A Review and
Analysis of Research and Practice.
Madison, Wis.: National Centre for Effective Schools, Research &
Development, 1990.
Lezotte, Lawrence W. and Barbara C. Jacoby. A Guide to the SchoolImprovement Process
Based on Effective Schools Research. Okemos, Mich.: Effective Schools Products, in cooperation
with Michigan Institute for Educational Management, 1990.
Appendices
Appendix A
Survey Questionnaire on Content
Validity Rating
To the members of the Validation Team,
Please
rate the following items of the researcher survey questionnaire as to its
relevance to the problem: Factors Affecting Collaborative Participation of
Stakeholders in the Preparation of SIP (School Improvement Plan).
SURVEY
QUESTIONNAIRE
INSTRUCTION: Please put a corresponding check to your
response on the box provided after each statement. Scores and descriptions are
provided.
Based
on the attached summary of the research proposal, on which the given survey
questionnaire is intended for use, please rate each item according to its
relevance to the research objectives using the following scale:
Score
|
Description
|
4
|
Highly
Relevant (HR)
|
3
|
Quite
Relevant (QR)
|
2
|
Somewhat
Relevant (SR)
|
1
|
Not Relevant
(NR)
|
I. Socio-Demographic
Profile
ITEMS
|
1
(NR)
|
3
(SR)
|
3
(QR)
|
4
(HR)
|
1. Age
|
||||
2. Gender
|
||||
3. Educational Attainment
|
||||
4. Monthly Income
|
||||
II.
Stakeholders’ Level of Participation in SIP Preparation
ITEMS
|
1
(NR)
|
2
(SR)
|
3
(QR)
|
4
(HR)
|
1. School
Head
|
||||
2. Teacher Representative
|
||||
3. SPG Mayor
|
||||
4. SGC
President
|
||||
5.
Professional Representative
|
||||
6. Parent
Representative
|
||||
7. Business
Representative
|
||||
8. Barangay
Representative
|
||||
9. LGU Representative
|
III. Hindering
Factors for Collaborative Preparation of SIP
ITEMS
|
1
(NR)
|
2
(SR)
|
3
(QR)
|
4
(HR)
|
1. Non-organization of School Planning Team
|
||||
2. Monitoring and Evaluation of SIP
|
||||
3. Awareness of School Heads
|
||||
4. Non-organization of School Governing Council
|
||||
5. Copy-paste Plan/Compliance Only
|
||||
6. Level of Participation of Stakeholders
|
||||
7. Orientation and Training Workshop
|
||||
8. Leadership Style of School Heads
|
||||
9. School Vision-Mission
|
||||
10. Time Constraint
|
||||
11. Absence of Meeting
|
||||
12. Coordination and Consultation
|
||||
13. School Funds
|
||||
14. Attitudes
|
||||
15. Facilitation Skills
|
||||
16. Inferiority
|
||||
17. Documentation and Reporting
|
||||
18. Recognition
|
||||
19. Assessment of School Performance
|
||||
20. Motivation and Enthusiasm
|
||||
21. School Community Relationship
|
||||
22.
Organization of PTA
|
||||
23. Peace
and Order
|
||||
24. LGU
Involvement
|
||||
25. Status
of the School
|
||||
26.
Commitment and Dedication
|
||||
27. Job
Satisfaction
|
||||
28. Focus
|
||||
29. Family
Income
|
||||
30. Educational
Attainment
|
Appendix B
Content Validity Rating
Legend:
A.
Dr. Joel A. Alamia,
EPS
B.
Mr. Kerwin C. Asid, P
– II
C.
Mr. Jayton A. Jama,
EPS
Legend:
4.
Highly Relevant (HR)
3.
Quite Relevant (QR)
2.
Somewhat Relevant (SR)
1. Not Relevant (NR)
I. Socio-Demographic Profile
Item Number
|
Validators
|
Ratings
(Xi)
|
||
A
|
B
|
C
|
||
Item 1
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 2
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 3
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Validity Index of
the Questionnaire (Xi/4)
|
3.83
|
|||
II.
Participation Level of Stakeholders
Item Number
|
Validators
|
Ratings
(Xi)
|
||
A
|
B
|
C
|
||
Item 1
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 3
|
3
|
3
|
4
|
3.33
|
Item 4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 5
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 6
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 7
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 8
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 9
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Validity Index of the Questionnaire (Xi)/9)
|
3.92
|
|||
III.
Factors Affecting Stakeholders’ Participation
Item Number
|
Validators
|
Ratings
(Xi)
|
||
A
|
B
|
C
|
||
Item 1
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 2
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 3
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 5
|
2
|
3
|
3
|
2.66
|
Item 6
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 7
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 8
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
3.66
|
Item 9
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
3.66
|
Item 10
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 11
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 12
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 13
|
1
|
4
|
3
|
2.66
|
Item 14
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 15
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 16
|
3
|
4
|
3
|
3.33
|
Item 17
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 18
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Item 19
|
1
|
4
|
4
|
3
|
Item 20
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 21
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 22
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 23
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 24
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 25
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Item 26
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 27
|
2
|
4
|
3
|
3
|
Item 28
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
4
|
Item 29
|
2
|
4
|
4
|
3.33
|
Item 30
|
3
|
4
|
4
|
3.66
|
Validity Index of the Questionnaire (Xi/30)
|
3.66
|
|||
Appendix C
QUESTIONNAIRE
Dear
Respondent:
This question
will be used to gather data for the thesis entitled “Factors Affecting Collaborative
Participation of Stakeholder in the Preparation of School Improvement Plan
(SIP)”. Your responses to this questionnaire is very important to
continue this study. Please answer the questionnaire honestly and sincerely.
