Program Implementation Review 2006 AWP
DIVISION OF BUKIDNON


Section A: How all Sub Project Outputs worked towards the Project Outcome(s)

1. What were the most significant progresses achieved by each of the Sub-projects which contributed to the 2006 Project Outcome?


Sub-project 1 : Capacity building to enhance effectiveness in ensuring quality
education for all.

The activities under the 2006 AWP of the Division of Bukidnon increased the % of teachers trained on CFSS/STS - 3904 out of 4,531 (72%) teachers from 3,195 out of 4,531 (70%) and 253 out of 253 (100%) elementary school heads and 2 out of 45 (4%) of the Secondary School Heads were trained on CFSS/STS. These school heads also improved their supervisory skills after undergoing a series of in-service trainings on supervision, mentoring , SBM and NCBTS . These trainings were focused on aligning all activities in the school to meet the targets set under EFA. The 2006 activities under sub-project 1 were designed to encapsulate all programs and projects as contributory activities in accomplishing the EFA targets by 2015. Hence , the School Improvement Plan (SIP) of the school heads were focused on accomplishing targets in the Performance Indicators such as NER, CSR, and Achievement. Their Instructional Supervisory Plan (ISP) outlined a 3 - teacher per week instructional supervision or a frequency of 12 teachers per month. This frequency would translate into 3,036 (67%) of the teachers observed and supervised in a month in the Division.
Understanding the role of CFSS/STS as an approach in accomplishing EFA targets that includes SBM, NCBTS, SFI, SGC is considered a major impact in accomplishing project outcome which consequently would contribute in the accomplishment of the strategic results outlined in the Log frame of the Basic Education for All Program.
Below is a graphical representation of the Performance Indicator (NER & CSR) of the Division in the last 3 years.



The targeted NER in the 2007 AWP is 87 but the actual accomplishment of the Division is only 73.14. which is 14% shy from the target. This is considered one of the constraints that hampered the accomplishment of the expected outcome under this project.
The NER of Bukidnon decreased over a period of three years mainly because of the peace and order situation in the Province. There are areas in the Province where sporadic conflicts occurred causing some schools to close. It should also be noted that Bukidnon has several agricultural industries and workers constantly move from one place to another looking for work. This seasonal movement of workers also affects the NER of the Division because parents usually brought with them their children as they move from one place to another.






However, although the net enrolment rate is sliding downward, the cohort survival rate seems to increase as shown in the graph. This explains that pupils tend to remain in the school once they get enrolled. Although the NER indicates that lesser pupils are enrolling, those who choose to enroll stayed in the school. This is a good indicator of an improved holding power of the schools. This indicator contributed to the outlined outcome of this sub-project to encourage the children to stay in schools.
Although the CSR slightly increased from the baseline of 50.74 to 54.65, it is still points away shy from the targeted CSR in the AWP 2007 which is pegged at 72%.

As in the case of NER, the targeted performance in CSR is maybe too high, hence unrealistic.

One lesson learned from this constraints is that targets should be set realistically based on existing data. Perhaps in setting targets a good number of data are needed and trends or patterns should be established in order to set a realistic or moderate targets.

Sub-Project 2: Service delivery to meet basic needs of schoolchildren and teachers.

Under Sub-project 2, 40 primary schools and 4 secondary schools were provided with investment packages. This would benefit 24,407 students who were given an opportunity to use the 100-book library and science equipments. 3 primary schools availed of the WASH Project and 1 primary school is in the initial stage of implementing one mode of ADM called e-IMPACT School.
One of the major impact of this sub-project in the attainment of the project outcome is on achievement.

The chart below shows the level of achievement of the Division in the last five (5) years.




The achievement level of the Division is below the targeted 75% level but its trend is increasing over the five-year period. Although the rate of increase is sliding downward its average rate of increase if sustained (logarithmic projection) provides a good chance of hitting the target set by the strategic result by the year 2009 which is 65% mastery level.

Placed side by side, it would literally indicates that if there are lesser pupils in schools these children will basically stay in schools and there is a great tendency for these children to achieve higher in performance tests. Perhaps in theory, but based on the three year period performance of the Division in the three indicators these assumptions seemed to emerge.


Sub-Project 3: Empowerment to enhance participation of children and communities.

In the Division of Bukidnon as well as in all other Divisions in the country, organization of SBOs are institutionalized. This is also true to the PTCAs and LSBs. LSBs and PTCAs played a great role in providing support to the schools in terms of funds augmentation and other activities such as feeding programs, and most specifically on infrastructure support. It should be noted that LSBs and PTCAs are very active in the schools. In fact before CFSS, PTCAs and LSBs are very much involved in its role as partners of education. One major impact of the LSBs and PTCAs support to education in the Division is the establishment of 2 Library Hubs in the Division. These Library Hubs can not be established without infrastructure support. These were provided by the LSBs, LGUs and PTCAs in 2 schools of the Division.

One constraint encountered under this sub-project is the non-implementation of most of the activities outlined in the AWP because of fund release. However, the Division in partnership with other implementing agencies in the Province such as the LPID of the DILG, DSWD, and Communication under PIA, the Division were able to advocate Children’s Rights to 50 student leaders during the Annual Children’s Congress. This activity allowed students to understand their rights and its accompanying responsibilities. In fact as an output, the student leaders were able to craft a resolution on how these rights will be applied in the schools, community and government agencies. The resolution will be submitted to the Sangguniang Panlalawigan for possible adoption.

This is one of the best practices that the Division can be proud of in terms of cross cutting and synergy actions.

Sub-project 4: Monitoring and evaluation at school level to track children's progress.

Activities under this sub-project are not still implemented. Hence no data are available. However funds for this purpose are already released but it has still to be implemented before the end of the year. However, during MANCOM Meetings and other in-service trainings con ducted to all school heads, the Self assessment checklist were given to the school heads. Although the result for this year’s assessment are not yet available , the Division were able to assessed 100% of the schools in the Division.

This is also one of the best practices of the Division : integration and institutionalization of CFSS activities to the regular activities of the Division.


2. What were the lost opportunities or major shortcomings that were encountered in ALL Sub Projects that have been constraints to achieving the 2006 Project Outcome(s)?


One major shortcomings is the non-implementation of the e-IMPACT ADM in one pilot school in the Division. This was due to the late implementation of the capacity building training on instructional delivery and non-provision of the needed support instructional modules. This is one constraint affecting the performance under this project.

Institutionalization of STS is very difficult because the tracking system requires a lot of paper work. Reproduction of the forms alone can become a great burden for the teachers. LSBs and PTCAs do not prioritize this program because they focus more on the infrastructure support and other activities in the school. Hence expenses incurred for the reproduction of the forms alone make it not so popular with the teachers inn addition to a lot of recording that adds up to their heavy load. Funds for the reproduction of the STS forms are not sufficient for all the teachers and are not released immediately. However funds for the reproduction of the STS forms were just recently released hence it was not still implemented. This will be implemented in the last quarter.
The visible constraint of this activity is the reproduction of STS Forms which proved to be too taxing to the teachers and also its recording, the paper work.


