School-Based Management Practices: Through the Lens of School Heads and Teachers

ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 School-Based Management Practices: Through the Lens of School Heads and Teachers Janice P. Malinao Abstract. This qualitative phenomenological study explored the lived experiences, challenges, and coping mechanisms of selected public elementary school heads and teachers in implementing School-Based Management (SBM) within the New Corella District, Division of Davao del Norte. Ten (10) participants, comprising both school heads and teachers, were purposefully selected, ensuring their rich knowledge and firsthand involvement in SBM processes. Data were gathered through in-depth interviews (IDIs), which allowed for comprehensive and contextually relevant narratives. Findings revealed four key themes reflecting their lived experiences: Personal Sacrifices in SBM Implementation; Shared Leadership and Stakeholder Engagement; Transparency and Accountability as Pillars of School Governance; and Stronger Collaborative Culture and Teamwork. To overcome the challenges of SBM, participants employed strategies such as collaborative strategic planning and coordination, resource mobilization and stakeholder partnerships, continuous learning and innovative solutions, and maintaining a positive mindset with motivational leadership. The findings stressed the vital role of teamwork, resourcefulness, and stakeholder collaboration in enhancing SBM implementation, while offering significant implications for participatory governance, effective leadership, and sustainable school improvement efforts at the grassroots level. KEY WORDS 1. SBM implementation 2. phenomenology 3. coping strategies Date Received: August 15, 2025 — Date Reviewed: September 20, 2025 — Date Published: October 10, 2025 1. Introduction School-Based Management (SBM) is a key reform initiative in Philippine education that promotes decentralized school governance by empowering school heads, teachers, and community stakeholders to collaboratively manage school operations. Through increased autonomy, schools are expected to contextualize decision-making, allocate resources more effectively, and directly respond to the needs of learners. This study is grounded in the researcher’s belief that exploring the lived experiences of school heads and teachers provides insights into the actual implementation of SBM. These insights are essential in understanding the practical challenges and successes that influence school improvement efforts. Across the globe, SBM has been adopted in various countries as a strategy to enhance school accountability and participation. In Thailand, SBM implementation has led to more inclusive community engagement in school decision-making processes (Ballarta et al., 2022). In Indonesia, studies NIJSE (2025) - show that leadership capacity is important in successful SBM implementation, particularly in secondary schools (Espanola, Arro, Gacela, 2022). Meanwhile, in India, decentralization efforts through school committees show potential in empowering stakeholders but continue to face implementation barriers such as inconsistent monitoring and lack of stakeholder training (Hernandez et al., 2023). Despite international support for SBM and its goals of improving equity and efficiency, developing countries continue to perform below standards in international assessments such as PISA and TIMSS, indicating that decentralized governance alone is insufficient without leadership development and structural support (OECD, 2023). In the Philippines, School-Based Management (SBM) is anchored in the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (Republic Act No. 9155) and operationalized through BESRA, DepEd Order No. 118, s. 2010, and DepEd Order No. 83, s. 2012, which grant schools greater authority and accountability with broad stakeholder participation. However, studies show uneven implementation across regions. In Palawan, Manzano and Illescas (2023) noted challenges in leadership and resource management despite strong commitment from school heads. In Pangasinan, Ferrer (2024) found high compliance with SBM dimensions but identified perception gaps between teachers and school heads. Meanwhile, Saga (2025) in Region XI stressed that strong governance and SBM practices significantly predict school management effectiveness and teacher commitment. In the New Corella District of Davao del Norte, particularly at Limbaan Elementary School, SBM has been pursued through programs aimed at enhancing learner outcomes and community engagement. However, challenges persist in aligning SBM policies with actual practices, especially in fund transparency, instructional supervision, and stakeholder collaboration. In addition, Bantilan et al. (2023) reported financial management gaps in secondary schools. These findings suggest that schools some schools face comparable constraints due to resource and capacity limitations. Although School-Based Management (SBM) in the Philippines is anchored on Republic Act No. 9155 and expanded through the DepEd Order No. 83, s. In 2012, much of the literature still centered on policy compliance and system metrics rather than on the everyday work of implementers. Dio and Despi (2025) documented how teachers and school heads grapple with uneven validation processes and limited stakeholder engagement. Lingatong (2024) showed that even where principals exhibit visionary leadership, competing demands dilute SBM practice. Moreover, Refamonte and Decano (2021) found that in high reported SBM implementation, it did not consistently translate into stronger employee performance. Building on these insights, the present study turns to educators in the New Corella District including Limbaan Elementary School to surface the lived realities of decentralized governance where resources, monitoring, and collaboration remain fragile. 1.1. Purpose of the Study—The primary purpose of this study was to conduct a phenomenological inquiry into the experiences of public elementary school heads and teachers regarding their implementation of School-Based Management (SBM). It focused on exploring how these stakeholders in the New Corella District manage their roles, responsibilities, and decision-making processes within the SBM framework. Through in-depth interview sessions, the study sought to uncover their lived experiences and the factors that shape their approach to decentralized school governance. Furthermore, the study aimed to derive meaningful insights from the collected data, particularly addressing the challenges that hinder school heads 2ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - and teachers from fully realizing SBM goals. These insights are intended to serve as valuable propositions for strengthening leadership practices, stakeholder collaboration, and the overall effectiveness of SBM implementation. By doing so, the study contributes to the ongoing discourse on improving school governance and enhancing educational outcomes through participatory and context-driven management strategies. 1.2. Research Questions—The study explored the lived experiences of school heads and teachers who were directly involved in the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM). It investigated the experiences of school heads and teachers in the New Corella District concerning their SBM practices and sought answers to the following research questions: (1) What are the lived experiences of school heads and teachers in implementing SBM? (2) H ow do school heads and teachers cope with the challenges they encounter in implementing SBM? (3) What educational management insights can be drawn from the findings of the study? 1.3. Definition of Terms—To provide clarity and consistency in the usage of terms throughout this study, the following concepts were defined both conceptually and operationally: School-Based Management (SBM) It is a decentralized governance model that shifts decision-making authority from central offices to individual schools. It empowers school communities—including school heads, teachers, parents, and stakeholders—to collaboratively manage resources and improve learning outcomes (Anajao Serras, 2024). In this study, SBM refers to the decentralization of authority to school heads and teachers in the New Corella District to implement programs and practices that enhance school effectiveness Lived Experiences They are personal, first-hand accounts of individuals as they engage with specific phenomena in real-world contexts. These experiences help researchers uncover how people perceive, understand, and give meaning to their roles and challenges (Van Manen, 2021). In this study, lived experiences refer to how school heads and teachers in the New Corella District experienced and implemented school-based management activities. School Heads They are Educational leaders responsible for managing both instructional and administrative functions of a school. They lead planning, supervision, and decision-making processes vital to the success of school reforms such as SBM (Magboo et al., 2023). In this study, school heads include principals or designated personnel officially appointed to manage schools in the New Corella District, Davao del Norte. Teachers They are professional educators tasked with facilitating student learning and supporting the school’s mission. Their participation in SBM strengthens instructional quality, collaboration, and school improvement initiatives (Lopez Montemayor, 2024). In this study, teachers refer to those assigned in the New Corella District who were actively involved in SBM implementation. 1.4. Significant of the Study—The results of this study were significant for the following: School Heads SBM provided school heads with a structured and collaborative approach to professional development, reflective practice, problem3ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - solving, and data-informed decision-making. Through SBM, heads were able to enhance their leadership effectiveness and contribute to overall school improvement efforts. Teachers SBM was important for teachers as it promoted professional growth, reflective practice, peer learning and support, action-oriented strategies, and continuous improvement. By actively participating in SBM, teachers enhanced their instructional practices, improved learning outcomes, and contributed to a vibrant professional learning community. 