EVALUATION OF CHALLENGES IN THE IMPACT OF TECHNOLOGY-

ENABLED GUIDANCE AND COUNSELLING PROGRAM IN SECONDARY

SCHOOLS OF PANGASINAN II FOR THE NEW NORMAL

A Thesis study
Presented to the Faculty of the
Graduate School
Pangasinan State University
Urdaneta City, Pangasinan

In Partial Fulfillment
Of the Requirements for the Degree
Master of Arts in Education
Major in Guidance and Counseling

by

Ma. Elena J. Esteron

January 2021
 Chapter 1

THE PROBLEM

The Department of Education (DepEd) stated that in their Mid-Decade

Assessment of the Education for All (EFA) the trends in basic education has been

slow and irregular in progress. The goal of achieving universal primary education by

2015 will not be achieved.

The 2003 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey(FLEMMS),

disclosed that out of 57.4 million Filipinos who are 10 to 64 years old, 3.8 million

ten-year-old and above, do not know how to read and write and a total of 9.2 million

are not functionally literate. The EFA report also pointed out that the school system

is disadvantaged because of its poor completion rate and low academic performance.

For instance, in 2002- 2003, only 90.32% of the total population of children 6 – 11

years old, enrolled at the start of the school year. The 9.6% that did not enroll

constituted nearly 1.2 million children who most likely will become illiterate adults.

The DORP (Drop out Reduction Program) was intended to help schools with

these problems. Their objectives were to; reduce dropout; increase retention rate;

increase significantly the achievement level of the Student-at-Risk of Dropping Out

(SARDO); retrieve learners who are out of school; increase the capability of schools

to establish, implement, monitor, evaluate and continuously improve DORP; design

and continuously improve the DORP; design and continuously improve DORP

practices and learning materials; and benchmark the best DORP practices. Despite
 the efforts of the Department of education in decreasing the Drop Out Problem in the

Philippines, there seems to be no progress in the curbing this problem.

NEC further observes that Philippine schools, as a whole, have failed to achieve

overall excellence. Data from NEC show that most students either do not complete

the full 10 years of basic education, or graduate without mastering the basic

competencies. In general, there are still Filipinos who are not basically literate and up

to 9.2 million who are not functionally literate. These Filipinos are educationally

disadvantaged to engage intelligently in various social, economic, civic and political

activities, they cannot participate fully nor contribute significantly to the task of

nation building.

Statement of the problem

This study is focused on the DORP Program in the Secondary Schools of

Pangasinan II.

Specifically, it seeks to answer the following questions:

1) What is the Drop-Out Rate of the Secondary Schools of Pangasinan II for the last
3 years?
2) What are the best practices of the DORP Program in the Secondary Schools of
Pangasinan II?
3) What are the problems encountered by the identified SARDOs of the Secondary
Schools of Pangasinan II?
4) What are guidance services to be applied to reduce Drop – Out Rate?
5) What is the proposed Homeroom Guidance Program to reduce Drop Out rate?
 Significance of the Study

The result of the study is expected to benefit the following:

Students – at – Risk – of Dropping Out. (SARDOs). The findings will encourage

SARDO’s to continue going to school. They will be more aware of the importance of

education and therefore be motivated to finish high School.

Parents. Findings will encourage them to motivate their children to finish high school.

Teachers. The result of this study will provide research-based information to teachers

that would help them in guiding their SARDOs, and devising alternative schemes in

motivating these problem students in coming to school. Teachers will have a clearer and

wider understanding on the SARDOs and be able to cater to their needs.

School DORP Coordinators. Findings will provide the DORP Coordinators the much

needed information about how to improve the implementation of the their DORP

Program depending on the needs of the different SARDOs in their respective Schools.

Guidance Counselors. Results will serve as a tool to improve and develop innovations

to enhance the implementation of the DORP program of the Secondary Schools in

Pangasinan II.

School Administrators. The results of the study will provide important information in

planning a more relevant and responsive curriculum and related interventions that would

cater to the different needs of our SARDOs.

