TABLE OF CONTENTS

List of Tables………………………………………………………………………………………………...

List of Figures……………………………………………………………………………………………......

List of Appendices…………………………………………………………………………………………...

Chapter 1: The Problem and Its Background

Introduction……………………………………………………………………………………….....

Significance of the Study…………………………………………………………………................

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework………………………………………………………................

Statement of the Problem…………………………………………………………………................

Hypothesis of the Study……………………………………………………………………………..

Definition of Terms…………………………………………………………………………………

Scope and Delimitation of the Study……………………………………………………………….

Chapter 2: Review of Related Literature and Structure

School-Based Management in the Philippine Context……………………………………...............

Roles of Principals and other Stakeholders under School-Based Management Policies……………

School-Based Management and Students and Teachers’ Performances………………....................

Synthesis of the Study………………………………………………………………………………

Chapter 3: Methodology of the Study

Methods and Techniques Used………………………………..…………………………………….

Respondents of the Study……………………………………………………………………………

Instruments of the Study…………………………………………………………………………….

Data Gathering Procedure………………………………..………………………………………….

Data Processing and Statistical Treatment…………………………………………………………..

Chapter 4: Presentation, Analysis, and Interpretation of Data

Level of School-Based Management Practices…………..…………………………………………..

Operational Leadership in terms of Access, Efficiency, and Quality…………………….................

 Several research findings demonstrated that through the implementation of school-based
management, school stakeholders have been empowered in the decision-making, which lead to develop
high levels of parental and community participation (Brown, 2000). Further, some researchers also
asserted that parental and community participation in schools has created more effective schools and
improved student achievements (Guldemond, 2001). Yau and Cheng (2014) in their study of the
principals and teachers’ perceptions of school-based management has proven its worth in term of its
effective implementation that promote principal operational leadership competence, work relationships,
staff coordination and effectiveness, financial planning and control, as well as the resources
accommodation that are all necessary to improve school performance.

Operational leadership, according to Draft (2008) could be measured by the standard followed by
the school leaders in terms of evidence-based outputs produce through meeting set of expected standards.
Principal’s operational leadership sets the continuum process that limits the capacity of a principal to
produce outputs with evidence which indicate meeting set quality standard. Under the school-based
management implementation, the principal’s operational leadership was measured in terms of outputs that
serve as evidence of compliance with the set uniform standard of quality-based actions. (BESRA, 2003)

In the Philippines, the enactment of Republic Act 9155 otherwise known as Governance of Basic
Education Act of 2001 gave added impetus to the earlier efforts of the Department of Education (DepEd)
to decentralize the governance and management of basic education in the country. This act provided the
legal framework for the formal institution of the systems and procedures that would govern the exercise of
school-based management (SBM) in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide. School-based
management has proven its worth to be an effective measure to ensure quality standards in terms of
promoting students and teachers’ performance.

Thus, in connection with this, it is the utmost intention of the researcher to add on the existing
literature more evidence on how school-based management and operational leadership of principals impact
in students and teachers’ performance in the Division of Bulacan.

Significance of the Study

The proposed study was deemed beneficial to the following group of individuals:

School Heads and Principals. The findings from this study would be very important for them to
monitor and update their current school management practices and choice of leadership styles to ensure that
it would meet the prescribed learning needs of their respective schools.

Teachers. This study would be helpful for them to review and update their teaching skills and
strategies tailor-fit to the unique learning needs of their students.

Parents and Other Stakeholders. The findings from this study would be helpful for them to
understand how specific school is being managed and operated by the school heads/principals and with this,
they can further give appropriate assistance and cooperation on the areas that need more improvement.

Students. This study would be useful for them to understand their school progress and monitor how
they can be assisted in terms of improving their school performance.

Department of Education Officials and School Division Office Academic Staff. The study
would be useful for them to analyze and review some of the previous school’s performance and capitalize
on the strengths and weaknesses of the school-based management level of practices and to design a
capability program that would make school heads/principals more versatile in cascading the school-based
management implementation in terms of its policies and guidelines in their respective schools.

Future Researchers. The study would be the basis for them to create and develop other studies
that would be very useful and relevant to further monitor and evaluate the school performance in terms of
school-based management practices.