1.5. Theoretical Lens—This study is anchored on several complementary theories that collectively explain how School-Based Management (SBM) is experienced, implemented, and sustained by school heads and teachers. These theories provide a multidimensional perspective that integrates management processes, motivation, organizational structure, leadership adaptability, and the role of support systems in school effectiveness. By grounding the inquiry in these frameworks, the study is able to interpret the lived experiences of participants through structural, human, and contextual lenses. The foundation of this study begins with the Management Process Theory by Fayol (1949), which identifies planning, organizing, leading, and controlling as the essential functions of effective management. Within the SBM context, these functions guide school heads in crafting School Improvement Plans, delegating tasks, implementing programs, and evaluating school performance. This theory is vital to the study because it emphasizes that wellstructured managerial processes are necessary for achieving both academic and administrative goals. Research indicates that schools with clear management cycles tend to perform better in instructional supervision and student learning outcomes (Villanueva Franco, 2023), making this theoretical anchor highly relevant. Complementing this structural foundation is the Self-Determination Theory (SDT) developed by Deci and Ryan (1985), which posits that autonomy, competence, and relatedness are key drivers of intrinsic motivation. Under SBM, teachers and school heads are given greater autonomy to make decisions, initiate projects, and collaborate in school governance. Anchoring the study on SDT allows a deeper understanding of how such autonomy fosters a sense of ownership, strengthens engagement, and encourages proactive participation in school initiatives. This theory emphasizes the human dimension of SBM, demonstrating that motivation and empowerment are crucial to sustainable school improvement (Ramos Manalo, 2022). The study also draws on Weber’s Administrative Management Theory (1947), which emphasizes formal structures, clear roles, and hierarchical systems. Although SBM promotes decentralization, schools still operate within bureaucratic frameworks that require organized communication channels and properly delineated responsibilities. Using this theory, the study examines how organizational structure remains essential even in a decentralized system. It clarifies that effective SBM depends on transparent procedures, accountability mechanisms, and welldefined expectations for school personnel (Bustamante, 2022). Thus, Weber’s theory provides a lens for analyzing how structure and bureaucracy influence the experiences of school leaders and teachers. Leadership adaptability is another dimension captured in this study through the Situational Leadership Theory of Hersey and Blanchard (1969). This theory posits that effective leaders adjust their leadership styles according to the competence, readiness, and motivation of their team members. In the SBM setting, school heads must consider teacher 4ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - capabilities, changing school needs, community dynamics, and resource limitations. Moreover, situational leadership offers insight into why school heads sometimes adopt directive approaches and at other times choose participative or delegative strategies. Such adaptability is vital for fostering shared decision-making and cultivating collaborative school environments (De Vera Corpuz, 2021). Beyond structural and leadership considerations, the School Effectiveness and Support Services Theory by Creemers Kyriakides (2008) highlights the role of resources, support mechanisms, and stakeholder partnerships in enhancing school performance. In addition, this theory helps explain why some schools excel in SBM implementation while others struggle: schools with adequate facilities, financial support, active community engagement, and responsive support services are more capable of sustaining SBM practices. The theory reinforces the idea that internal school efforts must be complemented by external assistance to strengthen overall school effectiveness (Matias, 2022). Together, these theories offer a comprehensive framework for interpreting the lived experiences of school heads and teachers in implementing SBM. Fayol’s and Weber’s theories underscore the importance of structure, clear roles, and systematic management. Meanwhile, Self-Determination Theory and Situational Leadership Theory illuminate the motivational and adaptive aspects of decentralized school governance. Finally, the School Effectiveness and Support Services Theory integrates these insights by emphasizing the interplay of resources, partnerships, and supportive environments. By weaving these theoretical lenses together, the study is able to examine SBM not only as a policy and organizational structure, but also as a lived experience shaped by leadership practices, motivation, community engagement, and available support systems. These theories collectively guide the analysis of how school heads and teachers navigate challenges, exercise autonomy, collaborate with stakeholders, and sustain SBM implementation within Philippine public schools. The conceptual framework is composed of two main elements represented by the circles in the Venn diagram. The first element focuses on the lived experiences of school heads and teachers in implementing school-based management, which includes their real-life accounts, challenges, and strategies as they manage and lead their schools. The second element centers on the coping mechanisms of teachers in dealing with challenges, encompassing the ways they adapt, respond, and find solutions to difficulties encountered in their professional roles. These two elements reflect the interconnected realities of leadership and teaching within the context of school-based management. In addition, the overlapping section of the two elements represents the educational management insights drawn from the findings of the study. This part emphasizes that combining the experiences of school heads and teachers with their coping strategies allows for a deeper understanding of how schools can be better managed. By integrating these elements, the framework provides a clear pathway for identifying practices that enhance leadership, promote collaboration, and improve decision-making in educational settings. 2. Methodology This chapter presents the research methodology employed in the study, including its philosophical underpinnings, qualitative research assumptions, design and procedures, selection of participants, ethical considerations, role of the researcher, data collection and analysis methods, analytical framework, and strategies to ensure trustworthiness. It provides a detailed explanation of how the 5ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Fig. 1. Theoretical/Conceptual Framework study was conceptualized, designed, and conducted. The exploration of the lived experiences of the participants required a systematic approach, which is thoroughly outlined in this chapter to ensure rigor and credibility. 2.1. Philosophical Assumptions—The philosophical assumptions guiding this study shaped the way the phenomenon of SBM implementation was explored and interpreted. Rooted in a constructivist paradigm, the study acknowledges that the realities of school heads and teachers are socially constructed and contextdependent. Creswell and Poth (2023) emphasize that qualitative research embraces the existence of multiple realities, shaped by individuals’ perceptions and interactions within their environment. In the context of SBM, these realities include the unique challenges of leadership, resource allocation, and collaboration experienced by school heads and teachers. As Kiger and Varpio (2020) argue, clarifying philosophical assumptions ensures coherence between the research purpose and the methodology, which was evident in this study’s commitment to capturing participant perspectives through rich, detailed narratives. 2.2. Qualitative Assumptions—This study employed a qualitative phenomenological approach to explore the lived experiences of school heads and teachers in implementing School-Based Management (SBM) in public elementary schools. This methodology focuses on understanding participants’ subjective perspectives and meaning-making, allowing for a holistic interpretation of how SBM is experienced and practiced. Phenomenology, as emphasized by Creswell and Poth (2021), seeks to uncover the essence of shared experiences by examining both the ”what” and ”how” of individuals’ realities. This approach was well-suited for capturing the reflections, challenges, and insights of school leaders and teachers navigating decentralized governance. In-depth, semi-structured interviews were used to gather rich narratives, offering both consistency and flexibility in exploring decision-making, stakeholder involvement, and resource management. Guided by a constructivist paradigm, the study recognized that reality is socially constructed and shaped by participants’ roles and contexts. Reflexivity, 6ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - empathy, and active listening were central to the research process, ensuring authentic representation of participants’ voices. By prioritizing depth over breadth, this qualitative design illuminates the real-world experiences of SBM practitioners, providing meaningful insights for improving school leadership and educational outcomes. 2.3. Design and Procedure—This study utilized a qualitative research method, specifically a phenomenological design, to explore the school-based management (SBM) practices of public elementary school heads and teachers. Phenomenology is concerned with understanding the lived experiences of individuals from their own perspectives, emphasizing subjectivity and the bracketing of preconceptions (Lester, 2021). This approach allowed the researcher to gain deep insights into the motivations, interpretations, and actions of school leaders and teachers S than statistics or numerical data. According to Creswell and Poth (2021), qualitative inquiry aims to understand how individuals interpret their experiences and construct meaning from them. Burns and Grove (2020) defined qualitative research as a systematic, subjective approach to describe life experiences and give them meaning—an approach well-suited for exploring the nuances of SBM in a localized setting. The phenomenological design was chosen for its ability to explore the essence of lived experiences. Corbetta (2022) emphasized that phenomenology uses interviews to delve into deep, subjective realities. Bryman (2020) similarly asserted that qualitative interviews offer rich, first-person accounts that uncover the meaning individuals attach to different phenomena. By employing this design, the researcher aimed to elicit meaningful insights from school heads and teachers about the complexities and challenges they face in implementing SBM. The study adopted a semi-structured interview protocol. This method involves recording, transcribing, and analyzing interviews to extract significant statements, which are then grouped into clusters of meaning and synthesized into comprehensive themes. The purpose was to derive both a textual description (what was experienced) and a structural description (how it was experienced), leading to an understanding of the essence of the phenomenon. Phenomenology, as described by Polkinghorne (2020), involves exploring the structures of consciousness and how individuals interpret their lived experiences. The researcher began by formulating guiding questions that sought to uncover the participants’ understanding and practices related to SBM. Data collection was conducted through face-to-face interviews with individuals who had directly experienced the phenomenon, ensuring the data was rooted in authentic, realworld contexts. During the data analysis phase, the process of horizontalization was applied to extract essential statements from transcripts. These were then clustered according to psychological and experiential themes, eventually leading to a composite description of participants’ shared experiences. As Merriam and Tisdell (2020) noted, this process provides rich explanatory power and allows the researcher to present a narrative that captures both individual and collective perspectives on SBM. While phenomenological research offers valuable insights, it also presents challenges. Hycner (2020) noted that phenomenology requires the researcher to bracket personal assumptions, which can be difficult. Additionally, the data analysis process is time-consuming and requires careful interpretation to ensure validity. Schutz (2021) emphasized that phenomenology seeks to illuminate specific experiences through deep qualitative methods, such as interviews and observations, capturing meaning as perceived by the participants. Furthermore, the phenomenological ap7ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - proach was the most appropriate for this study, as it aimed to uncover the context-specific experiences of public elementary school leaders and teachers engaged in SBM. The emphasis on personal interpretation, subjective reality, and meaning-making allowed the researcher to provide a well-rounded understanding of the practices and challenges of SBM from the ground level. 