The implementation of school-based management through the lens of the administrative officers

This study examined how administrative officers in Districts I and II of Kabugao, Apayao perceived School-Based Management (SBM) implementation in their schools. Specifically, it described the demographic profile of the officers, assessed their perceived level of SBM implementation across four domains, and tested whether perceived implementation levels differed significantly by sex, age group, educational attainment, and professional development. All 34 administrative officers in both districts participated in the study. The sample was predominantly female (91.18%), young (mean age 30.68), uniformly positioned at the 1–5 year service range, largely holding only a Bachelor's degree (85.29%), and mostly without relevant professional development training (79.41%). Respondents rated SBM implementation at the quality standard level across all four domains, with an overall mean of 2.85 (SD = 0.26) on DepEd's 0–3 scale. Accountability and Continuous Improvement and Management of Resources recorded the highest domain means (M = 2.89 each), while Curriculum and Learning recorded the lowest (M = 2.76). The SIP monitoring indicator received a perfect score of 3.00, whereas accessibility of learning materials and resources was the weakest item across all domains (M = 2.59, SD = 0.61). Significance testing showed that perceived SBM level differed significantly by sex and by age group. Female respondents rated implementation consistently higher than their male counterparts across all domains, though the male subsample was very small (n = 3). Mid-career officers aged 31–35 reported the highest means, while the 36–40 group reported the lowest. No significant differences were found by educational attainment or professional development, results most plausibly attributed to insufficient statistical power given the small and unequal subgroup sizes. The findings suggest that SBM implementation in this remote district context meets procedural standards but may be constrained by limited access to training, advanced credentials, and instructional materials. Self-report data introduced the possibility of positivity bias and results should be interpreted accordingly.