2. With reference to Question 2, what impact have these lost opportunities/shortcomings had on the ability to implement the Sub Project/Project in the future?

For the ADM it was not implemented this school year although its target date of operation is on June of 2006. The late capacity building and non-provision of modules left the teachers unable to operate under the ADM Mode.

No sufficient data can be gathered on the impact of STS. Although schools tried their best to come up with data out of the STS forms , however no analysis were done.

Section B: How all Project Outcomes worked towards the Program Strategic Result
1. To what extent did all of the projects contribute to the achievement of the Strategic Result of the program?

Sub-project 1 provided enhanced skills of school heads ,and supervisors on mentoring, school based management and networking which has an impact on the performance of the schools relative to the strategic results on performance. Although there was a decrease of the NER of the schools, interventions for the improvement of this indicator were included and prioritized by the school heads in their School Improvement Plan. (SIP)

Sub-project 2 provided a learning environment where children were given opportunities to enhance their skills and as such contributed to the targeted 65% mastery level of the students. A projected trend on the achievement level of the Division it indicates that it will hit the target in 2009 as provided for in the strategic result. A separate report will be provided in later dates of the feedback of teachers and students on the provision of 100-book library and science equipments given to them.

Sub-project 3 provides for an enhanced understanding on the role of students , parents and the community the quality of education provided in the public schools. Although no data are available of the major contributions of this support environment have on the schools, result of the performance indicators would show that their support have also affected the performance of the Division in terms of NER, CSR and Achievement Rate. Organization of School Governing Councils in the schools and initial actions on the Schools First Initiative are very evident on the SIPs of the school heads. There are indicators that the school heads are now including student leaders , parents and the community in crafting the SIP’s.

Sub-project 4 contributes to the impact of the strategic result by providing feedback to the school heads and teachers on the level of implementation of CFSS and provided them with a framework with which their ISPs and ISPs were anchored. Again, the weaknesses and strengths of the schools in the assessment checklist are analyzed and activities are provided for in their SIP to improve some poor indicators in the checklist.

One of the best practices that the Division is proud of is the action done by key officials because of the result of the M and E. In last year’s result it was found out that in goal No. 2 teachers claimed that the schools did not take care of their general health. Because the percentage of responses was very high, the Superintendent explored the possibility of having medical examination of teachers ( the regular x-ray examination) to be funded by the Provincial School Board. This year teachers enjoyed a free x-ray examination .

Meeting the Master

Ms. Lala Castillo, formerly the Principal of St. Scholastica Grade School, considered by me as the Master of Interdisciplinary Approach in Teaching, with her module on Drama in Education.

Ms. Castillo now heads the Philippine School for the Arts at Mt. Makiling. It was a great honor and privilege for me to finally meet her at a training in Manila. I was an avid reader of her articles published regularly by the Philippine Journal of Education (PJE) when I was a classroom teacher way back in the 1990's. Her module on Drama in Education helped me in understanding integration and thematic teaching.

Her curriculum innovation in her former school are the best models for the public schools. To understand better of her work as a Principal and as an Instructional leader, one has to dig into past issues of the PJE and look for the her articles "Innovations in the Classroom" My favorite though is the story about " Missy".

The meeting at the New Horizon Hotel with this brilliant woman was for me a dream come true. Finally, I have meet a real master.

SBM Assessment Instrument

The intent of this questionnaire is to be able determine the status of school’s SBM practices based on standards prescribed by the “Framework and Standards for Effective School-Based Management Practice towards Improved Learning Outcomes” of DepED. The inventory is to establish if the required/critical structures, processes, and skills are in place to move SBM in the school.

The use of the results is to provide data either on the progress of the school towards the next level of SBM practices or a baseline for those who are just starting the culture. The awareness of the current status of the school should be a sound basis to establish a plan of action to address certain gaps or challenges.
On an organizational scale, the results will be able to inform the appropriate DepED levels on the type, manner and depth of technical assistance to provide the school or district.

It should be noted that this checklist is NOT an evaluation of the school head or of the school.

The ultimate objective of the inventory of SBM practices is to inform school leaders’ decisions on continuous improvement of the basic education delivery systems and strategies.

“We have to be able to conclude that schools are providing what is expected, responding appropriately to what the client needs and the programs are providing what is needed.”



STRUCTURE OF THE CHECKLIST

This checklist contains questions regarding the six (6) dimensions of SBM Practices. Each SBM dimension is to be answered by a different group of school stakeholder. Thus, the responses are to be considered as a group answer through consensus. The table below provides the list of SBM dimension, the intended respondents for each dimension and the number of questions to be answered per dimension.



For each question, related indicators are written below it. Indicators are means of verification (e.g. documents) to say that each practice had been achieved. This means before answering a question, all indicators should be answered first.Please complete basic SCHOOL INFORMATION requested below.


GENERAL DIRECTIONs:

Note for the School head:
 Orient each group of respondents regarding the purpose and structure of the checklist
 Distribute the appropriate pages to each of the respondent group.


1. For each Question,
1.1. Read the indicators listed below each question
1.2. Please put a  check in the box corresponding to the indicator that is
present / currently seen in the school.
1.3. Count the number of checks you made under each question
1.4. Encircle the markings (inside the box) written after the main question based on the following instructions:



2. For the “Summary of Answers” page,
2.1. List under Column 2 the final responses per question
2.2. Count the number of checks / bars/ X’s for each dimension. Write these under Column 3a
2.3. Multiply the frequency count by the corresponding number listed beside Column 3a. Write the product under Column 3b.
2.4. Add the products per dimension and write the sub-total under Column 4a.
2.5. Get the percentage of the sub-total by dividing the sub-total by the number indicated beside the subtotal (Column 4a) and then multiply it by 100. Write the percentage under Column 4b.

2.6. Write the Interpretation of the percentage following the description below:


Counter Signature:
District supervisor:
Printed name:
Date:


SUMMARY OF ANSWERS:

SBM Dimension 1: SCHOOL LEADERSHIP

School Head:








PURPOSE:

SBM Dimension 2: INTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS

Internal Stakeholders




Teachers Staff Development Plans

SBM Dimension 3: EXTERNAL STAKEHOLDERS
External Stakeholders

TYPES TITLE or DESCRIPTION of the PROJECT OR INITIATIVE REMARKS
Classroom-based initiatives

Grade/year level initiatives

School wide initiatives

SBM Dimension 4: SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PROCESS









SBM Dimension 5: SCHOOL-BASED RESOURCES

School Based Management Assessment

Assessment of SBM Practice
Standard Level-Model Assessment
Source: BESRA Orientation Handout
August 22-25, 2007- Grand Regal Hotel
Lanang, Davao City





General Purpose:

There are four reasons why we have to monitor and assess SBM practices and the required support systems of school-based management (SBM) at different levels of the department:

1st. The need to continually improve the basic education delivery systems and strategies at the school level. (status and progress of SBM practice)
We have to be able to conclude that the schools are providing what is expected, responding appropriately to what the client needs and the programs are providing what is needed.