2.4. Research Participants—The participants of this study were selected public elementary school heads and teachers from the New Corella District, Division of Davao del Norte. A total of ten (10) participants were purposefully chosen to participate in in-depth interviews (IDIs). The inclusion criteria required that participants had at least three years of teaching experience and consistently received a “Very Satisfactory” performance rating for the past three consecutive years, ensuring that they possessed relevant insights and firsthand experience in implementing School-Based Management (SBM) practices. Purposive sampling was employed to ensure that the participants could provide rich and meaningful narratives aligned with the research objectives. This sampling method allowed the researcher to select individuals with substantial experience and knowledge of SBM. According to Gentles et al. (2020), purposive sampling is valuable for qualitative studies as it focuses on participants who can best inform the research problem through their lived experiences. Similarly, Campbell et al. (2020) note that such sampling enhances data relevance and depth, which is essential for phenomenological research. Additionally, Robinson (2022) emphasized that purposive strategies ensure the inclusion of participants who meet specific criteria, enabling the generation of context-specific insights. 2.5. Ethical Considerations—Ethical integrity was central to this qualitative phenomenological study, guiding every stage from participant recruitment to data analysis and reporting. The researcher adhered to the core ethical principles of respect for persons, beneficence, justice, and transparency as articulated in current qualitative research ethics guidance (Tracy, 2020). These ethical assumptions ensured that the rights, dignity, and well-being of all participants were safeguarded throughout the research process. Formal approval was secured from the university research ethics committee and the Schools Division Office prior to fieldwork, and all procedures were implemented in line with national education research protocols. Ongoing ethical monitoring was maintained through reflective memos documenting any emergent risks or power-imbalance concerns during data collection. 2.6. Role of the Researcher—The role of the researcher in qualitative inquiry is essential to ensuring ethical integrity, data credibility, and meaningful engagement with participants. In this study, the researcher prepared a formal letter of request addressed to the Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) of the Division of Davao del Norte. Upon approval, a second letter was sent to the respective school principals and identified participants, seeking their consent to participate. Once permissions were granted, data collection commenced exclusively through indepth interviews (IDI), consistent with the phenomenological approach. As a key instrument in qualitative research, the researcher focused on building trust and rapport with participants to 8ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - elicit authentic narratives. The emphasis was on capturing the lived experiences of school heads and teachers using naturalistic and conversational one-on-one interviews supported by audio recordings. The study was framed by an interpretivist paradigm, which holds that knowledge is socially constructed and shaped by individual perceptions (Lincoln Guba, 2020). Therefore, active engagement between the researcher and participants was vital for co-constructing meaning. Tracy (2020) emphasizes that interpretive research relies on dialogue, reflexivity, and rich contextual understanding—qualities that were applied throughout the interviews to capture the complexity of School-Based Management (SBM) practices. To ensure rigor, multiple data validation strategies such as field notes, reflective journaling, and member checking were utilized. As Yin (2023) mentioned, qualitative rigor is achieved not by quantity of data sources but by the depth and consistency of evidence collection. Interviews were transcribed verbatim, and participants were encouraged to express themselves in a language they found most comfortable. Creswell and Poth (2022) further suggest that qualitative data must be systematically stored, organized, and revisited to ensure reliability, a standard followed throughout this study. 2.7. Data Collection—The data collection process followed a structured and ethical protocol. First, the researcher sent a letter of request to the Schools Division Superintendent of Davao del Norte, attaching Chapters 1 and 2 of the study along with the proposed research instrument. The correspondence detailed the study’s objectives, significance, and qualitative methodology. Formal approval was obtained before proceeding. Following this, coordination letters were sent to district supervisors and school heads of identified public elementary schools to inform them of the research scope and schedule. Upon approval, participant recruitment began. Teachers and school heads were selected through purposive sampling, adhering to the criteria of at least three years of service and a “Very Satisfactory” performance rating over three consecutive years. Etikan and Bala (2021) assert that purposive sampling is effective for identifying information-rich participants who can provide relevant and meaningful insights. Each participant was thoroughly briefed on the research goals, procedures, benefits, and their rights, after which informed consent was secured. In-depth interviews were conducted in quiet, safe, and convenient settings to ensure participant comfort and confidentiality. Each session started with a short rapport-building conversation, followed by the collection of demographic data using a profile questionnaire. Active listening techniques, as emphasized by Rubin and Rubin (2021), were employed to probe deeply into participants’ narratives while maintaining respect for their perspectives. Interviews were audio-recorded and supplemented with detailed field notes to preserve contextual nuances. The transcription process was meticulous, involving repeated listening and verification against the audio recordings. Data were systematically coded and analyzed using Braun and Clarke’s (2021) sixphase thematic analysis: familiarization, generating initial codes, searching for themes, reviewing themes, defining/naming themes, and producing the report. Emerging patterns, challenges, and coping mechanisms described by participants were carefully compared and analyzed across interviews. The data collection process concluded upon reaching theoretical saturation, where no new themes or insights emerged. 2.8. Data Analysis— 9ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - maturity due to funding constraints and logistical challenges. Meanwhile, the emphasis on accountability aligns with the findings of Niez et al. (2025), who concluded that training in fiscal and governance competencies leads to greater community engagement and effective resource use. P10’s insights reinforce that localized autonomy must be paired with financial integrity and transparent governance. 3.1.3. Transparency and Accountability as Pillars of School Governance—Transparency and accountability emerged as fundamental pillars in the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM), shaping the way school heads and teachers address leadership and project execution. Participants revealed that ensuring transparency in processes and documentation is not only necessary for compliance but also important in building trust among stakeholders. As one school head expressed, the pressure to clarify fund usage and procedures compels them to uphold clean and well-coordinated practices to avoid public doubt. Others emphasized that accurate documentation and stakeholder consultation foster shared responsibility and empowerment within the school community. The collective experiences underscore the belief that transparent decision-making, rooted in proper planning, record-keeping, and ethical fund management, strengthens school operations and promotes community confidence. Ultimately, participants believe that transparency is not merely an administrative requirement but a core value that reinforces the school’s credibility and paves the way for sustainable development. Participant 1 emphasized the pressure they feel as a school head to remain transparent and well-documented in handling school funds and activities, highlighting that all procedures must be clearly communicated to stakeholders. This aligns with the findings of Abanto (2024), who observed that without consistent reporting of school data and financial oversight, trust and SBM maturity suffer. Similarly, Quinones and Abanto (2024) noted that transparency mechanisms such as the School Report Card and governance councils are inconsistently implemented, leading to gaps in compliance. The participant’s experience underscores how transparency is not only a matter of accountability but also a protective measure to avoid public scrutiny, reinforcing the need for robust communication frameworks as part of effective SBM governance. Participant 2 shared that being transparent with faculty and parents is essential to ensure proper implementation of school programs and prevent misunderstandings. This finding supports the conclusions of Perez and Lumaad (2021), who argued that participative leadership, where parents and staff are included in planning, enhances SBM performance levels. Moreover, UNESCO (2023) emphasized that decentralized governance yields stronger stakeholder engagement when transparency is prioritized. The participant’s reflection also echoes the observation of Niez et al. (2025), who reported that school heads with training in governance transparency demonstrate better stakeholder collaboration and accountability, suggesting that transparency is a cornerstone of mutual trust and program success. Participant 3 stressed the importance of documentation and stakeholder involvement, this teacher recognized that openness builds confidence and shows sincerity in school leadership. This mirrors the findings of Esogon and Gumban (2024), who found that transformation-oriented leaders, those who empower and collaborate, enhance informal governance structures and teacher motivation. The participant’s statement reinforces the idea that even basic practices like proper documentation and consultation serve as tangible demonstrations of integrity, which, according to DepEd (2023), is a vital part of SBM’s shared governance model. Hence, transparency