Introduction

A. School Monitoring and Evaluation Adjustment

Secondary education occupies both a key and critical position in the entire education
sector. Its progress should be evaluated, its performance should be assessed, and the results
of its interventions should be monitored to input into policy and planning process,
respectively.

Each year we produce an Improvement Plan. The plan is the result of an analysis of
the School’s needs, strengths and weaknesses as identified by our own monitoring,
assessment and evaluation systems, as well as inspections. The School Improvement Plan
(SIP) contains the long term priorities and ambitions, which the school wishes to work
towards the completion of the SIP projects, and also short term actions which will ensure
that the long term priorities are achieved.

Monitoring and evaluation requires a set of tools and instruments that would assist
the school head in discharging his functions efficiently and effectively. Specifically, the
School Monitoring and Evaluation Adjustment team will provide information and insights
on:
 Learners’ progress and achievement of desired learning competencies and
potentials of learners to meet the requirements of the next learning level.
 Status and effectiveness of curriculum implementation, school programs and
projects and overall progress of SIP/AIP implementation.
 Quality of the teaching and learning process meet the standards set by the
Department of Education.
 Efficient management of the SIP/AIP implementation.
 School stakeholders’ requirements and expectations are informed about the
progress of the implementation of the SIP on a timely manner.
 Difficulties, problems, and issues or risks that hinder efficient
implementation of School Based Management.

ACCESS

Primary focus of the School Monitoring, Evaluation and Adjustment team are on the
progress of the learners, School effectiveness is based on the performance of the learners in
the following areas:
 Improvement in enrolment or learners’ access or participation.
 Completion or the number of learners who are able to complete the
requirements of the basic education.
 Improvement of learners’ learning progress/achievements

QUALITY

The School Monitoring, Evaluation and Adjustment will also track the intermediate
results. These are leading indicators pertaining to improvement in the school’s assistance to
learners. These include:
 Quality of the teaching and learning process
 Improvement in the access of learners to learning facilities and learning
materials
  Learners’ participation in the teaching and learning processes and school
activities
 Improvement in the SBM level of practice
 Positive perception of school stakeholders

GOVERNANCE

The School MEA will also monitor the school’s implementation of the different
school programs and projects outlined in the SIP, the management and utilization of
resources and handling of financial resources. Specifically progress monitoring covers:
 School’s implementation of programs and projects based on quality,
time frame and targets set in the SIP.
 Staff development, particularly the improvement of the skills of
teachers.
 Use of school facilities and other resources, maintenance and
improvement of the learning environment
 Fiscal management and physical accomplishments.

B. . School History

Otto Lingue National High School located in Lower Sibatang, Pagadian City was
formerly one of the daughter schools of Pagadian City National High School at Danlugan,
Pagadian City. As a former extension campus, it was first opened on June 1995 with two
locally paid teachers, Miss Evelyn Maalam who was designated as the school head and Mr.
Winifredo Mabini. The creation of an extension campus was made possible through the
combined efforts of former Mayor Benjamin F. Arao and the city government of Pagadian in
collaboration with the Division of Pagadian City under the Department of Education and the
barangay council of Lower Sibatang headed by former Barangay Chairman Fernando Siay.

The passing of Barangay Resolution No. 101 Series of 2009 became the stepping
stone of being a new established independent secondary school. It is a resolution requesting
the separation of Pagadian City National High School – Annex, Lower Sibatang, Pagadian
City from its main campus in Danlugan, Pagadian City thru the regional director of the
Department of Education Region IX and the Sangguniang Panglungsod of Pagadian City.
Upon the approval of the Congress of Republic Act No. 101141 on July 27,2009, an act
separating the Pagadian City National High School – Annex in barangay Lower Sibatang,
Pagadian City, Zamboanga del Sur from its mother campus and converting it into an
independent national high school. It is later known as OTTO LINGUE NATIONAL HIGH
SCHOOL. The 10,000 sq. m. campus was donated by Mr. David L. Lingue, hence the name
Otto Lingue, named after the donor’s father.

Students from the neighboring barangays like Gubac, Deborok, Pedulonan and
Gubang in Pagadian City and a few barangays like Cogonan, Nuboran and Langapod of
Zamboanga del Sur benefitted in the opening of the school. The school was accessible to the
said barangays which do not have a secondary school. The increase in enrolment through the
years paved the way for the adding of national and local paid teachers.
 C. School Monitoring, Evaluation and Adjustment Framework of Otto Lingue National High School

INNOVATIVE
STUDENTS
Long Term Goal

,
EXPANDED IMPROVE
STRENGTHENED
Outcomes ACCESS TO QUALITY OF
GOVERNANCE
EDUCATION EDUCATION

ENROLMENT QUALIFIED TEACHERS SIP’s/AIP’s

Outputs SCHOOL BUILDINGS DROP – OUT RATE FINANCIAL REPORTS
SCHOLARSHIPS COMPLETION RATE STUDENT RECORDS

Intervention DIVISION EDUCATION DEVELOPMENT PLAN

D. Objectives

The School Monitoring and Evaluation Adjustment Team (SMEAT) should be

able to;

1. Prepare and organize the needed SMEA data collection tool 1 week before
conducting it to the respondents;
2. Gather all the information from the SMEA data collection tool;
3. Summarize all the data and categorize according to Access, Quality and
Governance;
4. Analyze and interpret the data given;
5. Identify the root cause that shows a significant difference to access, quality
and governance;
6. Make conclusions and recommendations based from the analyses and
interpretations made.