2nd. The need to continually improve the required SBM support systems and interventions (status and progress of SBM support programs & initiatives)
The assessment should be able to provide sufficient information as basis for determining areas for and process of interventions at the division and region level (SBM support level), and national level (policy and system support level).

3rd. To determine the effectiveness of school-based management practices and its support systems in the delivery of basic education services (school performance).
We should be able to conclude that SBM practices, with the supporting systems creates efficiency in the delivery of basic education services and are achieving the education/learning outcomes.

4th. To establish the results of investments applied to the implementation of and support SBM.
We have to be able to conclude if the efforts and investments applied to the implementation of and support to SBM merits replication/sustaining.


Assessment Framework

The articulated reasons for assessing SBM practices at the implementation and support levels, implies an assessment framework that includes the following elements:

Levels:
1. INPUT. The main objective of assessment at this level is to establish if the required/critical structures, processes, and skills are in place to move SBM forward.

2. PROGRESS. This level deals with information regarding movement of SBM implementers involved towards the continuum of Progressive to Mature Level of practice

3. RESULTS. This level of assessment should inform the institution whether the:
 Objectives of the school-based management (stipulated in the “Framework And Standards For Effective School-Based Management Practice Towards Improved Learning Outcomes”) had been achieved, these include:
i. Empower the school heads to lead their teachers and students in a continuous school improvement process which will lead to higher learning outcomes;
ii. Bring resources including funds within the control of schools to support the delivery of quality educational services;
iii. Strengthen partnership with the communities and LGUs in order for them to invest time, money, and resources in providing a better school learning environment; and
iv. Institutionalize participatory and knowledge-based continuous school improvement process.

 The impact of the SBM practice ultimately resulted in the attainment of desired education indicators (refer to SMEF / EFA targets).

For each level of assessment, the framework provides details on the evaluation questions related to a specific SBM Dimension of Practice, the information requirements that specifies what or how the question can be answered, the source of information which indicates the where one can possibly get the information required, Methodology for Analysis of the information requirements and the appropriate instrument to gather the data.


Timing and Use in Planning:

In order to be true to the developmental objectives of the assessment identified above, the assessment has to be administered vis-à-vis the development plan of the Division and Region related to the provision of technical assistance / management support initiatives (e.g. BESRA implementation and support initiatives).

Thus, the table below illustrates the synergy between the assessment and technical assistance (TA) actions:

Levels of Assessment Information Generated Suggested Timing of Assessment Suggested Use of Information in
Planning the TA
INPUT Status of schools in the Standard Level of Practice and the readiness to proceed in the Progressive Level.
Scan level analysis:
 Average progress of practice across the six (6) SBM Dimensions (Level 1)
 Number of schools achieving SBM Standard Practice (as a package).
 Status of Progress in Each SBM Dimension (Level 1).
Focus level analysis:
 Progress of schools each indicator per dimension
 Areas of strength and improvement per indicator
 Description of support requirement as articulated by the school (via the FGD). As baseline: Prior to planning of TA support

Ideally, administration of assessment should be done prior to the start of 3-yr. SIP implementation

Re-administration mid-way of the program support plan.  Baseline
 Identify the areas/systems that a school needs to establish to put SBM in full swing
 Extent of support required per dimension / per indicator
 Identify the area of and nature of support or technical assistance to provide (e.g. standards, guidelines, regional policies, descriptions/ criteria, financial and human resource requirements,
 Identify the strategy in the provision of TA (e.g. direct training, general IEC, peer / supervisor coaching)
 Identify sources of learning (schools) to serve as either models of practice or peer-coaching program.
PROGRESS Status of the schools in the “Progressive to Mature Level” continuum:
 Number of schools in achieving SBM Level 2 and 3
 Progress of school per SBM Dimension
 Progress of schools in each indicator per dimension
 Correlation of SBM Practice to annual results of the school. It is highly recommended that a check on progress is synchronized with the annual review of the Annual Improvement Plan (AIP) of the school and prior to the planning of the next AIP.

In some cases, the division/district/ cluster may opt to have a mid-year assessment depending on the discretion of the division management.  Status of progress can serve as one of the basis to determine management strategies and programs to implement the next AIP of the school.
 Identifies the strengths of schools which can input to the menu of resources/expertise available as models and/or coach
 Input to the monitoring of school management and annual supervisory plan/s of the division/region.
 Establish the extent and depth of TA to be provided to the school
 The areas for improvement can inform the in-service training of school heads, stakeholders and division and region management.
RESULTS  Aggregate results of progress
 Trend of progress vis-à-vis achievement of desired results
At the end of the implementation of the SIP (3-years)
Milestones of EFA indicators  Identify “Best Practices”
 Re-program / re-strategize / re-configure the framework and standards for effective SBM Practice, including regional policies and guidelines in the implementation of SBM
 Planning for “adoption” of models / programs from identified best practices.


Instrument for Data Gathering

The main tool to establish the information for the Input Level is a “readiness” checklist. This contains 28 questions regarding the six (6) dimensions of SBM Practices at Standard Level (Level 1) which were taken from the “Matrix of SBM Dimensions by Scale of Practice” of the “Framework and Standards for Effective School-Based Management Practice Towards Improved Learning Outcomes”. The questions were formed by synthesizing the practices in the matrix to 28 behavior statements and converting each into question form. Basically, each question asks if the school manifests a specific (required) SBM Standard Practice or not. Thus, each question has a list of indicators (characteristics of the practice) that must first be evident to say the SBM practice is in place. The checklist further qualifies the practice into 3 categories: a) Starting , if 59% of the indicators had been met); b) In-progress, if 60-79% of the indicators are achieved; and c) Practicing, if 80-100% of the indicators are all evident in the school.

Each SBM dimension is to be answered by a group of school stakeholders relevant to the dimension. Thus, the responses are considered as a group answer through consensus. The table below provides the list of SBM dimensions, the intended respondents for each dimension and the number of questions per dimension.

SBM Dimension Respondents Number of questions
SBM 1. School Leadership 1. School head
2. Assistant school head and/or head teacher/s 4 questions
SBM 2. Internal Stakeholders 1. Parent association representative
2. Teacher association chair
3. Head of student council 4 questions
SBM 3. External Stakeholders 1. Parent association representative
2. LGU/Barangay chair / representative
3. Chair of any other active groups involved in the school (e.g. NGOs, alumni association 4 questions
SBM 4. School Improvement Process 1. School head
2. Parent association representative
3. Teacher association chair
4. Head of student council 5 questions
SBM 5. School-Based Resources 1. School head
2. School budget officer
3. PTCA chair
4. LGU/Barangay chair / representative 7 questions
SBM 6. School Performance Accountability Same as SBM 4 and the LGU/Barangay chair / representative 4 questions

The checklist is also complimented by a focused group discussion (FGD) session to establish information regarding the articulated needs / support the school needs to achieve the indicators that had been marked as “Starting” and “In-progress”. The facilitator of the FGD session has to be very keen in clarifying whatever had been raised as issue and patient in probing the support requirements of the school.