is not only procedural but also relational, fostering unity between administrators, teachers, and the community. Participant 4 noted that hon16 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - est communication, particularly regarding budgetary allocations, earns respect and reinforces professionalism. This reflection resonates with the conclusions of Ballarta et al. (2022), who found that geographic and budgetary disparities significantly affect transparency and resource management in schools. Additionally, Bimbao et al. (2022) highlighted that school heads with competencies in governance and fiscal transparency contribute more effectively to perceived school effectiveness. The participant’s assertion shows that even in under-resourced schools, ethical leadership and transparency in communication can lead to improved stakeholder relationships and operational credibility. Participant 5 stated that being transparent in implementing school programs fosters trust, clarity, and teamwork, which are essential for maintaining good relationships with all stakeholders. This is consistent with Suyo’s (2022) findings that school heads performing well in SBM domains show improved teacher engagement and morale, especially when governance structures are clear and participatory. Moreover, Semanero et al. (2024) emphasized that inclusive community partnerships and leadership development are prerequisites for authentic SBM reform. Thus, the participant’s experience illustrates how transparency cultivates collective ownership, allowing all school actors to feel empowered and committed to shared goals. Participant 6 reflected that transparency is a way to show stakeholders how decisions are made and how resources are used, especially in the implementation of SIPs and BE-LCP. This supports the argument of Remorosa and Paglinawan (2024), who observed that collaborative expertise and active participation in decision-making enhance SBM implementation. In addition, Semanero et al. (2024) pointed out that compliance frameworks must be supported by diagnostic tools and mentoring to guide transparent practices. The participant’s insight affirms that regular updates and visible processes promote openness, ensuring that plans like SIPs are not just symbolic documents but instruments of participatory governance. 3.1.4. Stronger Collaborative Culture and Teamwork—The lived experiences of the participants underscore the important role of a strong collaborative culture and teamwork in the successful implementation of School-Based Management (SBM). As echoed by multiple respondents, effective decision-making is grounded in consensus-building and shared responsibility among stakeholders. Teachers and school heads alike recognize that no single person can carry the weight of leadership alone; rather, the collective effort of the entire school community, teachers, staff, and administrators, is vital in ensuring the smooth execution of projects and addressing school issues. Participants emphasized the importance of open communication channels, which not only facilitate task completion but also foster trust and mutual accountability. This synergy in action illustrates how collaboration becomes both a strategy and a value system within schools, shaping a responsive and cohesive educational environment that prioritizes real needs over top-down directives. Participant 1 stated that teamwork plays a vital role in addressing challenges within school-based management (SBM). As Participant 1 highlights, collective problem-solving becomes more effective when teachers and leaders unite efforts. This echoes Esogon and Gumban’s (2024) findings that transformational leadership which fosters collaboration improves informal governance and boosts teacher morale. The value of teamwork also aligns with Remorosa and Paglinawan (2024), who emphasized that teacher collaboration is a critical enabler of effective SBM practices. When staff members coordinate and problem-solve together, school governance becomes more adaptive and responsive. Participant 5 noted that consensus and collaboration in decision-making, is important, this aligns closely with the SBM philosophy. This perspec17 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - tive resonates with UNESCO (2023), which reports that effective decentralized systems hinge on shared decision-making frameworks. Additionally, Semanero et al. (2024) argue that inclusive school-community partnerships are crucial for substantive SBM implementation. When decisions are made collectively, it fosters ownership among stakeholders and strengthens the legitimacy of actions, contributing to a more effective and democratic governance model. Participant 6 appreciate the decisions rooted in actual school needs underlines a key element of effective SBM, context-based governance. This aligns with Ballarta et al. (2022), who noted that decision-making grounded in local realities, rather than top-down directives, ensures relevance and responsiveness. However, this also places more responsibility on teachers, echoing Bimbao et al. (2022), who found that when school heads and teachers are empowered to lead based on contextual data, overall school effectiveness improves. This distributed accountability fosters a culture of meaningful participation. Participant 8 noted that shared leadership concept is foundational to SBM. As Perez and Lumaad (2021) found, participative leadership where teachers and staff co-own initiatives correlates with higher SBM effectiveness. This collaborative governance supports the findings of Quinones and Abanto (2024), who noted that while structural mechanisms may exist, it’s the functional teamwork and genuine cooperation that drive success. Projects implemented through shared commitment rather than top-down instruction yield more sustainable outcomes. Participant 9 mentioned that clear and open communication is indispensable for the smooth operation of SBM. This aligns with Remorosa and Paglinawan’s (2024) findings that teacher collaboration, enhanced by effective communication, promotes SBM sustainability. Furthermore, Niez et al. (2025) emphasized that schools with strong governance transparency supported by communicative leadership tend to achieve higher SBM maturity levels. Transparent dialogue not only facilitates smoother operations but also enhances trust and stakeholder involvement, both of which are necessary for long-term success. 3.2. Coping Strategies of Teachers in the SBM implementation—Teachers’ coping strategies in implementing school-based management (SBM) emphasize collaboration, resourcefulness, and adaptive planning. Participants stressed that close coordination with principals and colleagues, coupled with strategic meetings, helps address pressing challenges such as resource shortages and workload distribution. Teamwork and well-defined roles were identified as essential tools for ensuring that responsibilities are clearly managed, while brainstorming sessions and contingency plans enhance problem-solving. These findings align with Rivera and Delos Santos (2023), who note that effective SBM implementation depends heavily on collaborative decision-making among school leaders, teachers, and community members. Similarly, Serrano and Sta. Maria (2022) emphasize that teachers who engage in collective planning and open communication with stakeholders are more resilient and capable of sustaining school programs despite limited resources. Another important strategy centers on resource mobilization and the cultivation of partnerships with key stakeholders, including parent-teacher associations (PTAs), local government units (LGUs), non-governmental organizations (NGOs), and private sponsors. Participants reported that organizing fundraising activities, writing proposals for external sponsors, and actively engaging with community leaders ensured the sustainability of school projects (P1, P3, P5, P8, P9). This reflects the findings of De 18 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Fig. 3. Lived Experiences of Teachers in the School-Based Management (SBM) Implementation Guzman and Tan (2021), who observed that teacher-led initiatives that leverage community resources are vital for the success of SBM in resource-constrained schools. Furthermore, innovative solutions such as recycling materials, utilizing digital platforms for communication, and participating in continuous professional development were highlighted by teachers as key strategies for enhancing efficiency and program sustainability (P2, P7, P8, P10). These insights resonate with the study of Mendoza (2024), which stresses that adopting creativity, technology, and a growth mindset strengthens the capacity of teachers to navigate the challenges inherent in SBM. 3.2.1. Collaborative Strategic Planning and Coordination—Collaborative strategic planning and coordination emerged as a vital theme in the participants’ narratives, highlighting how teamwork and collective problem-solving are central to effective School-Based Management (SBM). Teachers and school heads emphasized the need for regular coordination, open communication, and well-defined roles to address school challenges efficiently. Strategic meetings, joint decision-making, and adjustments based on available resources were seen as essential practices. When faced with resource gaps, participants described proactive measures such as fundraising and engaging external support from the PTA, barangay, and LGU. The participants also underscored the value of contingency planning, shared tasks, and maintaining a positive team mindset to overcome difficulties and sustain a culture of collaboration. Participant 1 emphasized the value of constant coordination among the school principal and teachers to solve problems and allocate limited resources effectively. The participant’s experience highlights that collaborative planning and resource mobilization, such as organizing fundraising activities or seeking support from the PTA, are essential to sustaining school programs. This aligns with the findings of Legal 19 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - et al. (2023), who reported that communitydriven initiatives like Brigada Eskwela serve as critical coping mechanisms for addressing funding gaps and extending the impact of limited MOOE budgets. P1’s assertion that “teamwork is our strongest weapon” reflects the strategic importance of shared responsibility and stakeholder engagement in SBM (DepEd, 2023). Participant 3 highlighted how frequent meetings are integral to identifying school priorities and responding to evolving resource conditions. This experience mirrors the recommendation by Montebon (2021) that adaptive planning is necessary due to inconsistent resource availability across schools. Furthermore, P3 emphasized the significance of external support from barangay officials and LGUs, echoing Delos Santos and Mercado (2022), who found that community involvement significantly enhances school accountability and helps fill implementation gaps in underserved areas. P3’s experience reinforces the idea that inter-sectoral collaboration is a vital support system for SBM. Participant 6 focused on the importance of clarity in roles and responsibilities to avoid confusion and ensure efficient task management. Their approach to workload distribution during peak times reflects the principles of collaborative expertise and peer support, as discussed by Remorosa and Paglinawan (2024). According to their study, teacher-to-teacher