Curriculum Planners. Results may help in the development or improvement of the

objectives and goals of the DORP Program for the Secondary Schools in Pangasinan II.
 Scope and delimitation of the Study

The study will be centered on all DORP Programs of Secondary Schools in

Pangasinan II which covers District IV, V and VI of Pangasinan.

Specifically, it looked into the Drop-out Rate of the secondary schools for the last
three (3) years, the best practices of the DORP program, problems encountered by the
SARDOs, the Guidance Services to be applied to reduce Drop- Out Rate, and the
proposed Homeroom Guidance Program to reduce Drop Out rate.

Definition of Terms

Key terms used in this study are defined lexically and operationally for clearer
understanding and meaning.

Impact. It refers to any significant or major effect the DORP has on a school
where the program was implemented.

DORP. Drop Out Reduction Program or the DORP refers to an intervention

program to reduce the high dropout rate and was developed to improve learning
outcomes in public and private schools of the country

SARDO. It refers to any student in the elementary or secondary school who

are at risk of dropping Out (Students at Risk of Dropping Out).

Drop Out. It refers to a student in the elementary or secondary school who

drops out or stops going to school.

Drop Out Rate. The percentage of students failing to complete a particular

school or college course.
 Chapter 2

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES

As cliché as it may sound, education is one of the most essential treasure that one could

acquire in their life. Without it, one will live a life in ignorance and misinformation. That

is why any parents make sure to send their children in a well-established school, whether

it is a private owned institution or one that is run by the government. There are cases,

however, that a child is forced to stop coming to school because of different reasons.

DEFINITION OF DROP-OUT

High school graduation and dropout rates have long been used as a central indicator of

education system productivity and effectiveness and of social and economic well-being. 

According to Bonneau (2006), the most general definition of a dropout is any student

who leaves school for any reason before graduation or completion of a program of studies

without transferring to another elementary or secondary school. She stated that a student

is considered as a drop out if :

 1. A student was enrolled at some time during the previous school year but was not

enrolled (and who does not meet reporting exclusions) on day 20 of the current

school year;

2. If he/she drops out of school in multiple years;

3. If he/she fail to return to school after a long suspension, and

4. If he/she was incarcerated

Bonneau also included different situations where one may look like but they are not

considered as a drop out.

1. Dropout events do not include students below the compulsory school age or

students in prekindergarten or kindergarten;

2. Students who are known to have left the country;

3. Students who are serving suspensions;

4. Students who are expelled;

5. Students who transfer to a private school, home school or a state-approved

educational program

Alvares and Estevao (2014) gave two definitions of a school dropout: a formal definition

and a functional definition. Formal school dropout definitions rely heavily on the concept

of being able to have an education because it is compulsory for everyone, or in short,

leaving school before completing an academic year. These definitions may include a

reference to a level of education, but this usually not the focus: the main definition is

either stated in terms of age or the number of years that the individual spends in the

education system. The advantage of such definitions lies in the existence of a unique,
simply defined and easily measurable criterion and the fact that they clearly indicate the

objective of compensatory measures: to return students into the educational system and

make them complete compulsory education.

Functional definitions, on the other hand, aim to take into consideration the context in

which the dropout occurs and seek to have in perspective the consequences of such

dropout at the level of the future biographical course of the individual. Functional

definitions take into consideration the consequences of dropping out of school, namely,

whether an individual has obtained a certain level of qualifications required for a

successful social and professional life. In short, it looks to the effects of ceasing

education to the person.

CAUSES OF DROP OUT

Every person faces different situations and struggles in their life. One could live a more

comfortable one which results to a well accomplished life but others are forced to stop.

However, dropping out of school is multi-dimensional, meaning that it is not only caused

by a single reason. According to Lim & Rumberger (2008) there are two types of factors

that predict whether students drop out or graduate from high school: factors associated

with individual characteristics of students, and factors associated with the institutional

characteristics of their families, schools, and communities.

Individual factors can either be educational or academic performance, behaviors or

background.

 Academic performance. Several aspects of educational performance have been

widely identified in the research literature as strong predictors of dropping out or

 graduating: test scores and grades in high school; academic achievement in both

middle and elementary school (with grades a more consistent predictor than test

scores); non-promotional school changes (student mobility) during middle and

high school; and, retention (being held back one or more grades), in elementary,

middle, and high school (Lim & Rumberger, 2008). Moore (2017) supported this

idea on her research, stressing the fact that retention and low grades often results

to dropping out, as students lose motivation to study and that they are

embarrassed to come to school.