Data Gathering

The administration of the checklist requires three meetings:
1st. School head’s orientation on the intent/objectives, structure and instructions of the checklist. The terminologies in the checklist as well as use of results should also be discussed very well with the school heads to ensure they are clear with the value of the exercise. An administrator of the checklist is required for this meeting. A district supervisor or cluster head can perform this function. (Time frame: 3 hours)
2nd. Dissemination of the sections of the checklist relevant to a group of stakeholders. This responsibility is performed by the school head. He/she needs to call for the various respondent-groups to explain the intent/objectives, structure, terminologies and instructions in the checklist. (Time frame: 3 hours for discussion and a day for respondents to respond, including checking for the documents)
3rd. Summarizing results per school, tallying of district/cluster results and FGD. The Administrator meets the school heads to help them summarize the results per school (summary form is provided with the checklist). Next, a tally board (prepared earlier) is to be filled up based on the results of the schools to derive the profile of the district/cluster. The FGD is then held, focusing on areas of improvement. The intent of having a district/cluster profile is to immediately generate a basis for planning technical assistance to the district/cluster of schools. (Time Frame: 3 hours)


Method of Processing and Analysis of Data

The process of assessment done was partly guided by the “Lines of Enquiry ” frame. This frame suggests that in understanding / monitoring specific areas of concern begin from a “scan” of both outcomes and provision of support (“getting the big picture”) and combining these findings, move to a more “focus” enquiry to probe and understand the areas of concern.

Following this line of thought, the processing and analysis of the data on the Assessment of SBM Practices followed the steps below:
1. Calculate the progress of all schools across the six SBM dimensions (Level 1 Practice)
2. Quantify the progress of all schools under each SBM dimension (Level 1 Practice) to narrow down the inquiry to a specific dimension. This provides a “big” picture of the status of school SBM practice (Level 1) where one can note the areas of progress and challenges.
3. Establish the degree of progress under each indicator of SBM Dimension (Level 1). This will give focused information on a specific SBM dimension of interest (e.g. an indicator to provide improve or area of technical assistance).
4. The results of the focused group discussion on a dimension of interest is then retrieved for correlation to the quantitative information to further give an idea of the specifics of technical assistance or resource requirement required to support the school/.s

Cycle of Action Research

The diagram below shows a typical cycle of an action research. It is called a PDSA Model. This is taken from the website of Broward County Public Schools Web site on Human Resource Development. For teachers and school heads who are contemplating on doing an action research, the cycle would help them set the pace in the initial steps in conducting action research.



Plan
Determine the need for process improvement
Define the process improvement
Write the plan for process improvement

Do
Implement the process improvement

Study
Study process improvement

Act
Revise the plan for improvement





Plan-Do-Study-Act (PDSA Model)

- IN-DEPTH
In each phase of the PDSA model, questions you should ask….
Plan
Plan, step 1:
• What are we improving and why?
• What is the current and past level of performance?
Plan, step 2:
• What is the current process and is it flow-chartable?
• Which parts of the process are successful, which parts are not working? Why aren’t they working?
• What critical changes will result in improvement and why do we think so? Then, how will we know if the changes worked?
Plan, step 3:
• What strategies will help us improve and why do we think these strategies will work?
• What resources do we have, do we need?
• What is our timeline? When should we study our interim results and revise the plan?
Do
• How will the improvement process be communicated?
• How will we gain support and build teams?
• How will the improvement process be communicated and made visible to all?
• How will the data be collected and by whom?
Study
• What are the results and how do they compare to past results?
• Did we improve? What worked? What didn’t work? Why not?
• How will we address lack of improvement?
Act
• Based on our Study (above), what changes should be included?
• Who else will benefit from this knowledge?
Go to PLAN, step 1

ERF REQUIREMENTS

For those who would like to be upgraded from Teacher I to II to III the following requiremtns are needed for approval of the Equivalent Record Form (ERF).

I. Forms

1. 5 copies of duly accomplished ERF Forms
2. 3 copies of duly accomplihed Form 212 with I.D. pictures
3. Latest updated service record.
4. Performance Rating duly signed by ASDS for two (2) rating periods.
5. Special Order (S.O.) for those who graduated from the private schools.
6. Transcript of Records
7. Latest Appointment
8. P.R.C. License
9. Certificate of Recognition

II. Qualification for Teacher II

1. At least one (1) year of relevant experience
2. BAchelor's degree for teachers plus graduate units or 20 years length of service
a. BSE + 20 MA Units = BSE + 20 years
b. BSE + 20 years = BSE + 20
c. BSE + 18 MA Units + 6 years = BSE + 20
d. BSE + 15 MA Units + 8 years = BSE + 20

BSE + 20 credit allowance (length of service)/3= MA Units


III. Qualification for Teacher III

1. Master's degree in education/42 units in MA = MA Degree or MA equivalent
a. All holders of masteral degree are classified as MA Degree

2. For MA Equivalent

a. BSE + 20 MA Units + 20 years = MA equivalent
b. BSE + 20 years + 18 MA Units +Level IV = MA equivalent
c. BSE + 42 MA Units = MA equivqlent

The Problem : Action Research

Teachers and School Principals often talk about many, many problems about their students and the school. But as observed during training when asked to identify specific problems ...they stammered...and asked " What is my problem?"

The dilemma of most teachers and school heads in identifying problems lies in the fact that they are inclined to always look outside of their practice. They always tried to blame the parents, the students , the class size, the economic status of the parents, the nutritional status of the students. That is why when asked why their students got low scores in the national achievement test, the responses are common - students are hungry, room is over sized, illiterate parents, poor study habits, non-reader students, etc.

Nobody ever asked: "What kind of teacher/school head am I? ". " Why are my students failing in the test?" What have I done?"

A detailed guide in formulating actionable questions is presented below quoted from Action Research in Education by Dr Stephen Waters-Adams
© S Waters-Adams, Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth, 2006


Some key questions:
Barrett and Whitehead (1985) ask six questions which should help you start your inquiry:
1. What is your concern?
2. Why are you concerned?
3. What do you think you could do about it?
4. What kind of evidence could you collect to help you make some judgement about what is happening?
5. How would you collect such evidence?
6. How would you check that your judgement about what has happened is reasonable, fair and accurate?

What can I investigate through action research?

Action research can be used to investigate practical, everyday issues:
• ‘Action research investigates everyday problems experienced by teachers’ (Elliott, 1981).
• ‘All you need is a general idea that something might be improved’ (Kemmis and McTaggart , 1982).
• ‘I experience a problem when some of my educational values are negated in my practice’ (Whitehead 1985).