Your responses will be analyzed in group rest assured it will be kept
confidential.
Part
I. Demographic Profile of Respondent
Name:
_______________________________ Position/Occupation: __________
Below-30 31-40 41-50 51-Above
Gender:
Male Female
Educational
Attainment:
Elementary High School College With Master Units
Master Doctoral Units Doctor
Monthly
Income:
Below
- P 10 000 P 21 000 – P 30 000 P 41 000 - Above
P
11 000 – P 20 000 P 31 000 – P 40
000
Part II. Level of
participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of School
Improvement Plan
These
are the different stakeholders involved in the preparation of school
improvement plan. Please, evaluate
their levels of participation in the preparation of SIP using the rating
scale as follows:
5
= Vey High; 4 = High; 3 = Moderate; 2 = Low; 1 = Very Low
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
1
|
School
Head
|
|||||
2
|
Teacher
Representative
|
|||||
3
|
SPG
Mayor
|
|||||
4
|
SGC
President
|
|||||
5
|
Professional
Representative
|
|||||
6
|
Parents
Representative
|
|||||
7
|
Business
Representative
|
|||||
8
|
Barangay
Representative
|
|||||
9
|
LGU
Representative
|
|||||
Part III. Factors
hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders in the
preparation of SIP
These statements are factors that
can affect the collaborative participation of the stakeholders in the
preparation of school improvement plan. Please evaluate using the rating
scale as follows:
5 = Strongly Agree; 4 = Agree; 3 =
Moderately Agree; 2 = Disagree; 1 = Strongly Disagree
|
5
|
4
|
3
|
2
|
1
|
|
1
|
Non-organization
of School Planning Team (SPT)
|
|||||
2
|
Monitoring
and evaluation of SIP
|
|||||
3
|
Awareness
of School Heads
|
|||||
4
|
Non-organization
of School Governing Council
|
|||||
5
|
Copy
paste Plan/Negligence of planning/Compliance Only
|
|||||
6
|
Level
of Participation of Stakeholders
|
|||||
7
|
Orientation
and Training Workshop
|
|||||
8
|
Leadership
Style of School Heads
|
|||||
9
|
School
Vision-Mission
|
|||||
10
|
Time
constraint
|
|||||
11
|
Absence
of Meeting
|
|||||
12
|
Coordination
and Consultation
|
|||||
13
|
School
Funds
|
|||||
14
|
Attitudes
|
|||||
15
|
Facilitation
Skills
|
|||||
16
|
Inferiority
|
|||||
17
|
Documentation
and Reporting
|
|||||
18
|
Recognition
|
|||||
19
|
Assessment
of School Performance
|
|||||
20
|
Motivation
and Enthusiasm
|
|||||
21
|
School
Community Relationship
|
|||||
22
|
Organization
of PTA
|
|||||
23
|
Peace
and Order
|
|||||
24
|
LGU
Involvement
|
|||||
25
|
Status
of the School
|
|||||
26
|
Commitment
and Dedication
|
|||||
27
|
Job
Satisfaction
|
|||||
28
|
Focus
|
|||||
29
|
Family
Income
|
|||||
30
|
Educational
Attainment
|
|||||
SAMOORE S. LADJAHALI
Researcher
FOCUS GROUP QUESTIONNAIRE GUIDE
1.
What is the level of
or participation of the different stakeholders in the preparation of School
Improvement Plan?
2.
What are the factors
that hinder collaborative participation of the different stakeholders in the
preparation of SIP?
Appendix D
Statistical Tool
Objectives
|
Statistical Tool to be Used
|
1.
To discover the demographic profile of respondents in terms of age,
educational attainment, position and income.
2. To determine the level of participation of
the different stakeholders in the preparation of School Improvement Plan.
3.
To investigate the factors that can hinder collaborative participation of the
different stakeholders in the preparation of SIP.
4. To determine the significant difference
between the levels of participation of the different stakeholders in the
preparation of School Improvement Plan when the data are grouped according to
profile.
|
Percentage
and Frequency
Mean
and Standard Deviation
Factor
Analysis
T-Test
and ANOVA
|
Appendix
E
Value
|
.922
|
||
Part 1
|
|||
N of items
|
15a
|
||
Cronbach’s
Alpa
|
Value
|
.927
|
|
Part 2
|
|||
N of items
|
15b
|
||
Total N of
items
|
30
|
||
Correlation
between forms
|
.888
|
||
Equal Length
|
.941
|
||
Speanman-Brown
Coefficient
|
|||
Unequal
Length
|
.941
|
||
Guttman
Split-Half Coefficient
|
.940
|
No comments:
Post a Comment