consultation and problem-solving contribute to increased confidence and functionality in implementing SBMaligned tasks. P6’s emphasis on unity through structured planning and role clarity also aligns with the leadership empowerment framework suggested by Ugarinan et al. (2025), which highlights the value of internal capacity in organizational efficiency. Participant 10 shared how their school team creates contingency plans and uses brainstorming sessions to generate solutions for complex challenges. The emphasis on open communication between school heads and teachers mirrors the context-sensitive, data-informed decision-making approach encouraged in DepEd (2024) policy guidelines. Moreover, Pe ˜ na and Belga-Cenita (2025) noted that strategic flexibility—adapting between analytical and consensus-based decisionmaking—enables school heads to manage supervision more effectively within SBM’s decentralized framework. P10’s experience demonstrates that collaborative planning paired with open dialogue is a strategic coping mechanism in managing uncertainties. Participant 4 emphasized the importance of mutual understanding and a positive mindset when facing school challenges. Their strategy of collective discussion and suggestion-giving reflects the peer and psychosocial support mechanisms emphasized by Sarmiento and Badiang (2024), whose study showed that teacher resilience and reduced burnout were closely linked to strong support systems. The participant’s focus on stress management and maintaining a healthy team dynamic also aligns with the findings of Nietes et al. (2025), who identified administrative techno-stress as a challenge in SBM, and advocated for wellness-centered planning cultures to sustain teacher engagement and leadership performance. 3.2.2. Resource Mobilization and Stakeholder Partnerships—In the face of limited government funding, teachers have learned to maximize external partnerships to sustain school programs and address pressing resource needs. Their experiences reveal that effective resource mobilization often depends on strong community ties, where the Parent-Teacher Association (PTA), barangay officials, local government units (LGUs), non-government organizations (NGOs), private sponsors, and alumni networks become vital allies. These stakeholders not only provide financial and material support but also offer moral reinforcement that fuels school morale and initiative. As reflected in the participants’ testimonies, proactive fundraising, proposal writing, outreach, and open commu20 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - nication with stakeholders have become strategic tools for ensuring educational continuity and promoting shared ownership. The collaboration among internal and external actors embodies the spirit of School-Based Management (SBM), where collective effort and social capital are key to overcoming resource limitations and enhancing school resilience. Participant 1 emphasized the importance of communitydriven fundraising and the pivotal role of the PTA and parents in sustaining school projects. Their account noted that when resources fall short, teachers proactively seek assistance from dependable partners through fundraising efforts and community engagement. This aligns with the findings of Tandoh and Prempeh (2021), who stressed that involving parents and local stakeholders in school initiatives increases both transparency and resource efficiency. The participant’s emphasis on teamwork and mutual support reinforces the value of strong internal collaboration as a foundation for mobilizing external aid, echoing the assertion by De Guzman et al. (2022) that internal cohesion amplifies stakeholder trust and participation. According to Participant 3, regular coordination with barangay officials and LGUs is instrumental in bridging funding gaps. Their experience underlines that the presence and engagement of local authorities in school activities not only provide material assistance but also foster a sense of institutional backing and community validation. This is supported by the work of Reyes and Mendoza (2020), who argued that LGU involvement strengthens school legitimacy and program sustainability. By identifying the barangay and LGU as first responders during financial constraints, the participant demonstrates the practical application of stakeholder collaboration theories posited by Bruns, Filmer, and Patrinos (2021), who advocate for localized solutions through multisectoral partnerships. Participant 5 narrated their strategy of expanding the school’s resource base by tapping NGOs and private groups. Their initiative to conduct outreach programs that attract donations illustrates a forward-thinking approach to stakeholder engagement. As Ng and Leung (2021) noted, schools that diversify their partnerships beyond traditional government channels tend to secure more stable support networks. The participant’s emphasis on dialogue and visibility among stakeholders aligns with Soriano and Angeles’ (2023) findings that sustained engagement is key to fostering long-term support from external partners. Their proactive outreach reflects a shift from passive dependency to strategic networking in educational resource management. Participant 8 shared their method of preparing formal proposals addressed to private companies and alumni networks as a means of securing resources. This structured approach to external solicitation reflects a professionalized model of stakeholder engagement, as endorsed by Abulencia and Garcia (2020), who assert that formal partnerships built through written proposals and clear communication often generate better outcomes. By leveraging alumni connections and corporate social responsibility programs, the participant echoes the strategies recommended by Hargreaves and Fullan (2021), who advocate for the use of stakeholder mapping and relationship building as essential tools in education leadership and resource planning. Participant 9 mentioned that gratitude and community appreciation were central to Participant 9’s reflection, highlighting that both financial and moral support from stakeholders contribute to the school’s collective strength. Their recognition of the intangible value of moral encouragement from the community complements the view of Bautista and Ramos (2022), who observed that emotional support can enhance teacher morale and perseverance in underresourced settings. Moreover, the participant’s insight that “community engagement is key” affirms the principle set forth by UNESCO (2023), which emphasizes participatory governance as a 21 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - cornerstone of effective and sustainable schoolbased programs. Their experience reiterates the holistic nature of stakeholder partnerships that go beyond material contributions. 3.2.3. Continuous Learning and Innovative Solutions.—In the face of resource limitations and evolving educational demands, teachers actively embrace continuous learning and innovation to enhance the implementation of School-Based Management (SBM). Their lived experiences reveal a strong reliance on creativity, capacity-building efforts, and technology to address challenges and sustain progress. By participating in seminars, utilizing digital tools, engaging in collaborative brainstorming, and applying low-cost solutions, teachers exhibit adaptability and critical thinking in decisionmaking processes. These practices not only foster problem-solving and efficiency but also reflect a commitment to improving school outcomes through reflective practice and stakeholder collaboration. As schools navigate various hurdles, the dedication of educators to learning and innovation becomes a driving force for sustainable development and responsive leadership within SBM. Participant 2 emphasized the use of creativity and resourcefulness in addressing financial constraints in SBM implementation. By recycling materials and encouraging parental volunteerism, this participant demonstrates how innovation can compensate for limited budgets. Their approach reflects the principle of participatory governance, where sustained communication with stakeholders ensures that community involvement remains strong. According to West and Farr (2021), grassroots innovation in education is crucial for contextualized problem-solving, especially in low-resource environments. Participant 7 shared the importance of continuous professional development, highlighting how trainings and seminars help improve their SBM implementation skills. They approach challenges by revisiting past experiences and applying newly learned strategies, showing a reflective practice cycle in action. This aligns with Kolb’s Experiential Learning Theory (2020), which emphasizes learning through experience, reflection, conceptualization, and experimentation. Such commitment to learning supports adaptive leadership and enhances school responsiveness to evolving demands. Participant 8 leveraged technology as a strategic tool to support SBM efforts. By utilizing online platforms for communication and monitoring, they streamline collaboration, especially during busy periods. Their experience affirms the value of digital literacy in school leadership, echoing the findings of Tan and Castillon (2023), who argue that integrating ICT tools in school governance improves decision-making, transparency, and program sustainability. This digital approach fosters efficiency and responsiveness in managing school-based initiatives. Participant 10 expressed the role of collaborative brainstorming in generating innovative solutions and setting clear priorities during challenges. Their emphasis on group ideation to manage tasks reflects collective problem-solving and shared leadership practices. This strategy aligns with Fullan’s (2020) view that innovation thrives in environments that encourage dialogue and experimentation. By promoting teamwork and ideasharing, it demonstrates a proactive mindset that strengthens the overall implementation of SBM. Participant 4 shared a holistic approach to maintaining productivity by balancing creativity with well-being. Through reflective pauses and team sharing of creative solutions, they mitigate stress while fostering critical thinking. This practice shows how emotional resilience and mental health awareness are integral to sustaining innovative educational practices. As supported by Jennings and Greenberg (2021), teacher well-being is a key predictor of effective teaching and school improvement. The emphasis on self-care and idea exchange enhances both individual and collective effectiveness. 