Starting points might be of the following kinds:
1. I want to get better at my science teaching…
2. I’m not sure why my students don’t engage in discussion…
3. I have to implement the speaking and listening guidelines, but I’m not sure what is the best way…
4. How can we make staff meetings more productive?….
5. I’ve seen something working well in school X; I wonder if it would work for me?…
6. Is there anything we can do about our poor take-up of A level mathematics?…
7. How can I promote more use of computers in the Humanities?…
8. I wonder if I’m too focused on recording with my six year olds?…

It is important to choose an area that you can do something about. Some questions are not amenable to action research:
• Is there any relationship between single-parent families and attendance?
• Are tall children better at pole-vaulting?
• Does ethnicity affect performance in SATs?

Remember that it is the ‘strategic action’ (Kemmis and McTaggart 1982) that you can employ to try to solve the problem that will give you the insights into the factors affecting your practice.
• Jot down some preliminary ideas regarding possibilities for an action research project relating to your own practice.
• Highlight those which might be the most feasible.

2 Focusing on a topic

Golden rules for selecting a topic
• Keep it manageable – keep the focus small scale.
• It should be interesting to you – you may need some perseverance to see the inquiry through!
• It should be workable – you are not stumped for ideas, but can identify ways in which you might have a go at addressing your question.
• It is not too disruptive of normal routines. (Important here to think not just of your own, but others’ that your actions might affect).
Reconnaissance
Once you have mapped out the general area of concern, you will need to focus specifically on something you can do something about. There may be many potential starting points within your inquiry; in a way, it doesn’t matter where you start, as long as you consider that the action may be beneficial. In order to get to this point, however, you may need to spend sometime looking at your practice in a little detail, noting the various aspects which might be changed. This period of focusing is known as ‘reconnaissance’.

Writing

During this time, you may also employ other strategies to help you refine your focus. Winter (1989) suggests a range of writing strategies that may help you:
• brainstorming ideas – looking for patterns, recurring ideas;
• keeping an interest log/diary;
• writing a letter about your concern to someone (no need to post it!);
• writing a story about the situation – stories are a reflexive statement, in which you may express ambiguities and contradictions (they will need analysing – this is best done in the presence of a critical friend – see below).

Whichever method you employ, writing is frequently the most powerful way for helping you make sense of a situation. It allows you to work through ideas and explore possibilities and ‘maybes’.
Remember, the point of all of this is to help you clarify the issue and decide what your first change in action is going to be.

• Practise Winter's technique. Write a letter to someone (real or imaginary) about a specific issue. Analyse your writing for patterns in the way you express the issue, ambiguities in what you say or concerns that you raise. Make a separate note of these.
• Do they help you to focus your thinking?

A critical friend

It helps to talk over the issue with a ‘critical friend’: someone who can help you focus without giving you answers of his / her own. If someone agrees to act as your critical friend, it is worth spending a little time at the beginning of the relationship to work out how you will work together. Being a critical friend is a commitment and a responsibility; it is not an excuse for a colleague to give you their ‘fourpenn’orth’. Some key rules for the critical friend which might prove helpful:
• Try only to pose questions; don’t give accounts of similar experiences.
• Don’t make critical remarks that will put pressure on your colleague to defend him/herself. The critical element in critical friendship should lie in the action researcher, not you!
• Don’t offer your own solutions to the problem. It is for the researcher to work these out for him/herself.
• Ask for concrete experiences and examples to help illustrate a problem.
• Ask for reasons and motives for actions.
• Widen the discussion by asking if other possible factors not analysed yet might be of influence.
(after Ainscow and Conner, 1990)

Action Research Model: An Exercise

In the trainings I conducted about action research , I used a model for the participants to get the feel of how an action research is conducted. The process involved studying a model of an action research by Sherri Blose. the participants were then asked to trace the process done by the researcher. The exercise involved identifying the activity that would fit into the cycle of action research presented in a brief lecture . The cycle looks like the schema below:



As an exercise, read the model of an action research below, and using the diagram above trace the process done by the researcher in the conduct of her action research. Doing the exercise will lead you to some learnings about how to conduct an action research.

Sample action research by Sherri Blose


This action research project investigated the issue of language creativity. Language creativity, or the ability to combine and recombine learned material in novel ways, is an important goal of foreign education because it is a hallmark of an intermediate-level speaker as specified by the ACTFL proficiency guidelines . In this study, the teacher wanted to discover whether her French II students attempted to use language creatively or merely parroted memorized utterances she had taught them.

To answer her question, the teacher tape-recorded a conversation between each of her nine students and a native French speaker, then transcribed the conversations for analysis. Her analysis revealed that the conversations consisted of 74 student utterances made up of either memorized utterances that the students routinely used in class or creative utterances that they had never used before. These creative utterances consisted of language already learned but applied in new ways. To insure the reliability of her own ratings, she allowed the class to judge whether the utterances she had analyzed were creative or memorized chunks of language. She found that she and her class agreed 60 out of 74 times, or 80 percent of the time, on whether an utterance was previously memorized or creatively constructed.

She then tried to identify which students used creative utterances during their conversations with the native speaker and was pleased to learn that all nine students used creative utterances , with the high-achieving students using the greatest number of creative utterances and the low-achieving students using the fewest. Although the quantity of the utterances varied across nine students , the interesting finding was that all students used some creative utterances during the conversations.

Finally, she compared the number of creative utterances that students used to the number of memorized chunks of language and found that 60 percent of the time, students were relying on what they had previously learned in class for conversing with the native speaker. The other 40 percent of the time , their utterances were novel combinations of learned material. Another important finding was that when students attempted to be creative with the language , they often made errors. The teacher thus appropriately entitled her project, “ To Err Is to Be Creative”.

In rethinking her practice, the teacher stated that the project made her more aware of when her students were being creative with the language and the importance of documenting and pointing out these creative productions to the class. Additionally, she informed her students that error in language learning is not necessarily bad, but a necessary part of the language learning process. Finally, she decided that her classroom assessment needed to give credit to students who went beyond the comfort of memorized language and made efforts to use the language in new and creative ways to express their personal ideas.

You can email your exercise to guscepe@yahoo.com for my comments about your exercise.

About Action Research

Conducting Action Research is like traveling the road less traveled.


A friend told me once, that when he was being observed by a group of Principals in one of their meetings , he used a motivational strategy that awe them all. He passed around a gift box and asked the students as well as the observers to peep inside the box. Before he passed the box around, he told them that it is the gift of God to them. When the students and the Principals looked inside the box, everyone were surprised and can't seem to hold back the smiles in their faces. When I asked him, what was inside the box, he told me that the box was empty. The box was just layered with a square mirror that fit in the bottom of the box that when you peep inside you can actually see your own face.
Amazing strategy. Amazing realization too, for those who were able to see inside the box. The best gift God has given to us is our lives. Nothing more nothing less. It's the reality.

In action research it is like seeing oneself in a mirror. As an individual, we can not justify our actions and practices. Why? Because in our rational thinking , we believe what we do is right. With no tool to evaluate one own self, one can not actually say he is wrong. It is very hard for one to admit he is wrong.