 Behaviors. A wide range of behaviors both in and out of school have been shown

to predict dropout and graduation. One of the most important is student

engagement, which includes students’ active involvement in academic work and

curricular or social aspect of studying. Research consistently found that being

absent in class, an indicator of student engagement, is associated with higher

dropout rates. Delinquency is significantly associated with higher dropout and

lower graduation rates as impose punishment regarding manners and conduct.

Drugs, drinking, engaging on criminal activities as well as teenage pregnancy

were also determined to be causes of dropping out. (Lim & Rumberger, 2017).

Moore (2017) provided more support to these claims, stating that students who

exhibit negative attitudes are more likely to drop out from school. Students who

dropout have either disciplinary problems, truancy issues, may be on probation, or

just do not do well in school. Students who were previously known to have

demonstrated high levels of aggressive behavior issues and scored lower

academically were those that became dropouts.

  Background. This factor includes differences on gender, culture and race. Dropout

rates are generally higher for males than for females (presumably because men are

more hostile in nature than women and are known to show more cases of

delinquency), and they are higher for Blacks, Hispanics, and Native Americans

than for Asians and Whites; yet these differences may be related to other

characteristics of students as well as characteristics of their family, schools, and

communities. In short, they are all case-to-case basis. Pre-schooling was also

determined to be a factor that affects drop out possibility as it has been shown to

not only improve school readiness and early school success, but also to affect a

wide range of adolescent and adult outcomes, including high school completion,

crime, welfare, and teen parenting.

Institutional factors, on the other hand, look more on the external and the macro aspect on

why students drop out from school. If individual factors are more related on the student

itself, institutional looks at the outside factors that contribute as to why a person drops out

from school.

 Family. It was stated that family structure is one reason as to why students drop

out. The type of family structure that a person lives in does affect the likelihood of

that person’s chances of dropping out of school. Family structures include two-

parent, single-parent, and also stepparent families. Divorce, separation, and death

of a spouse are all variables that define change in family structure from a two-

parent family to a single-parent family or stepparent family. Studies have

concluded that children from single-parent or female-headed households are more

likely to drop out than are children who reside in two-parent families. A child’s
 relationship with his or her parents can affect their chances of dropping out of

high school. Factors that are associated with a child’s relationship that negatively

affect their chances of educational attainment are the physical absence of adults in

the household due to divorce, the limited amount of time parents and children

spend together due to the rise in two earner families, and the corresponding

parental inattention to children’s activities such as monitoring school performance

or instilling educational values. (Chenge et.al., 2017). Students in homes with

more family resources (parental education, parents’ occupational status, and

family income) are less likely to drop out of school. Families who are poor are

typically forced to focus more on survival needs like water, food and clothing

than investing on education. On some cases, younger students are forced to stop

studying to help their parents in managing their finances. A number of parenting

practices—sometimes referred to as social resources or social capital—have been

shown to reduce the odds of dropping out, including: having high educational

aspirations for their children; monitoring their children’s school progress;

communicating with the school; and, knowing the parents of their children’s

friends. A more hands-on parents lowers the probability of a student from

dropping out.

 Schools. Although student and family characteristics account for most of the

variability in dropout rates, some could be linked to four characteristics of

schools: (1) the composition of the student body, (2) resources, (3) structural

features, and (4) policies and practices. School size does not have a consistent

effect on dropout and graduation rates. Attending a Catholic high school improves
 the odds of graduating; yet Catholic and other private schools lose as many

students as public schools because students attending private schools typically

transfer to public schools instead of dropping out. Small classes improve high

school graduation rates. School policies and practices in high school do matter.

Students are less likely to drop out if they attend schools with a stronger academic

climate, as measured by more students taking academic courses and doing

homework. On the other hand, students are more likely to drop out in schools with

a poor disciplinary committee, as measured by student disruptions in class or in

school (Lim & Rumberger, 2017).

