Instructional Management Case Study
Instructional Management in terms of Framing the Goals. Table 9 shows principal instructional managements in terms of framing the schools goals as assessed by two groups of respondents.
As depicted in table principals rated themselves “always” in all indicators namely with highest weighted mean of 4.88 for “uses data on student performance when developing the school’s academic goals” and lowest weighted mean of 4.58 for “uses needs assessment or other formal and informal methods to secure staff input on goal development”. This means that principals are very much aware about their duties and responsibilities that before the opening of the school year they framed a school wide goals considering student performances in different test given either …show more content…
Principals confirmed that they develops a three year annual plan called School Improvement Plan (SIP) as integrated in School Based Management (SBM) a DepEd thrust that decentralizes the decision making from the central office to individual schools. It was created by the DepEd to further delegating the governance of education to schools, empowering all stakeholders to respond immediately to all educational needs and making the delivery of quality, and relevant education to the learners more responsive, efficient and effective through enhanced school planning and communication process. It is in line with Republic Act No. 9155 also known as Governance off Basic Education Act of 2001. However, DepEd ordered school managers to create SIP or School Improvement Plan a compass that lays down explicit intervention that the school needs with the help of all stakeholders within the period of three years. Projects under SIP such as the creation of Action Learning Cells (LACs) and the preparation of School report card (SRC). SIP is a systematic approach wherein the learners as the ultimate focus, …show more content…
Overall, the average weighted mean is 4.59 verbally described as “always” the standard deviation was 0.07 means the principal and teacher respondents rating dispersion were very much close to each
As depicted in table principals rated themselves “always” in all indicators namely with highest weighted mean of 4.88 for “uses data on student performance when developing the school’s academic goals” and lowest weighted mean of 4.58 for “uses needs assessment or other formal and informal methods to secure staff input on goal development”. This means that principals are very much aware about their duties and responsibilities that before the opening of the school year they framed a school wide goals considering student performances in different test given either …show more content…
Principals confirmed that they develops a three year annual plan called School Improvement Plan (SIP) as integrated in School Based Management (SBM) a DepEd thrust that decentralizes the decision making from the central office to individual schools. It was created by the DepEd to further delegating the governance of education to schools, empowering all stakeholders to respond immediately to all educational needs and making the delivery of quality, and relevant education to the learners more responsive, efficient and effective through enhanced school planning and communication process. It is in line with Republic Act No. 9155 also known as Governance off Basic Education Act of 2001. However, DepEd ordered school managers to create SIP or School Improvement Plan a compass that lays down explicit intervention that the school needs with the help of all stakeholders within the period of three years. Projects under SIP such as the creation of Action Learning Cells (LACs) and the preparation of School report card (SRC). SIP is a systematic approach wherein the learners as the ultimate focus, …show more content…
Overall, the average weighted mean is 4.59 verbally described as “always” the standard deviation was 0.07 means the principal and teacher respondents rating dispersion were very much close to each