Action Research is a tool to improve one's practice. It is a process where one has a chance to look inward and reflect on his actions as a practitioner. One can be a teacher, a master teacher, a principal or a supervisor.

According to Dr Stephen Waters-Adams of © S Waters-Adams, Faculty of Education, University of Plymouth, 2006 , if one has concerned about his practice , it may be a doubt of his strategies, or trying out something new one has to sort things out and try to validate things. The process of validating one's own practice through data collection and analysis is actually an action research.

However, one has to be honest, open and rigorous while undergoing the process. My concern about the principals and teachers craving for a training in action research is the motivation behind the thirst. When action research was made as a requirement in promotion to master teachers or principal positions or when it was made part of the criteria in the performance evaluation of school heads and master teachers, everybody were frantic about attending a training in action research.

Action Research for promotion?

Definitely not the right kind of thinking people in education should possess. If it is - then they fail right at the very start.

Teachers ,Master Teachers, Principals or Supervisors, should conduct an action research because 1) they want to improve their practice 2) they want to know if the strategies or techniques they used are effective to the children or teachers 3) to resolve discomfort in their workplace 4) they want to know how to effectively use the new strategy learned recently.

Dr. Stephen Waters-Adams explains it this way:

• understand one’s own practice;
• understand how to make one’s practice better;
• understand how to accommodate outside change in one’s practice;
• understand how to change the outside in order to make one’s practice better.

And this is one practical example of how to cut across the "theory-practice divide" Improving one's practice can actually result to improved result or output. For example teachers can examine their teaching-learning practices and understand ways to improve it to effect higher learning for the students. Principals can also find ways to improve their practices to effect higher performance of their teachers.


Dr. Adams explains how action research works.

research on action
by using

action as a tool for research

with the process being driven by a dialogue between the elements of:

action and the intentions behind action

or

practice and the values behind practice.


Emphasising the individual nature of action research, Jack Whitehead (1985) puts forward a simple representation of how the process feels:

1. I experience a problem when some of my educational values are negated in my practice;
2. I imagine a solution to my problem;
3. I act in the direction of the solution;
4. I evaluate the outcomes of my actions;
5. I modify my problems, ideas and actions in the light of my evaluations.



Put in the context of our school environment one has to consider the following process in the conduct of an action research:

1. Identify an issue
a) in your classroom (for teachers, master teachers)
b) in your school (for principals)

2. Formulate a question out of the issue
This is your research problem

3. Gather data and analyze data

4. Act on evidences/interventions

5. evaluate your result

6. reflect on the result

7. plan ( go through the cycle again)

Conducting action research is very dynamic. You can actually change one problem to another as the need arises. Data is the most important factor that affect your actions in an action research. Your actions must be based on the data you have. Having said that, data must be true, valid and without an iota of manipulation. Informed decisions spring from what is really happening. You can not do actions based on data that is not true or else you should live in a world of fantasy and you your work is not a research anymore but a mediocre work of a frustrated writer.

Finally, always publish findings of your action research. It will help other practitioners.

For more readings about action research follow the links on the side bar of this page.

MOLASIS

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Education
Region X
DIVISION OF BUKIDNON
Malaybalay City


MODELING LANGUGAGE THROUGH SCIENCE IN SCHOOLS
(MOLASIS)

CONCEPT PAPER

Identifying Information

Project Title:

Strengthening the Implementation of Modeling Language through Science in Schools (MOLASIS) in the Public Elementary Schools in the Division of Bukidnon through Partnership.

Site/Coverage

Division of Bukidnon
Bukidnon, Philippines

Project Beneficiaries

167, 830 Elementary Pupils
4,354 Elementary School Teachers
203 Elementary School Heads
41 Supervisors

4. Project Duration

Five (5) Years

5.Project Implementer

Gloria D. Benigno, Ph.D., CESO IV
Schools Division Superintendent
Division of Bukidnon
Sumpong, Malaybalay City

6.Project Partners

Parents-Teachers and Community Association
Local Government Units
Teacher Education Institutions/ Universities



Background of MOLASIS

Performance of pupils in the Division of Bukidnon is low specially in Science. Results of the National Achievement Test indicate that the average percentage score of the elementary school pupils in Science is only 44.32%, a 31% shy from the expected proficiency level of 75%. Accordingly the low performance of pupils are attributed to congested classrooms, lack of teachers, incompetence of teachers, and insufficient in-service trainings.

Language barrier can also be considered as one of the causes of the poor performance of pupils in Science test. It is believed that pupils have low comprehension in the English language resulting to poor performance . This is substantiated by the fact that tests in Science and Math are actually language tests. Pupils may know the content but are poor in reading comprehension and analysis resulting to poor test scores.

The underlying factor for this reading inadequacies of the Filipino children is the fact that the country has multiple ethnic groups. Each ethnic group has its own mother tongue. This fact is being aggravated by the use of bi-lingualism. In the Philippine curriculum only English, Science and Mathematics use English as the medium of instruction. Other subjects use Filipino ( a Tagalog based language) as the medium of instruction. . Tagalog is a regional language used in Metro Manila , the capital of the country, which is also used by the national media both in television and in print. Hence in a typical classroom setting while teachers are teaching English in the three subjects ( English, Science and Math) the children are communicating in their own native tongue. In the Division of Bukidnon alone, children are speaking various mother tongue (e.g. Cebuano, Ilocano, Waray, Ilonggo, and several ethnic dialect of the Indigenous People (IPs).

These multi-cultural differences of children in one classroom makes it difficult for the teachers to teach English as a second language. And because English is the medium used in the subjects English, Science and Math , the students performed very poorly in national as well as international tests.


The situation discussed above is the basis for conducting an intervention program that incorporates two underlying factors that may improve the performance of pupils in Science : 1) Teaching -learning Process in teaching Science through Scientific Inquiry and 2) English Language development in teaching Science - English as a Second Language (ESL). The program is called Modeling Language through Science in Schools ( MOLASIS). This has been tried out in two (2) schools of the Division for two (2) school years with an encouraging result as shown in result #6 below..

Results of the implementation of MOLASIS showed that:

1)teachers are not integrating English language development in their Science classes;
2) teachers do not have the skills in developing English language in Science activities;
3) teachers are not using scientific inquiry process in teaching science;
4) pupils are not exposed to the English language both in schools and in their immediate
environment;
5) teachers are testing the children in the English language although the teaching-learning
processes employed do not maximize the use of the English language.
6) TEACHERS FOUND OUT THAT DEVELOPING THE ENGLISH LANGUAGE WHILE TEACHING SCIENCE IS EFFECTIVE IN DEVELOPING SCIENCE CONCEPTS.

C. Project Objectives

General Objective

In as much as the intervention introduced in the teaching of science by modeling the
English Language there is a need for the Division of Bukidnon to link with Teacher Education Institutions and Universities in strengthening the capacities of teachers and school heads in integrating English as a Second Language in teaching Science through workshops and development of support instructional materials.