 Communities. Communities play a crucial role in adolescent development along

with families, schools, and peers. Population characteristics of communities are

associated with dropping out, but not in a straight-forward manner: living in a

high-poverty neighborhood is not necessarily detrimental to completing high

school, but rather living in an affluent neighborhood is beneficial to school

success. This suggests that affluent neighborhoods provide more access to

community resources and positive role models from affluent neighbors (Lim &

Rumberger, 2017).

On an interesting study by Kadil (2017) on the drop-out rate in the Philippines, the most

common reasons as to why students from elementary and secondary school dropout is

due to lack of interest with studying, high cost of education/parents cannot afford to send

them to school, employment (helping their parents earn money) and housekeeping. For

males, the most common reason on dropping out is loss of interest and looking for a job

to help their parents while most of the reason why a girl drops out of school is due to
poverty and housekeeping which feeds on the stereotypical assumption that males should

look for jobs to sustain their family and women should stay at home to take care of their

domicile and perform chores.

An analysis of the Dropout Reduction Plan of the Department of Education by Tadong

(2009) has found out that:

 Low family income, unemployed parents, and parents engaging in seasonal jobs

are factors which adversely affect the students.

 Parents tend to neglect their parental responsibilities towards their children‘s

education because they are preoccupied with other activities to augment their

family income. Some are OFWs, some have poor educational background while

others are irresponsible parents who are indulging in vices like alcoholism and

gambling.

 Broken family and family conflicts affected the students ‘school performance.

 Health problems such as malnutrition and illness caused students to drop from

school.

 Peer pressure/barkadahan, playing amusement games during classes and even

indulging in different vices are identified causes of absenteeism and tardiness

among students.

 Poor academic performance of students is brought about by being slow learners,

having low self-esteem, having poor study habit, being not ready academically for

secondary school, and non- compliance of subject requirements.

  A good number of schools have insufficient instructional equipment and learning

facilities.

 Many teachers still resort to the traditional methods of teaching, inappropriate

teaching styles and utilization of traditional assessment of learning outcomes.

 Some schools provide inadequate guidance program. Furthermore, some schools

do not have full-time guidance counselors.

 The students have no access to regular transportation because of the distance

anddifficult geographic allocation of the school. Students get tired hiking daily

causing themto be late or absent in school.

 The presence of amusement and recreation centers such as internet café, video

games, billiard halls, video houses, etc. operating in the locality of the school

during class hours entice students not to attend classes.

It is important to note that the local and foreign studies about the causes of drop out are

quite similar to each other which indicates that dropping out of school is a very common

problem around the world that even first world countries experience it.

CONSEQUENCES OF DROPPING OUT

Of course, such actions could lead to certain dilemmas that could hamper one’s bright

future. The following are the different consequences that dropping out of school could

bring into someone’s life.

 Lack of Access to Higher Education. Without a high school diploma, a person will

have a difficult time gaining access to financial aid from colleges or trade schools.

In fact, most universities and trade schools require students to have a diploma
 before they are accepted into a program. A student who lacks a high school

diploma faces a huge hurdle because it's difficult to gain access to the advanced

skills and training higher education offers, along with the accompanying increase

in income, without one (Campbell, 2017).

 Income. Perhaps the most widely discussed consequence of not finishing high

school is its impact on income potential. Students who drop out of high school

earn significantly less than their peers who graduated from high school.

 Unemployment. Unemployment and low income are correlated. If a student drops

out of school and has not finished college, he/she diminishes his/her ability on

looking for high paying jobs as they require graduates with a bachelor’s degree. In

return, they are forced to work on labor-related industries or works that only

require a high school dimploma.

 High Risk Behaviors. The rate of engagement in high-risk behaviors such as

premature sexual activity, early pregnancy, delinquency, crime, violence, alcohol

and drug abuse, and suicide has found to be significantly higher among dropouts.

Some of these high risk behaviors (violence, drug abuse, crime) could lead

incarceration. According to Wandrei (2019), high school dropouts are more than

63 times more likely to be incarcerated than four-year college graduates and more

than six times more likely to be incarcerated than those with only a high school

diploma.

