SCHOOL-TO-SCHOOL PARTNERSHIPS

LANI B. DIGNENENG

The Department of Education is encouraging school-to-school partnerships where high-performing schools can be instruments for reform by sharing their best practices and helping other schools improve their school performance via Learning Action Cells (LAC), the Continuous Improvement (Cl) Program, and School-Based Management ( SBM ) .

This requires that high-performing schools become Leader Schools that take on active leadership roles and broader responsibilities, which includes initiating partnerships with other schools.

Leaders schools shall assist partner schools in reaching their potential in school performance.

In the partnership guidelines for FY 2016 under DO 44, s. 2016 – Guidelines on the School-to-School Partnerships for Fiscal Year 2016, these are the schools categorized as Level 1, 2, 3, or 4 in the 2014 Performance-Based Bonus (PBB) performance cat egor i es.

Expected benefits for Partner Schools include engagement in collaborative professional development activities such as Cl, LAC, and action research; planning, problemsolving, and resource mobilization activities to address community-wide educational issues; and improved social trust, awareness and understanding with other schools.

Incentives for Leader Schools include a rating of 2 for all indicators under the Leadership and Governance Dimension of the SBM Framework if school-to-school partnerships are successfully implemented; inclusion of the partnership activities in the IPCRF and OPCRF for teaching and non-teaching personnel; and service credits for teachers subject to existing rules and regulations.

The partnership activities and projects must be aligned to the spirit and intention of this policy which is to build genuine partnerships between and among schools: Best Practices on Leadership and Governance; School improvement planning and SBM assessment; Cl Methodology, LAC, and Action Research; Transparency and accountability (e.g. School Report Card (SRC) and Transparency and Accountability Board); Water, sanitation and hygiene; Solid waste management; Advocacy and education campaigns for internal and external stakeholders; Enrolment management; Child-mapping or tracking of learners, especially boys, who are at risk of dropping out; Information, Communication and Technology; Best Practices on Disaster Risk Reduction; Resourcesharing and rapid response; Education continuity strategies; School-community emergency preparedness drills; Temporary Learning Spaces following national or local designs; Joint clean up after disasters; Psychosocial support for students and teachers after disasters; and Collaborative hazard-mapping, among others.

These eligible activities, however, are just examples and not be taken as the only means of achieving authentic partnerships. Based on its needs, the Leader and Partner Schools should prioritize which activities to implement.

— oOo—

The author is Teacher III at Lacquios Elementary School