Theoretical/Conceptual Framework
 The proposed study was theoretically anchored on the system theory presented by Draft (2008).
Draft defined system theory as a conglomerate of interrelated parts of a system that continue as a whole to
achieve the common purpose, this mirrored the so-called first-hand initiative of our government to ensure
a system function that goes hand-in-hand with some definite policies by considering inputs not only from
the internal environment but more so, from the external environment.

Wherein, from the tight up approach between the school sectors and the employment sectors,
students admitted into the school’s program could be transformed into useful and productive citizen of the
country, this means that form enrolment to employment, students were being developed to become worthy
for the demand of employment here and abroad.

Further, according to Draft (2008), the basic systems theory of organizations consists of five
components, inputs, a transformation process, outputs, feedback, and the environment. Thus, external
environment can patch up what should be done to make up for the need for economic transformation that
can be simultaneously enhanced as a part of the fast-tracking approach in the adaptation of the K-12
program.

In relation to the study, through the school-based management level of practices in terms of
management and operational leadership the goals of the school is to achieve quality education that could
be possible by means of maximizing all the school resources (internal environment), with support of the
stakeholders (external environment) the school performance could be better developed, thus the major
purpose of achieving school-wide quality performance both for teachers and students could be maintained
and monitored for further enhancement. The conceptual framework of the study is further described as
follows:

From the framework, this could be observed that there were two types of variables; the independent
and the dependent variables. For the independent variables, these would include the components of the
school-based management level of practices in terms of leadership and governance, curriculum and
learning, accountability and continuous improvement and management of resources, as well as the
operational leadership in terms of access (enrollment rate), efficiency (drop-out rate) and quality (National
Achievement Test Mean Percentage Scores).

While for the dependent variable, this would include the students’ performance in terms of National
Achievement Test (NAT) and for teachers’ performance in terms of their obtained rating on their Individual
Performance Commitment Review Form (IPCRF).

Statement of the Problem

 The major concern of this study was determined the impact of school-based management practices
and operational leadership of school principal in students and teachers’ performance.

Specifically, this study sought answer to the following questions;

1. What is the level of school-based management practices of the principals in terms of:

1.1 developing,

1.2 maturing, and

1.3 advanced?

2. How may the school-based management practices be described in terms of:

2.1 leadership and governance,

2.2 curriculum and learning,

2.3 accountability and continuous improvement, and

2.4 management of resources?

3. How may the operational leadership of the principals be described in terms of:

3.1 access (enrollment rate),

3.2 efficiency (drop-out rate), and

3.3 quality (National Achievement Test Mean Percentage Scores)?

4. How may the students and teachers’ performance be described in terms of:

4.1 National Achievement Test Mean Percentage Scores,

4.2 IPCRF?

5. Do the school-based management practices and operational leadership significantly affect the
students and teachers’ performance?

Hypothesis of the Study

The following hypothesis was tested at 0.05 level of significance.

The school-based management and operational leadership did not affect significantly the students
and teachers’ performance.

Definition of Terms

The following concepts were defined either conceptually and/or operationally for purposes of
clarity:

Accountability and Continuous Improvement. In this study, this refers to the school-based
management principle that operate on the measure school-based management practices operating on its set
standards in terms of the schools’ accountability and continuous improvement for its set guidelines to
provide quality learning and positive learning environment among its diverse learners (SBM DO no. 083,
series of 2012).

Curriculum and Learning. In this study, this pertains to the principle involved in the school-based
management practice which includes the system of collaborative development and continuous
improvement-anchored on the community and learners’ context and aspiration (SBM DO no. 083, series of
2012).
 Leadership and Governance. In this study, this is conceptually defined as the principle behind
the school-based management practices as governed by set of different standards rolled into one using a
particular set of guidelines or criteria, in leadership and governance in particular, this involved analysis of
quality practices in terms of meeting shared leadership and governance among the network of people who
governed the school management to achieve the shared vision, mission and goals of making the school
environment responsive to diverse learners (SBM DO no. 083, series of 2012).

Management of Resources. In this study, this refers to the principle of school-based management
practice which looks into the transparency of the collective and judicious mobilization of resources which
is evidence of effectiveness and efficiency (SBM DO no. 083, series of 2012).