Specific Objectives

1. To develop a core of trainors who are skilled in integrating English as a Second Language (ESL) in teaching Science.
2. To enhance teachers’ skills in providing learning opportunities in developing English as a Second Language through Scientific Inquiry Processes.
3. To develop multi-media materials that model the techniques and strategies in integrating English as a Second Language in teaching Science.
4. To visit and observe implementation of ESL in institutions of higher learning as a benchmark.

C. Strategies

1. Benchmarking and exposing key officials , supervisors and core trainers of the
strategies and practices employed by the experts (partner institutions) in
integrating English as a Second Language in their curriculum.
a. Observe model schools using English as a Second Language (ESL) in their curriculum
b. Review of Modeling Language through Science in Schools (MOLASIS)
framework by experts (partner institutions).
c. Refine MOLASIS model based on recommendations by the experts.
2. Exposing the experts (partner institutions) to conditions of schools in the Division of Bukidnon (Philippines) through visits, dialogues and interactions with the school heads, teachers and students
3. Training of teachers and school heads by the experts (partner institutions) either in the Philippines or the campus of the partner institutions in the use of English as a Second Language (ESL) and the development of support instructional materials such as:
3.1. Expression Book that contains commonly used expressions of pupils
in various places in their first language translated in the English
Language.
3.2. Video CDs demonstrating the various techniques of MOLASIS to be

distributed to teachers as their reference materials.
4. Monitoring project implementation through Education and District Supervisors and through comprehensive testing using traditional and non-traditional mode of assessment.




Time Line of Project Implementation



2007
2008
2008-2010
2010

Reviewing Framework by Experts

Exposing Key Officials, supervisors and Core of Trainers to ESL Models
(Philippines and Partner Instittutions)
Training of Teachers and School Heads

Developing of Expression Book and Video materials
Project Implementation
Monitoring and Evaluation

Budgetary Requirement

Major Budget Items

Strategy/Activities
FUNDING SOURCE


Division of Bukidnon
Partner Institutions
MOLASIS Framework Review by Consultants
Modeling Language through Science in Schools (MOLASIS) an intervention using English as a Second Language in teaching Science will be reviewed by experts from partner institutions . The framework can either be sent to partner institutions or consultants from partners institutions will come to the Division of Bukidnon, Philippines.

2. Exposing Core of Trainers and Supervisors
Three key officials from the Division of
Bukidnon will visit model schools using
ESL as recommended by partner
institutions .




Prepared by:
AGUSTINES E. CEPE
Education Supervisor I
Science

Reviewed and Approved:

GLORIA D. BENIGNO, Ph.D. CESO IV
Schools Division Superintendent

Republic of the Philippines
Region X
DIVISION OF BUKIDNON
City of Malaybalay


A REPORT ON THE STATE OF CHILD-FRIENDLINESS OF SCHOOLS IN THE DIVISION OF BUKIDNON


The Division of Bukidnon is one of the twelve divisions of Region X (Northern Mindanao). It is composed of twenty five (25) districts and forty eight (48) secondary schools. It is headed by a schools division superintendent and two assistant schools division superintendents . It has sixteen members of the promotional staff.

The Division has six pilot schools. These schools were taken from the two districts. Three (3) from Talakag in the northern part of the Division and three from Maramag in the heart of the southern part of the Division. Three of these schools were handled by a full- fledged principals and the other three are handled by teachers –in-charge.

The school size of these pilot schools were categorized in the graph below:














The schools have twenty five (25) catchments barangays with 1,597 pupils. Three of the schools are titled while three (3) are not.
The graphs below described the number of teachers teaching Grades I to VI.


















Two of the schools have three (3) non-teaching personnel. These comprise the school nurse, utility worker and the clerk who assisted the school head and teachers in promoting students’ welfare.

All schools have organized PTCAs. Three (3) schools have School Advisory Councils while three (3) schools do not have. These organizations that include parents of the pupils and community members served as the civil entity adopting the school to benefit its various charitable activities. It has become a civil organization that endeavors to support the school relative to its needs in terms of infrastructure projects and formulate plans for the development of the school to improve its performance academically. With the advocacy of the Child Friendly School System, PTCAs in these schools have not only supported the school in terms of their financial needs but it transcends its responsibility from infrastructure - oriented to raising participation and reducing drop –out rate. This was done by conducting regular meetings , consultations , planning and awareness program by the members of the organizations and the school staff . The associations are also involved in planning activities that will help promote learning of the children.

To improve children’s participation in the school and in the community, the six pilot schools have organized functional Pupil Government Organizations (PGO). These organizations serve as venues for students to develop their leadership skills and provide them the opportunity for active participation in school activities which is one of the categories of the children’s right stipulated in the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Children. Moreover, community involvement is also encouraged among school children. During community programs such as Nutrition Month, Araw ng Barangay and other activities pupils are encouraged to participate. In this way, they are trained to be an active members of the community and learn that to be involved is one of their social responsibilities as members of the society.
Aside from maintaining functional PGOs, five of these schools also organized co-curricular organizations like Math Clubs, Science Clubs and others. These do not only allow them to interact with fellow students but also develop their ability to make sound decisions for their groups.
To provide an enabling environment for the exercise of these various activities of the children, some of the pilot schools established Science Laboratories , Math Rooms , Science parks , Math Parks , Reading Room and Speech Laboratory among others.

One component of being a child friendly school is the provision of health facilities and services. Since only two (2) of the pilot schools in Bukidnon have a school nurse, other schools are visited by the District Nurse only once a month. So some teachers were trained to become clinic teachers to attend to minor ailments of the pupils. For first aid and other support health services the pilot schools also trained some pupils to assist the clinic teachers in providing advocacy in health programs ( preventive health services ) . These brigade of pupils involved in health activities are called Little Doctors and Nurses.

The Division has two medical officers and six dentists. These health personnel take their rounds in all schools to conduct medical examinations and dental services to the pupils. In the pilot schools, one school was provided with these health services twice a year and the other once a year. However, it is sad to note that the data from the monitoring and evaluation indicated that four (4) of these schools were not reached by these health services. However, data indicated that all of the teachers in the pilot schools underwent medical check- up annually. In addition, these schools are also holding annual weighing and measurement of the weight and height of the pupils to establish a nutritional data base for children.
Relative to these activities, data from the M and E showed the following nutritional , health , and dental status of the children in the pilot schools:
















There are one hundred twenty nine (129) classrooms in all six (6) pilot schools. However, data showed that some schools need repairs categorized into the following:

Category
No. of schools
1-3 classroom repair
3
7 and more classroom repair
2
Total
5


These situations, however, may have been solved because of the resource mobilization done by the schools in partnerships with the PTCAs, Local Government Units and the community served by the schools. These are implied by the resource mobilization data indicated in the M and E. Data showed that one of the pilot schools have access to the Special Education Fund ( SEF) . Although five (5) of the schools indicated that they have no access to the SEF , other resources were also available like the school improvement fund from the PTCA and from their MOOE. All pilot schools indicated that their barangay have not supported their schools in terms of infrastructure projects. This local government –school relationship needs to be strengthened in the CFSS schools.