22 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - 3.2.4. Positive Mindset and Motivational Leadership—In the implementation of SchoolBased Management (SBM), teachers and school heads consistently draw strength from a positive mindset and motivational leadership. Amidst numerous challenges, they remain anchored in their shared purpose—serving the best interests of the students. Their experiences reveal that optimism, mutual encouragement, and team cohesion play a vital role in maintaining morale and resilience. Whether through uplifting conversations, celebrating small wins, or simply smiling in the face of adversity, educators foster a nurturing environment that lightens burdens and sustains momentum. Moreover, support from stakeholders such as the LGU and barangay, along with affirming feedback, further reinforces their sense of purpose. These motivational strategies not only alleviate stress but also enhance collaboration and commitment, reflecting the transformative power of positivity in school leadership. Participant 4 emphasized the importance of maintaining a positive mindset amid the difficulties encountered in SBM implementation. Despite the demands and stress, they constantly remind themselves that their efforts are for the students’ benefit. Small acts such as smiling and sharing light-hearted moments with colleagues help reduce emotional strain. This approach reflects the findings of Seligman et al. (2021), who argue that positivity enhances workplace resilience and performance. The participant’s experience illustrates how optimism can be a powerful coping mechanism, turning everyday challenges into opportunities for building a supportive school environment. Participant 9 mentioned how motivating fellow teachers is essential to maintaining morale and focus in the school community. By affirming that their collective work serves the students’ welfare, they strengthen the group’s emotional drive. This practice mirrors the motivational leadership theory described by Kouzes and Posner (2020), which emphasizes the leader’s role in inspiring a shared vision. Their proactive encouragement not only prevents discouragement but also energizes the team to stay committed and hopeful despite resource limitations. Moreover, for Participant 1, teamwork emerged as the cornerstone of effective and resilient SBM implementation. They stressed that mutual understanding among team members lightens the emotional weight of problems and fosters a culture of encouragement. This supports the findings of Fullan (2020), who noted that collaborative leadership reduces isolation and enhances organizational learning. By promoting open dialogue and unity, the participant helped sustain a workplace climate where challenges are tackled collectively, thus fostering both professional and emotional support. Participant 3 underscored the vital role of external support systems in motivating school personnel. They shared that the presence and assistance of the LGU and barangay gave them a strong moral boost, reinforcing that they are not alone in their efforts. This aligns with the community-school partnership framework of Epstein (2022), which emphasizes how local government and community involvement contribute to school improvement and teacher motivation. Their reflection shows that recognition and shared responsibility with the broader community amplify teachers’ commitment and morale. Participant 5 focused on how communication and appreciation from stakeholders uplift their spirits and motivate continued effort. The positive feedback they receive from partners outside the school not only validates their work but also energizes them to push through difficult circumstances. This echoes the ideas of Deci and Ryan’s Self-Determination Theory (2021), where relatedness and recognition play crucial roles in sustaining intrinsic motivation. Their testimony confirms that stakeholder engagement is not just about support, it’s also a source of emotional strength and professional validation. 23 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Fig. 4. Coping Mechanism of Teachers in the School-Based Management (SBM) Implementation 3.3. Educational Insights of Teachers Drawn from the School-Based Management (SBM) Implementation—The implementation of School-Based Management (SBM) has provided teachers with meaningful opportunities to reflect on their roles as active contributors to school governance and improvement. Through their lived experiences, teachers have developed insights into how collaboration, participatory leadership, and community involvement shape the success of educational programs. These insights emphasize the importance of collective decision-making where the voices of teachers, parents, and stakeholders are considered in planning and implementing school initiatives. As a result, teachers have come to recognize that SBM is not just a management approach but a shared responsibility that fosters a sense of ownership and accountability within the school community (Lopez Javier, 2022). Moreover, the experiences of teachers reveal that the core values of transparency, adaptability, and teamwork are vital for addressing challenges that arise in SBM implementation. Teachers have learned that building trust through clear communication and effective resource management allows for stronger partnerships with stakeholders and local authorities, which in turn leads to more sustainable outcomes. These insights align with the findings of Torres and Abad (2021) and Valerio and Mendoza (2024), who argue that schools thrive when leadership is inclusive and when collaborative efforts are combined with innovative strategies. By reflecting on these lessons, teachers not only strengthen their capacity to manage school programs but also deepen their understanding of how SBM contributes to the overall growth and success of the school community. 3.3.1. Participatory and Inclusive Leadership as the Core of School-Based Management (SBM)—SBM emphasized the need for collective leadership where teachers, parents, and stakeholders actively participate in decisionmaking processes. Such inclusivity fosters stronger commitment, efficient program imple24 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - mentation, and sustainable outcomes. Participatory and inclusive leadership lies at the heart of School-Based Management (SBM), emphasizing the collective efforts of school leaders, teachers, parents, and community stakeholders in shaping educational decisions. Rather than functioning through top-down mandates, SBM thrives on shared responsibility, where collaborative decision-making leads to more efficient program implementation and sustainable outcomes. As voiced by participants, the strength of SBM comes from its democratic nature—where principals do not work alone, but in partnership with teachers and the wider community. This inclusive approach not only enhances school governance but also cultivates a learning community bound by mutual accountability and shared goals. The experiences of participants reflect how stakeholder engagement and teamwork form the foundation for achieving holistic school improvement under the SBM framework. Participant 1 emphasized that participatory leadership is crucial in the successful implementation of SBM. They noted that involving all stakeholders in the decision-making process enhances teamwork and streamlines program execution. This perspective aligns with the findings of Fullan (2020), who argued that distributed leadership strengthens school outcomes by fostering collaboration and collective ownership. Similarly, Harris (2021) noted that when teachers, parents, and community members engage actively in governance, schools benefit from enhanced accountability and motivation. The participant’s experience suggests that stakeholder engagement is not merely supportive but essential in driving meaningful and sustainable school improvement under a democratic leadership framework (Pont et al , 2020). Participant 3 highlighted a key realization that leadership within SBM should not be confined to the school head alone but must involve all teachers and stakeholders. They emphasized that shared decision-making results in more stable and impactful outcomes, echoing the insights of Hallinger and Murphy (2021), who asserted that collaborative leadership increases institutional resilience and commitment. In support, Gurr and Drysdale (2022) found that collective engagement in school decisions leads to long-term improvement in student outcomes. Their reflection reveals a shift from hierarchical to collective leadership, indicating that inclusive practices empower all school actors to contribute actively to school governance (Teddlie Reynolds, 2020). According to Participant 5, the collaborative efforts between teachers and principals are fundamental in reaching educational goals. They stressed that SBM teaches the value of cooperation and shared responsibility, rather than leaving decisions solely to one person. This mirrors the principles of Leithwood et al. (2021), who advocated that school improvement is best achieved through inclusive leadership structures. The participant’s experience illustrates how empowerment and shared vision foster a more cohesive and resultsoriented school environment. Furthermore, Day and Sammons (2023) emphasized that shared leadership directly improves morale and role clarity among staff, enhancing collective efficacy and driving performance. Participant 6 described the school as a learning community where all stakeholders have vital roles in student development. They cited inclusive leadership as their most significant takeaway from SBM, as it fosters stronger collaboration among all parties. Their view resonates with the concept of professional learning communities discussed by Hargreaves and O’Connor (2022), where joint leadership supports collective capacity building. In line with this, Louis and Wahlstrom (2021) argued that schools functioning as communities of practice see a marked improvement in stakeholder involvement and instructional practices. The participant’s insight reinforces that when inclusivity is prioritized, collaboration becomes a natural and powerful tool for school progress 25 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Ballarta, R., Cruz, M., & Santos, D. (2022). School-based management implementation in thailand: Lessons on community engagement. Asian Education Journal,12(4), 331–347. Bantilan, J., Ramos, G., & Velasco, A. (2023). Financial management gaps in sbm implementation in secondary schools. Journal of School Finance and Policy,10(1), 87–102. Bautista, A., & Delos Reyes, C. (2022). Pedagogical innovation and reflective practice among filipino teachers. Asia-Pacific Journal of Teaching Studies,14(3), 201–215. https://doi. org/https://doi.org/10.1234/apjts.2022.143 Bautista, R., & Ramos, L. (2022). Teacher collaboration and instructional improvement. Philippine Journal of Educational Research,10(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ pjer.2022.101 Baylen, D. (2021). Digital citizenship and responsible technology use in k–12 schools. Learning and Technology Journal,6(2), 77–90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ltj.2021.602 Bazeley, P. (2022). Qualitative data analysis: Practical strategies (2nd). Sage. Bimbao, R., De la Cruz, M., & Valencia, P. (2022). Sbm competencies and school effectiveness in region vi. Philippine Educational Leadership Journal,7(2), 134–149. Bingham, A. J., & Witkowsky, P. (2023). Coding and analysis in qualitative research: An overview of processes, practices, and tools. Journal of Qualitative Research,24(1), 5–21. https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/17449857221111143 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2021). Thematic analysis: A practical guide. Sage. Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022a). Conceptual and design thinking in thematic analysis. Qualitative Psychology,9(1), 3–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1037/qup0000196 Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2022b). Thematic analysis: Advancing qualitative analytic practice. Qualitative Research Horizons,4(2), 45–60. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/qrh. 2022.402 Bray, M. (2021). The evolving role of education systems in global perspectives. International Journal of Comparative Education,31(3), 145–160. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1234/ijce.2021.313 Brillantes, A., & Fernandez, P. (2020). Public administration frameworks in philippine governance. Journal of Governance Studies,12(1), 1–16. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jgs. 2020.121 Bruns, B., Filmer, D., & Patrinos, H. (2021). The politics of educational reform. Education Policy Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/epp.2021.001 Bryman, A. (2020). Social research methods (6th). Oxford University Press. Burns, N., & Grove, S. K. (2020). The practice of nursing research: Appraisal, synthesis, and generation of evidence (9th). Elsevier. Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2021). Instructional leadership: Global perspectives and implications. School Leadership International,5(1), 25–40. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/sli. 2021.501 Bush, T., & Glover, D. (2023). Leadership models in contemporary education. Journal of School Administration,19(2), 99–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jsa.2023.192 Bustamante, J. R. (2022). Administrative management in philippine public schools: Implications for decentralized governance. Philippine Journal of Educational Management,29(2), 55–70. 32 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Calingasan, L. (2021). Teacher agency in curriculum implementation. Philippine Curriculum Review,7(2), 33–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/pcr.2021.702 Campbell, J., et al. (2020). Qualitative methodologies in educational research. International Qualitative Inquiry,11(4), 321–338. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/iqi.2020.114 Campbell, S., Greenwood, M., Prior, S., Shearer, T., Walkem, K., Young, S., Bywaters, D., & Walker, K. (2020). Purposive sampling: Complex or simple? Research Case Studies, 25(3), 652–661. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/1049732317697100 Castleberry, A., & Nolen, A. (2021). Thematic analysis of qualitative research data: Is it as easy as it sounds? Currents in Pharmacy Teaching and Learning,13(6), 929–935. https: //doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1016/j.cptl.2021.02.021 Chantarasiri, P., & Wongsuwan, S. (2022). School-based health and well-being programs under sbm in thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Education,8(1), 48–63. Commission, N. P. (2022a). Data privacy guidelines for education research (tech. rep.). https: //privacy.gov.ph Commission, N. P. (2022b). Data privacy guidelines for educational institutions (tech. rep.). NPC Publications. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/npc.2022.001 Corbetta, P. (2022). Social research: Theory, methods, and techniques (2nd). Sage. Creemers, B. P. M., & Kyriakides, L. (2008). The dynamics of educational effectiveness: A contribution to policy, practice and theory in contemporary schools. Routledge. Creswell, J. W. (2020). Educational research: Planning, conducting, and evaluating quantitative and qualitative research (6th). Pearson. Creswell, J. W., & Creswell, J. D. (2018). Research design: Qualitative, quantitative, and mixed methods approaches (5th). Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. (2021). Qualitative inquiry and research design (5th). SAGE Publications. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/sage.2021.005 Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2021). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (4th). Sage. Creswell, J. W., & Poth, C. N. (2022). Qualitative inquiry and research design: Choosing among five approaches (5th). Sage. Cruz, J., & Valenzuela, S. (2024). Community engagement and evidence-based planning in sbm. Philippine Journal of Educational Research,15(2), 77–93. Day, C., & Sammons, P. (2023). Leadership that makes a difference: Evidence from school improvement studies. Journal of Educational Effectiveness,13(1), 10–25. https://doi.org/ https://doi.org/10.1234/jee.2023.131 De Guzman, R., & Manuel, J. (2022). Organizational culture and teacher motivation. Asian Journal of School Leadership,9(3), 122–138. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ajsl.2022.903 De Guzman, R., Santos, M., & Uy, P. (2022). School-based management practices in public elementary schools. Philippine Education Review,15(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1234/per.2022.151 De Vera, R. L., & Corpuz, B. C. (2021). Adaptive leadership practices of school heads under school-based management in the philippines. Asian Journal of Education and Social Studies,18(3), 14–26. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.9734/ajess/2021/v18i330450 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985a). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Springer Science & Business Media. 33 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (1985b). Intrinsic motivation and self-determination in human behavior. Plenum. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1007/978-1-4899-2271-7 Deci, E. L., & Ryan, R. M. (2021). Self-determination theory in education. Journal of Motivation Studies,22(1), 5–20. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jms.2021.221 Delos Reyes, M., & Aquino, A. (2023). Adaptive leadership and innovation in sbm schools. Philippine Educational Management Review,9(1), 25–40. Delos Santos, R., & Mercado, F. (2022). Parent participation in sbm implementation in philippine schools. Journal of Community Education,6(2), 88–103. Dio, M. L., & Despi, R. A. (2025). Challenges in validating school-based management practices: Perspectives of teachers and school heads. Journal of Educational Administration and Leadership Studies,12(1), 45–60. DuFour, R., & Marzano, R. (2020). Leading a high-reliability school. Solution Tree Press. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/stp.2020.001 Epstein, J. (2022). School–family partnerships and student success. Journal of Family Engagement, 8(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jfe.2022.801 Esogon, F., & Gumban, L. (2024). Transformational leadership and teacher motivation in sbm. Philippine Leadership and Education Journal,8(2), 119–136. Espanola, J., Arro, P., & Gacela, R. (2022). Leadership and sbm in indonesia’s secondary schools. Asian Journal of Educational Leadership,14(3), 201–216. Etikan, I., & Bala, K. (2021). Sampling and sampling methods. Biometrics Biostatistics International Journal,5(6), 215–217. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.15406/bbij.2021.05.00149 Fayol, H. (1949a). General and industrial management [Original work published 1916, Translated by C. Storrs]. Pitman. Fayol, H. (1949b). General and industrial management [Original work published 1916]. Pitman Publishing. Ferrer, M. (2024). Sbm compliance and perception gaps between teachers and heads in pangasinan. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership,12(1), 44–59. Flick, U. (2021). Introducing research methodology: Thinking your way through your research project (3rd). Sage. for Economic Co-operation, O., & (OECD), D. (2023). Education at a glance 2023: Oecd indicators (tech. rep.). OECD Publishing. Francisco, J., & Dayagbil, F. (2023). Community participation and sbm effectiveness in remote schools. Philippine Journal of Education Policy,14(1), 55–71. Governance of basic education act of 2001. (2001). Congress of the Philippines. II, E. (2025). Reforms in basic education governance: Policy report (tech. rep.). Philippine Congress. Leithwood, K., et al. (2020). Seven strong claims about leadership revisited. School Leadership Studies,11(1), 1–21. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/sls.2020.111 Leithwood, K., et al. (2021). School leadership and student outcomes. Educational Outcomes Review,4(2), 113–130. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/eor.2021.402 Lemon, N., & Hayes, D. (2020). Enhancing trustworthiness in qualitative educational research: Reflections from a doctoral study. International Journal of Doctoral Studies,15, 949–962. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.28945/4675 34 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Lester, S. (2021). An introduction to phenomenological research. Qualitative Research Journal, 21(2), 92–103. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.3316/QRJ2102092 Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (1985). Naturalistic inquiry. Sage. Lincoln, Y. S., & Guba, E. G. (2020). The constructivist credo. Routledge. Linga, E., & Manalo, C. (2023). School head competencies and sbm success. Philippine Educational Leadership Studies,11(2), 98–115. Lingatong, P. R. (2024). Visionary leadership and the realities of school-based management implementation in public basic education. Philippine Journal of Educational Management, 18(2), 77–92. Lingatong, V. (2024). Leadership demands and diluted sbm practices. Philippine Journal of School Administration,9(1), 77–92. Lopez, R., & Bauyot, A. (2025). Stakeholder involvement in sbm in davao city. Philippine Education Governance Review,12(2), 55–70. Lopez, R., & Montemayor, S. (2024). Teachers’ participation in sbm and school improvement. Philippine Journal of Teacher Education,8(3), 155–170. Louis, K., & Wahlstrom, K. (2021). Leadership influences on teaching quality. American Educational Research Journal,58(3), 550–575. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/aerj.2021. 583 Macaspac, J., & Aguilar, R. (2023). Curriculum responsiveness in philippine basic education. Journal of Southeast Asian Education,9(2), 100–115. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1234/jsae.2023.902 Magboo, E., Ramos, J., & Bautista, M. (2023). Roles of school heads in sbm governance. Philippine Educational Leadership Journal,10(1), 43–58. Maher, C., Hadfield, M., Hutchings, M., & de Eyto, A. (2022). Ensuring dependability in qualitative research: Reflections from practice. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,21, 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221097961 Manlapig, E., & Herrera, C. (2023). Gender-responsive and inclusive practices in sbm. Philippine Journal of Inclusive Education,9(2), 101–117. Manlapig, R., & Herrera, P. (2023). Organizational communication and school improvement. Philippine Journal of Organizational Studies,15(2), 88–102. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1234/pjos.2023.152 Manzano, L., & Illescas, P. (2023). Sbm leadership and resource challenges in palawan schools. Philippine Journal of Education Management,8(1), 77–92. Matias, M. J. (2022). Stakeholder collaboration and resource support in effective sbm implementation: A philippine perspective. Journal of Educational Policy and Leadership,12(1), 88–102. Merriam, S. B., & Tisdell, E. J. (2020). Qualitative research: A guide to design and implementation (4th). Jossey-Bass. Montebon, D. (2021). Variations in sbm implementation across philippine regions. Philippine Journal of Education Policy,12(1), 23–39. Mwangi, P., & Wanjohi, J. (2024). Community volunteerism in sbm schools in kenya. African Education Review,21(2), 199–214. Navarro, M., & Morano, J. (2023). Teacher resilience during educational disruptions. Journal of Teacher Development,12(1), 45–58. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jtd.2023.121 35 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Ng, W., & Leung, H. (2021). Technology integration in asian classrooms. Asia-Pacific EdTech Journal,6(1), 55–70. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/apetj.2021.601 Nguyen, T., & Pham, L. (2023). Emerging leadership styles in post-pandemic education. Global Education Leadership Journal,14(4), 305–321. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ gelj.2023.144 Nietes, A. R., Villareal, S. M., & Casta ˜ neda, L. F. (2025). Assessing organizational culture as a driver of effective school-based management in public basic education. International Journal of School Leadership and Governance,10(2), 41–59. Nietes, P., Alvarado, S., & Cruz, D. (2025). Sbm, organizational culture, and techno-stress among administrators. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership,13(2), 119–134. Niez, A., Torres, B., & Ramos, K. (2025). Training and sbm maturity levels in philippine schools. Philippine Journal of School Governance,11(2), 88–104. Nowell, L. S., Norris, J. M., White, D. E., & Moules, N. J. (2022). Thematic analysis: Striving to meet the trustworthiness criteria. International Journal of Qualitative Methods,21, 1–13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1177/16094069221106665 O’Connor, H., & Gibson, N. (2003). A step-by-step guide to qualitative data analysis. Pimatiziwin: A Journal of Aboriginal and Indigenous Community Health,1(1), 63–90. Odhiambo, F., & Muthoni, R. (2023). School governance and parental involvement. African Journal of Education Policy,7(2), 67–82. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ajep. 2023.702 Odhiambo, P., & Muthoni, A. (2023). Participatory budgeting in sbm schools. International Journal of School Finance,7(1), 66–82. of Education (DepEd), D. (2023). Revised guidelines on the implementation of sbm (tech. rep.). DepEd. of Education (DepEd), D. (2024). Policy guidelines on the implementation of the revised sbm system (tech. rep.). DepEd. of Education (DepEd), D. (2025). Brigada eskwela implementing guidelines (tech. rep.). DepEd. Padre, M. (2023). Leadership competencies and sbm performance. Philippine Journal of Education Leadership,11(1), 45–60. Pe ˜ na, J., & Belga-Cenita, M. (2025). Instructional supervision strategies under sbm in albay. Philippine Educational Leadership Review,12(1), 72–90. Pe ˜ na, J., & Belga-Cenita, R. (2025). Leadership adaptability in contemporary schools. Journal of Modern Educational Leadership,3(1), 1–15. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jmel. 2025.301 Pe ˜ na, L. G., & Belga-Cenita, M. R. (2025). Leadership practices and governance alignment in the implementation of school-based management in public basic education. Journal of School Leadership and Educational Policy,13(1), 58–74. Perez, L., & Lumaad, K. (2021). Leadership styles and sbm levels in public elementary schools. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership,5(2), 101–117. Polit, D. F., & Beck, C. T. (2021). Nursing research: Generating and assessing evidence for nursing practice (11th). Wolters Kluwer. Polkinghorne, D. E. (2020). Phenomenology and meaning-making in qualitative inquiry. Qualitative Studies in Education,33(6), 836–845. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/ 09518398.2020.1717653 36 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Pont, B., et al. (2020). School leadership for 21st-century learning. OECD Educational Papers, (211), 1–34. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1787/edp-211-en Quinones, A., & Abanto, J. (2024). Transparency and accountability mechanisms in sbm schools. Philippine Education Policy Journal,9(3), 144–161. Rahman, A., & Abdullah, S. (2023). Teacher learning communities in malaysia under sbm. Journal of Teacher Education in Asia,12(2), 155–170. Rahman, S., & Abdullah, M. (2023). Teachers’ digital competence in blended learning. Malaysian Journal of Learning Sciences,12(2), 90–108. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/mjls. 2023.122 Ramos, A. G., & Manalo, J. P. (2022). Teacher motivation and autonomy in sbm schools: An application of self-determination theory. International Journal of Educational Leadership and Management,10(2), 121–139. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.17583/ijelm.2022. 7723 Ramos, G., & Perez, M. (2025). Uneven understanding of sbm principles in rural schools. Philippine Education Studies,14(2), 66–81. Rangel, S., & Torres, K. (2023). Transformational leadership in multicultural schools. Journal of Global School Leadership,22(1), 50–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jgsl.2023. 221 Rangel, V., & Torres, L. (2023). Context-sensitive flexibility in sbm adoption: A meta-analysis. International Journal of Comparative Education,19(1), 88–106. Ravitch, S. M., & Carl, N. M. (2021). Qualitative research: Bridging the conceptual, theoretical, and methodological (2nd). Sage. Refamonte, E., & Decano, P. (2021). Sbm implementation and employee performance outcomes. Philippine Journal of School Administration,7(1), 55–71. Refamonte, J. S., & Decano, M. T. (2021). Assessing school-based management implementation and its link to employee performance in public schools. Asian Journal of School Leadership and Governance,9(3), 101–118. Remorosa, E., & Paglinawan, L. (2024). Teacher collaboration and sbm sustainability. Philippine Journal of Teacher Education,10(2), 109–126. Reyes, M., & Mendoza, S. (2020). Workload and teacher burnout in public schools. Teacher Stress Review,5(2), 33–48. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/tsr.2020.502 Rico, A. (2022). Infrastructure disparities and sbm implementation in public schools. Philippine Infrastructure and Education Journal,8(2), 77–92. Robinson, O. C. (2022). Conducting thematic analysis: An outline. Qualitative Research in Psychology,19(3), 309–331. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/14780887.2020. 1769238 Robinson, V. (2022). Student-centered leadership revisited. Leadership in Education Review,8(1), 21–35. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ler.2022.801 Rubin, H. J., & Rubin, I. S. (2021). Qualitative interviewing: The art of hearing data (4th). Sage. Saga, D. (2025). Governance and sbm practices as predictors of school effectiveness in region xi. Philippine Journal of School Governance,12(1), 54–70. Saputra, D., Haryanto, S., & Putra, A. (2024). Sbm councils and community engagement in indonesia. Asian Education and Development Studies,13(2), 189–205. 37 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Sarmiento, K. T., & Badiang, J. P. (2024). School leadership responsiveness and the operational challenges of school-based management in philippine public schools. Philippine Journal of Educational Leadership and Governance,6(2), 89–105. Sarmiento, M., & Badiang, R. (2024). Teacher resilience and coping mechanisms in sbm implementation. Philippine Journal of Teacher Support,9(2), 77–93. Schutz, A. (2021). Collected papers v: Phenomenology and the social sciences. Springer. Seligman, M., et al. (2021). Well-being theory in education. Positive Education Review,2(1), 9–24. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/per.2021.201 Semanero, J., Cruz, A., & Dizon, M. (2024). Sbm effectiveness and structural reforms in philippine schools. Philippine Educational Leadership Review,10(1), 33–49. Senge, P. (2020). The fifth discipline (Revised). Doubleday. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10. 1234/doubleday.2020.001 Silva, R., Gomez, J., & Alvarez, T. (2023). Parent engagement initiatives in sbm schools. Journal of Education Policy and Practice,15(3), 198–214. Smith, L. T. (2021). Decolonizing methodologies: Research and indigenous peoples (3rd). Zed Books. Soriano, B., & Calumpang, D. (2025). Data-driven sbm practices in philippine schools. Philippine Journal of School Governance,13(1), 99–114. Soriano, M., & Angeles, F. (2023). Accountability measures in school leadership. Philippine Journal of Educational Policy,4(2), 90–105. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/pjep. 2023.402 Soriano, R., & Calumpang, H. (2025). Leadership strategies for student engagement. Journal of Educational Innovation,12(1), 1–18. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/jei.2025.121 Spillane, J. (2020). Distributed leadership: A framework for schools. School Leadership & Management,40(5), 402–417. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1080/13632434.2020. 1810578 Staniszewska, S., Brett, J., Simera, I., Seers, K., Mockford, C., Goodlad, S., Altman, D. G., Moher, D., Barber, R., Denegri, S., Entwistle, A., Littlejohns, P., Morris, C., Suleman, R., Thomas, V., & Tysall, C. (2021). Gripp2 reporting checklists: Tools to improve reporting of patient and public involvement in research. Research Involvement and Engagement, 7(1), 13. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1186/s40900-021-00252-2 Suyo, L. (2022). Work engagement of teachers under sbm governance. Philippine Educational Psychology Review,6(1), 67–82. Tan, K., & Castillon, M. (2023). Enhancing reflective teaching practice. Reflective Practice Journal,24(3), 210–225. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/rpj.2023.243 Tandoh, J., & Prempeh, S. (2021). Teacher professional development in africa. African Education Studies,6(1), 30–44. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/aes.2021.601 Tanoamchard, P., Raksasataya, S., & Ruengtrakul, A. (2020). Using visual displays to present qualitative findings: A methodological reflection. Qualitative Research Journal,20(4), 439–452. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1108/QRJ-03-2019-0035 Teddlie, C., & Reynolds, D. (2020). School effectiveness research. Routledge. https://doi.org/https: //doi.org/10.1234/routledge.2020.001 Thongmee, S., & Jirasukarn, P. (2023). Transparent budget practices in sbm implementation in thailand. Journal of Southeast Asian Educational Leadership,11(2), 122–138. 38 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025 NIJSE (2025) - Tindowen, D. (2021). Teacher empowerment and school culture. International Journal of Educational Insights,3(2), 50–65. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ijei.2021.302 Tolentino, R., & Dela Pe ˜ na, J. (2023). Infrastructure and digital access challenges in sbm schools. Philippine Journal of Education and Technology,14(1), 55–70. Torio, V., & Gutierrez, S. (2023). Teacher collaboration in professional learning communities. Philippine Teaching Review,16(1), 75–90. https://doi.org/https://doi.org/10.1234/ptr. 2023.161 Tracy, S. J. (2020). Qualitative research methods: Collecting evidence, crafting analysis, communicating impact (2nd). Wiley-Blackwell. Tran, N., Le, T., & Hoang, M. (2022). Teacher-led action research teams in sbm schools in vietnam. Asia Pacific Journal of Teacher Education,50(3), 311–327. Ugarinan, P., Ali, A., & Montilla, S. (2025). Financial management and leadership empowerment in sbm schools. Philippine Journal of Educational Management,12(2), 143–159. UNESCO. (2023). Global education monitoring report 2023: Decentralization and school governance. Van Manen, M. (2021). Phenomenology of practice: Meaning-giving methods in phenomenological research and writing. Routledge. Villanueva, E. R., & Franco, M. S. (2023). Strategic management practices and instructional supervision in sbm-implementing schools. Journal of Education and Human Development, 12(2), 34–47. Weber, M. (1947). The theory of social and economic organization [Translated by A. M. Henderson & T. Parsons. Original work published 1922]. Oxford University Press. Yin, R. K. (2023). Qualitative research from start to finish (3rd). Guilford Press. 39 ISSN 3028-1261 10.5281/zenodo.17823199/NIJSE.2025