Operational Leadership. In this study, it is operationally defined as the measures of the three
components of schools’ performance in terms of Access (enrollment rate), Efficiency (drop-out rate) and
Quality (National Achievement Test Mean Percentage Scores) which would be reflected following
approved presented evidence meeting specified quality standards of practice. Other variables as part of the
complete package of school-management tool used in this study is not anymore included only measures
pertain to students, and teachers’ performance was then considered as part of the principals’ operational
leadership variable.

School-Based Management. This refers to a pragmatic approach to a formal alteration of the

bureaucratic model of school administration with a more democratic structure. This identifies the individual
school as the primary unit of improvement relying on the redistribution of decision-making authority
through which improvements in a school are stimulated and sustained (Gamage, 2006).

School Performance. In this study, this refers to the school’s performance in terms of students’
increased access to enrollment, efficiency of the school such as in the decrease – p. 10 not available

standard. The operational leadership of the principals in terms of access (enrollment rate), efficiency (drop-
out rate), and quality (National Achievement Test Mean Percentage Scores) was also described no other
outputs data was considered except those that would represent outputs for students and the teachers’
performance rating on their Individual Performance Commitment Review Form (IPCRF).

The respondents of the study were the thirteen schools classified as small to very large schools
from Sta. Maria Central District in the Schools Division of Bulacan. These schools were operating the
school-based management process for more than three years to ensure that there were already existing
expected proper monitoring and evaluation processes involved. Thus the schools were aware of the needs
why school-based management should be properly implemented in their school following specific
Department of Education policies and guidelines.

The study made use of the descriptive-correlational research design to describe the level of obtained
school-based management practices of the responding schools and determine if the identified school-based
management level of practices including its four components and the operational leadership impacted the
students and teachers’ performance. The study also utilized the locally validated school-based management
monitoring and evaluation tool following DO 83, s. 2012 & DO 45, s. 2015 – Guidelines for School-Based
Management (SBM) Grants for Fiscal Year (FY) 2014. The study made use of the submitted school-based
management results of the different schools of their principals and school heads to the School Division
Office. – p. 12 not available

Education Project is an integral part of Schools First Initiative, providing major inputs into the
institutionalization process of School-Based Management (SBM) in compliance with the letter and spirit of
Republic Act 1995. The Policy and Legal Framework of School-Based Management is the institutional
expression of decentralization of education at the grassroots level. This is based on the national policy of
decentralization originally set by the Philippine Local Government Code of 1991 (Republic Act 7160) as
the response to the new challenges for sustainable human development by enabling local communities to
become self-reliant and more effective partners in the attainment of national goals.
 Consistent with this policy, the Department of Education (formerly DECS) aimed to hasten the
decentralization of educational management through its ten-year master plan (1995-2005). With the
objective of improving its operations and delivery of services, the department intended to realize
decentralization by giving more and more decision-making powers to local school officials in terms of
school repairs and maintenance as well as the procurement of textbooks, supplies, and equipment. In 1999,
Department of Education Culture and Sports order No. 230 further defined decentralization as 1) promotion
of school-based management; 2) transfer of authority and decision-making from central and regional offices
to the divisions and schools; 3) sharing education management responsibilities with other stakeholders such
as the local government units, parent-teacher-community associations (PTCAs) and non-governmental
organizations (NGOs); and 4) devolution of education functions.

In the Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) for Basic Education, 1999-2004, the
goals of the school system were stated as follows 1) enhancing school holding power; 2) improving school
outcomes and raising quality and academic excellence; 3) enhancing the relevance of the curriculum; and
4) establishing administrative and management improvements to gear the bureaucracy for decentralization
and modernization. Its mission statement declared that included decentralize educational management, so
the school became the focus for enhancing initiative, creativity, innovation, and effectiveness. The efforts
at educational quality improvement shall emanate from the school and redound to its benefit and that of the
community.

The Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) is a nine-year public investment program (1998-
2006). The project supported the goal of improving the quality of elementary education through
decentralization. Specifically, this aimed to 1) improve learning achievement, completion rates, and access
to quality elementary education in 23 of the poorest provinces; 2) build the institutional capacity of
Department of Education to manage change through teacher effectiveness and better management at all
levels; and 3) actively involve the community and the local government in a large-scale effort to attain
quality education. Moreover, Third Elementary Education Project is intended to be a laboratory for reforms
that involved planning by the stakeholders, social targeting, decentralization, and a school focused and
information-based decision making.