 Poor Health Outcomes. Due to low income and job insecurity, high school

dropouts face poorer health outcomes. Dropouts are less likely to receive job-

based health insurance. Without access to health insurance, students who drop out
 may not receive crucial preventive health care that can lower the incidence of

chronic diseases and increase lifespan (Campbell, 2017).

DROP OUT PREVENTION

Because of the alarming effects of the problem in discussion, many courses of actions

were thought of to combat or at least alleviate the effect of dropping out of school.

National Dropout Prevention Center/Network (NDPC/N) (2009) has identified 15

effective strategies that have the most positive impact on reducing school dropout.

Although they can be implemented as stand-alone strategies, positive outcomes will

result when school districts or other agencies develop program improvement plans

that encompass most or all of these strategies. The strategies are grouped into four

general categories: Foundational strategies (school-community perspective), early

interventions, basic core strategies, and managing and improving instruction.

Foundational Strategies

 Systemic Approach. This strategy calls for a systemic approach and process

for ongoing and continuous improvement across all grade levels through a

shared and widely communicated vision and focus, tightly focused goals and

objectives, selection of targeted research based strategies and interventions,

ongoing monitoring and feedback, and data-based decision making. It also

 requires the alignment of school policies, procedures, practices, and

organizational structures and continuous monitoring of effectiveness.

 School-Community Collaboration. This strategy focuses on the power of an

engaged and responsive community where everyone in the community is

accountable for the quality of education, resulting in a caring and

collaborative environment where youth can thrive and achieve.

 Safe Learning Environments. Safe and inviting learning environments help

students realize potential. All students need to be safe, physically and

emotionally; to be expected to achieve; to be recognized and celebrated

equitably for accomplishments; and to feel genuinely welcomed and

supported. A safe and orderly learning environment provides both physical

and emotional security as well as daily experiences, at all grade levels that

enhance positive social attitudes and effective interpersonal skills. A safe

learning environment supports all students, teachers, cultures, and subgroups;

honors and supports diversity and social justice; treats students equitably; and

recognizes the need for feedback, innovation, and second chances.

Early Interventions

 Family Engagement. Family engagement has a direct, positive effect on

youth’s achievement and is one of the most accurate predictors of a student’s

success in school. Critical elements of this type of collaboration rely on

 effective, ongoing, and multi-dimensional, two-way communication as well as

ongoing needs assessments and responsive family supports and interventions.

 Early Childhood Education. The most effective way to reduce the number of

children who will ultimately drop out is to provide the best possible classroom

instruction from the beginning of school through the primary grades.

 Early Literacy Development. Early literacy interventions to help low-

achieving students improve their reading and writing skills establish the

necessary foundation for effective learning in all subjects.

Basic Core Strategies

 Mentoring/Tutoring. Mentoring is typically a one-to-one relationship between

a mentor and a mentee that is based on trust. Mentoring offers a significant

support structure for high-risk students. Tutoring, also typically a one-to one

activity, focuses on academic support and is an effective practice when

addressing specific needs in collaboration with the student’s base teacher.

 Service-Learning. Service-learning connects meaningful community service

experiences with academic learning. This teaching/learning method promotes

personal and social growth, career development, and civic responsibility and

can be a powerful vehicle for effective school reform at all grade levels.

 Alternative Schooling. Alternative or non-traditional schooling provide

alternative avenues to credit earning and graduation, with programs paying

special attention to the student’s individual and social needs, career goals, and

academic requirements for obtaining a high school diploma and transitioning

successfully to life beyond graduation.

  Afterschool/Out-of-School Opportunities. Many schools provide afterschool,

before-school, and/or summer academic/enhancement/enrichment

opportunities (e.g., tutoring, credit recovery, acceleration, homework support,

etc.) that provide students with opportunities for assistance and recovery as

well as high-interest options for discovery and learning. These opportunities

often decrease information loss and can inspire interest in arenas otherwise

inaccessible.

Managing and Improving Instruction

 Professional Development. Adults who work with youth at risk of dropping

out need to be provided ongoing professional learning opportunities. The

professional learning should align with the agreed upon vision and focus for

the school/agency, the agreed upon instructional framework of high leverage

research-based practices and strategies, and the identified needs of the

population served. The professional learning opportunities provided should be

frequently monitored to determine the fidelity of implementation and need for

additional support and feedback.