In the aspect of the performance indicators of the pilot schools, the following data surfaced in the M and E instrument.
The average participation rate of the pilot schools is 83.28% while the completion rate is 46.49 %. Drop-out rate is pegged at 1.96% . This would mean that in every ten (10) school age children in the community at least eight (8) are in school, of the eight (8) five (5) will eventually graduate from elementary curriculum , two ( 2 ) will drop out of school, one (1) will either be repeater or a transferee to other school.



The performance of the pupils in the pilot schools in the Division is presented in the graph below:


















Data from the M and E showed that only 25 % of the schools have reached mastery level of the competencies tested in both the regional and the national test. This data should direct administrators to formulate policies to improve performance of pupils in the NAT. However schools are pursuing the following intervention programs to address the problem:
1) Prepare lesson plans based on the Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) with appropriate visual aids.
2) Implement programs like Remedial Reading, Speaking English and Filipino are also advocated.
3) Encourage pupils to attend school regularly and motivate them to do their tasks and assignments.
4) Monitor teachers’ performance and provide needed support like sending teachers to in-service-trainings.

In conclusion, the state of the child friendliness in the six pilot schools of the
Division of Bukidnon is more on the beginning and developing stage,although one (1) out of the six schools is on the established stage. This conclusion is supported by the result of the recently conducted Self Assessment Survey of the Schools in the Division as shown in the graph below:


















Prepared by:
Agustines E. Cepe
Elbert R. Francisco
Dr. Carmelita A. Tina-an








The schools have twenty five (25) catchments barangays with 1,597 pupils. Three of the schools are titled while three (3) are not.
The graphs below described the number of teachers teaching Grades I to VI.


















Two of the schools have three (3) non-teaching personnel. These comprise the school nurse, utility worker and the clerk who assisted the school head and teachers in promoting students’ welfare.

All schools have organized PTCAs. Three (3) schools have School Advisory Councils while three (3) schools do not have. These organizations that include parents of the pupils and community members served as the civil entity adopting the school to benefit its various charitable activities. It has become a civil organization that endeavors to support the school relative to its needs in terms of infrastructure projects and formulate plans for the development of the school to improve its performance academically. With the advocacy of the Child Friendly School System, PTCAs in these schools have not only supported the school in terms of their financial needs but it transcends its responsibility from infrastructure - oriented to raising participation and reducing drop –out rate. This was done by conducting regular meetings , consultations , planning and awareness program by the members of the organizations and the school staff . The associations are also involved in planning activities that will help promote learning of the children.

To improve children’s participation in the school and in the community, the six pilot schools have organized functional Pupil Government Organizations (PGO). These organizations serve as venues for students to develop their leadership skills and provide them the opportunity for active participation in school activities which is one of the categories of the children’s right stipulated in the United Nations’ Convention on the Rights of the Children. Moreover, community involvement is also encouraged among school children. During community programs such as Nutrition Month, Araw ng Barangay and other activities pupils are encouraged to participate. In this way, they are trained to be an active members of the community and learn that to be involved is one of their social responsibilities as members of the society.
Aside from maintaining functional PGOs, five of these schools also organized co-curricular organizations like Math Clubs, Science Clubs and others. These do not only allow them to interact with fellow students but also develop their ability to make sound decisions for their groups.
To provide an enabling environment for the exercise of these various activities of the children, some of the pilot schools established Science Laboratories , Math Rooms , Science parks , Math Parks , Reading Room and Speech Laboratory among others.

One component of being a child friendly school is the provision of health facilities and services. Since only two (2) of the pilot schools in Bukidnon have a school nurse, other schools are visited by the District Nurse only once a month. So some teachers were trained to become clinic teachers to attend to minor ailments of the pupils. For first aid and other support health services the pilot schools also trained some pupils to assist the clinic teachers in providing advocacy in health programs ( preventive health services ) . These brigade of pupils involved in health activities are called Little Doctors and Nurses.

The Division has two medical officers and six dentists. These health personnel take their rounds in all schools to conduct medical examinations and dental services to the pupils. In the pilot schools, one school was provided with these health services twice a year and the other once a year. However, it is sad to note that the data from the monitoring and evaluation indicated that four (4) of these schools were not reached by these health services. However, data indicated that all of the teachers in the pilot schools underwent medical check- up annually. In addition, these schools are also holding annual weighing and measurement of the weight and height of the pupils to establish a nutritional data base for children.
Relative to these activities, data from the M and E showed the following nutritional , health , and dental status of the children in the pilot schools:
















There are one hundred twenty nine (129) classrooms in all six (6) pilot schools. However, data showed that some schools need repairs categorized into the following:

Category
No. of schools
1-3 classroom repair
3
7 and more classroom repair
2
Total
5


These situations, however, may have been solved because of the resource mobilization done by the schools in partnerships with the PTCAs, Local Government Units and the community served by the schools. These are implied by the resource mobilization data indicated in the M and E. Data showed that one of the pilot schools have access to the Special Education Fund ( SEF) . Although five (5) of the schools indicated that they have no access to the SEF , other resources were also available like the school improvement fund from the PTCA and from their MOOE. All pilot schools indicated that their barangay have not supported their schools in terms of infrastructure projects. This local government –school relationship needs to be strengthened in the CFSS schools.

In the aspect of the performance indicators of the pilot schools, the following data surfaced in the M and E instrument.
The average participation rate of the pilot schools is 83.28% while the completion rate is 46.49 %. Drop-out rate is pegged at 1.96% . This would mean that in every ten (10) school age children in the community at least eight (8) are in school, of the eight (8) five (5) will eventually graduate from elementary curriculum , two ( 2 ) will drop out of school, one (1) will either be repeater or a transferee to other school.



The performance of the pupils in the pilot schools in the Division is presented in the graph below:


















Data from the M and E showed that only 25 % of the schools have reached mastery level of the competencies tested in both the regional and the national test. This data should direct administrators to formulate policies to improve performance of pupils in the NAT. However schools are pursuing the following intervention programs to address the problem:
1) Prepare lesson plans based on the Philippine Elementary Learning Competencies (PELC) with appropriate visual aids.
2) Implement programs like Remedial Reading, Speaking English and Filipino are also advocated.
3) Encourage pupils to attend school regularly and motivate them to do their tasks and assignments.
4) Monitor teachers’ performance and provide needed support like sending teachers to in-service-trainings.

In conclusion, the state of the child friendliness in the six pilot schools of the
Division of Bukidnon is more on the beginning and developing stage,although one (1) out of the six schools is on the established stage. This conclusion is supported by the result of the recently conducted Self Assessment Survey of the Schools in the Division as shown in the graph below:


















Prepared by:
Agustines E. Cepe
Elbert R. Francisco
Dr. Carmelita A. Tina-an