Governance of basic education shall begin at the national level. This is in the regions, divisions,
schools, and learning centers-herein referred to as the field offices-where the policy and principle for the
governance of basic education shall be translated into, programs, projects, and services developed, adapted,
and offered to fit local needs. In 2004, Secretary of Education Florencio Abad proposed a major policy
direction through the Schools First Initiative (SFI). This is a movement based on the ideas and principles
of the global movement for all. This has three components, namely: (1) enhancement of
learning, (2) more resources for learning and, (3) focused organization for learning. This is now clear from
this declaration of policy that the most important change in the governance of basic education should
emanate from the level of the school. School-based management (SBM) is the institutional foundation of
such change.

The implementation of the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (RA 9155) provided the
mandate for decentralizing the system of school management and recognized the role of the local
government units and other stakeholders as partners in education service delivery. Consequently, the
department launched the School First Initiative (SFI) in 2005 to empower and its community stakeholders
to effectively address access and quality issues in basic education. From project inception in 1998, Third
Elementary Project has decentralized basic education planning and implementation, administration and
fund management to the division level through the DPISU (Division Project Implementation Support Unit).
The second and final stage is decentralizing these processes down to the school level through school-based
management.

Further, the time and money were essential resources in any educational reform. The management
of these resources is a skill the school heads have to learn and do. Under the Third Elementary Education
Project projected implementation, the school heads were given school-based management funds to build
infrastructure and procure furniture appropriate to their needs. The school heads were further encouraged
to find their local sources for materials and infrastructure needs through collaborative consensus with the
Parent Teacher Council Association (PTCA), the local government units (LGU’s), non-government
organizations (NGO’s), and alumni (DepEd, 2006).

On the other hand, according to United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization
(2004), everyone who wished to be schooled and educated should be entitled to enjoy the following: (1)
equal access to opportunities for basic learning with peers, (2) equality in terms of good quality experiences
that will allow them to complete basic education, and (3) equality in the assurance that their education will
provide them with the skills to become useful and contributing members of the community.

The Third Elementary Education Project-School Based Management project was designed as a
catalyst for school reform (DepEd, 2006d). In this case, special education is not exempted which is one
among the three development areas of the Third Elementary Project. The other two were the Multigrade
Programs (MG) and the Curriculum for the Culture of Indigenous People (CCIP). From the 23 school
divisions, nine divisions were selected for the Third Elementary Project Inclusive Education Program. The
project was aimed at the reactivation, expansion, and opening of new special education programs (DepEd,
2006a).

This is evident in the study conducted by Yap and Adorio (2008) from University of the Philippines
College of Education on the School-Based Management promoting special educational programs in local
schools. In the study, this made use of the qualitative research designed. There were eleven schools, and
six school divisions served as participants of the study to determine the extent of the organize special
education-inclusive education program in the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) of the
Department of Education in the Philippines, school-based management as viewed in terms of its integrating
framework for Third Elementary Education Project for three years. In the study, this investigated on how
the local schools in selected pilot areas managed to use school-based management to address issues such
as access to formal school, quality of educational experiences, and stakeholders’ participation in school
activities which were relevant to the interest of children with special needs. Findings showed that the most
schools gauge access through members of identified students with special needs. In terms of quality as seen
to be linked to the availability of special education teachers and other resources, participation was
associated with the involvement of the parents in their children’s individualized education plan.

In 2006, a more comprehensive package of policy reforms dubbed as Basic Education Sector
Reform Agenda (BESRA) was launched to sustain and expand the gains of Schools First Initiated through
School-Based Management (SBM). Along with teacher education development, national learning
strategies, quality assurance, monitoring and evaluation, and organizational development, school-based
management was identified as one of the key reform thrusts (KRTs) envisioned to effect improvements at
the school level.

Hence, several enabling policies on school-based management were formulated, including the
establishment of School Governing Council (SGC), conduct of Assessment of Level of Practice, School
Improvement Planning (SIP), and reporting of accomplishments through School Report Cards (SRCs).
These policies were supported by a budget line item in the General Appropriation Act (GAA) for the
installations of school-based management in all public elementary and secondary schools. From these
enabling policies for school-based management models emerged at the field level started the involvement
of stakeholders as varying degrees.

School-Based Management (SBM) is a worldwide education reform strategy that appeared under
various terms – site-based management, site-based decision making, school-based decision making, and
shared decision making. However, even though these terms represent the widespread education reform
agenda, they vary slightly in meaning, particularly to the extent whether authority and responsibility were
devolved to school councils or whether the councils were mandatory or voluntary and advisory or governing
bodies.

Growing appreciation for school-based management as the vehicle to institute reforms at the ground
level is evidenced by the increase in number of schools with School Improvement Planning, those receiving
grants and MOOE on time, and those that conducted school-based management assessment, systematic
issues were noted in the operationalization of policies and guidelines at the field level and their
understanding of how to make school-based management work in terms of improving governance practice
and achieving organizational effectiveness. Thus, for most of the implementers, school-based management
practice have not changed, and this was seen as just another requirement by the central office which needed
to comply with. The review mission reported of development partners cited that in schools visited, there is
a very high level of community involvement and ownership of stakeholders in the schools implementing
school-based management as evidenced by their awareness of school concerns and in their contribution
towards addressing them.

However, this was also noted that there were difficulties in the operationalization of policies and
guidelines a school level and an understanding of how to make school-based management work in terms of
improving governance practice and achieving the organizational effectiveness of the schools. Various facts
from the data showed specific evidence on the – can’t read p. 19

management practice which looked into the transparency of the collective and judicious mobilization of
resources which is evidence of effectiveness and efficiency (SBM DO no. 083 series of 2012).

On School Improvement Planning. The greatest accountability of school heads is to improve

learning outcomes in their schools. Rule VI, section 6.2 of Republic Act 9155 stated that school heads have
to be accountable for higher learning outcomes by setting the mission, vision, goals, and objectives of the
school; creating an environment that is caring and welcoming for all students, and where teaching and
learning by means of implementing and monitoring of curriculum at the same time offering educational
programs and services that would benefit all students which covers the total overall functions of the school
heads as operational leader (Department of Education Order No. 83, s 2012).

One of the major tasks of the school heads is to develop the School Improvement Plan (SIP). In the
School Improvement Plan Manual in 2009, this depicted that School Improvement Plan helped accelerate
the school-based management implementation. Thus, series of capability-building programs on School
Improvement Plan formulation were conducted accordingly, to equip school head with knowledge and
skills in the preparation of data-driven School Improvement Plan. Subsequently, pieces of training on
Appraisal and Monitoring of Evaluation (M&E) were conducted to strengthen the capability of the Division
Quality Management Team (DQMT), who were tasked to appraise the quality of viability of School
Management Plans.

However, for certain schools, unrealistic targets and appropriate strategies were seen in the School
Improvement Plan templates, which was usually construed as a one-sized all form overlooking the unique
condition of their schools, the pupils/students they were providing with good learning environments, and
the peculiar issues were confronting. As expected the result of School Improvement Plans (SIPs) and
Annual Improvement Plans (AIPs) must be contained in the school report card to be reported to all the
parents, teachers, and local government officials. The format of the school report cards included the
objectives of the annual improvement plan, the specific projects for the year, the achievement of students
based on division and national examinations, number of enrollees per grade level, the cohort, and survival
data of students. The idea was to keep the parents informed of what was going on in the school and get
them involved to make the school a better learning place. In the case of special education program, parents
must be secured with the listing of teachers appropriates training and mastery skills in teaching students
with special needs.

This is evident in the study of Sandoval’s (2001) on the reasons why parents pulled out their
children from schools cited lack of future progress of their child in schools, in addition to the teachers being
poorly trained to teach students with special needs. In the context of public school reformed through school
based management, decentralization and delegation of authority occurred at the school level, which
empowered the school community to perform most of the functions performed earlier by the center, region
or the district and to take responsibility and be accountable for those particular functions (McKenzie, 2000).
This is believed that the teachers, school administrators, parents and local community who were the closest
to the children, were the best placed, to determine the strategies that meet the needs of their particular
students. For these reasons, the concept of community participation and partnership in school based
management became a major theme in school reforms of several education systems.

For many years now, the Department of Education has been embarking on adapting and practicing
school policy changes to bring about improvement in the continuously deteriorating or ailing public
educational system here in the Philippines. Much has been tried and tested, others posed promising results,
some got lost in a flip of a finger; and still, some remained serving their purpose due to their sustainability.
Many believed that system transformation has to be affected should the country want to be on par with the
rest of the world. Some others suggested formulas that may alter the management conditions, making
everyone accountable for both the success and failure of schools. Thus, Department of Education has
introduced School-Based Management since 2009 as an answer to some long-standing problems in
education. However, what is School-Based Management and what value does this bring to the fold of
education?

Vigoda (2009) averred that school-based management is intended to enable schools to respond to
local needs, this could vary greatly from school to school in three fundamental characteristics: the authority
that has been delegated, resources (inputs) devoted to the implementation of School-Based Management,
and the stated objectives in introducing School-Based Management. Lam (2006) stipulated that schools be
expected to decide for themselves in the priority of introducing various policies, making flexible use of
existing resources to formulate their policies and measures based on a whole-school approach. That would
make the practice of school-based management more decentralized.

According to Mc Inerney (2003), an advocate of school-based management, school-based

management is a mean for greater freedom and authority to principals to exercise their leadership in a way
which was more attuned and more responsive to the educational needs of the communities, to manage day-
to-day affairs of the school free from bureaucratic intrusions at head office, and to make decisions in
conjunction with the community about how best to allocate resources at the local level.

In the study conducted by Gutierrez (2014) about the school-based management practices of public
elementary schools in the third congressional district of Pangasinan, he described the current status in terms
of the extent of school-based management practices of the public elementary schools along with the
following areas of implementation as perceived by both the school heads and teachers on school leadership,
internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, school improvement process, school-based resources, and
school performance accountability, the differences between the perceptions of the elementary school
teachers and school heads in the implementation of the school-based management practices as well as the
problems encountered in the implementation of the school-based management practices to be able to come
up with an action plan that could be proposed to enhance school-based management practices.

The main goal of the study was to determine in general the extent of implementation of school-
based management practices of public elementary schools in the third Congressional District of Division
of Pangasinan. The research locale of the study was chosen since it was considered by the researcher as the
biggest in terms of population and size among the districts of Pangasinan. Therefore, a great number of
pupils and teachers in the said district benefited. The study made use of the purposive sampling technique
and utilizing this technique the criteria created for the study would be composed of the participants who
were permanent teachers with at least five (5) years and above teaching experiences. The survey
questionnaire was administered to the most of the senior teachers as the grade leaders and master teachers.

The findings of the study revealed that the principals lack the implementation of the school-based
management practices on school leadership, internal stakeholders, external stakeholders and school
improvement process, school-based resources, and school performance accountability. Concerning the
perceptions between the elementary school teachers and school heads in the implementation of the school-
based management practices were significantly different. Teachers have high expectations on their school
heads. For the problems encountered in the implementation of the school-based management practices were
seen to be moderately serious, and the failure of the school heads in the implementation of the school-based
management practices along school leadership, internal stakeholders, external stakeholders, school
improvement process, school-based resources, and school performance accountability cause the seriousness
of the problems. The perceptions of the elementary school teachers and school heads on the problems
encountered in the implementation of the school-based management practices were significantly different.

The researcher recommended that the school heads should be aware and conscious of their roles
and responsibilities as leaders in the academe by reviewing and constantly evaluating the leadership
practices, likewise, the school heads should organize the external stakeholders to introduce and co-
implement programs supporting the school-wide improvement process and inform, consult and organize to
implement School Improvement Plans and Annual Improvement Plans towards achieving exemplary
performance and institutionalized benchmarking and continuous improvement process with transparency
and accountability, these might also require the school heads to set their clear agenda for accountability.

In so doing, they must take the lead in setting clear goals, establishing plans to achieve those goals,
using data to monitor progress regularly, and adjusting plans accordingly in a cycle of continuous
improvement, and the researcher gave impetus of the appropriateness of adopting the proposed action plan
by the school heads, and this must be implemented with the proper approval of the higher authorities for
better school-based management practices in the third Congressional District in Pangasinan I.

On Effective School Based Management and School Operational Leadership. Many

researchers reported the impacts of school-based management policies and programs on school leadership
(Huber, 2004). From this same perspective, Gamage (2003) asserted -- pg. 25 atm :>