 Active Learning. Active learning and student engagement strategies engage

and involve students in meaningful ways as partners in their own learning.

These strategies include student voice and choice; effective feedback, peer

assessment, and goal setting; cooperative learning; thinking critically,

creatively, and reflectively; and micro-teaching, discussion, and two-way

communication. To be most effective, teachers must provide students with

tools and strategies to organize themselves and any new material; techniques
 to use while reading, writing, and doing math; and systematic steps to follow

when working through a task or reflecting upon their own learning.

 Educational Technology. Instructional Technology can effectively support

teaching and learning while engaging students in meaningful, current, and

authentic efforts; addressing multiple intelligences; and adapting to students’

learning styles. Educational technology can effectively be used in

individualized instruction and can not only help prepare students for the

workforce, but can empower students who struggle with self-esteem. Effective

use of technologies depends upon the timely response to and application of the

rapidly expanding choices and matches to identified student needs

 Individualized Instruction. Learning experiences can be individualized,

differentiated, or personalized. In an environment that is fully personalized,

the learning objectives and content as well as the method and pace may all

vary.

 Career and Technical Education (CTE). Youth need workplace skills as well

as awareness and focus to increase not only the likelihood that they will be

prepared for their careers, but also that school will be relevant to what is next.

The Department of Education (DepED) (2013) on the other hand, has implemented the

Drop Out Reduction Program (DORP) which aims to reduce the dropout rate in the

Philippines. In their matrix, the program suggested 4 strategies to effectively combat the

drop out rate.

1. Open High School Program (OHSP). A distance learning program for high school

students who are unable to attend regular classes due to physical, economic and
 geographical limitations. Despite being a distance-learning program, the OHSP is

still considered as a “formal and structured” program with students' learning

structured around the eight core subjects (English, Filipino, Math, Science,

Araling Panlipunan and MAPEH). Students also take the same exams and other

evaluation measures to proceed to the next year level. There are three ways of

distance learning available through the OHSP: modular, Internet-based, and

blended technology.

2. The Effective Alternative Secondary Education Project, or Project EASE. A

program designed by the Department of Education and in coordination with the

Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization - Regional Center for

Educational Innovation and Technology (SEAMEO-Innotech). It targets regular

high school students who intermittently miss classes due to various reasons.

Unlike the Open High School Program, Project EASE is not a total replacement

for regular classes; rather it is designed for students who will only miss a part of

the school year (such as planting and harvesting season) to be able to continue

their studies. Project EASE uses a module-based approach - students are given

modules for them to take home and be able to study their lessons outside the

classroom

3. School Initiated Interventions (SII). These are interventions developed by schools

to prevent them from dropping out and to increase their achievement rate. The SII

is based on the student‘s felt needs, hence, they participate with the school head,

DORP Council, SII Coordinator, teachers, parents and other key stakeholders in

planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the program. In some

 instances, a combination of two or more SIIs is implemented for an individual or

a group of students. SII may be combined with EASE or with OHSP.

4. Other Interventions (OIs). These are interventions developed not by the school

itself but by other agencies, which also resulted in increasing the holding power of

the school. They often times include the involvement of Local Government Units

or other concerned unions, committees or groups.

SYNTHESIS

There is no denying that student dropout rates are a major problem around the world. Too
many students leave high school without graduating. This does not only affect the
individual but the society as well. The narrative surrounding the dropout problem is often
gloomy, but we should look more on a positive perspective.

It is a possible task if our citizens and policymakers demonstrate the will to do it and

carry on initiatives to combat it. We do know how to identify the great majority of

students on track to drop out, and we can identify the schools that are most likely to

produce dropouts. In addition, researchers and educators are developing promising

interventions that can help these students. The good news is that we can better the

dropout problem, if only we can mobilize the necessary resolve.

Chapter 3

Methodology – Research Design

The study will adopt the descriptive method of research. The Questionnaire and

interview method will be used to gather data from respondents.

Locale
 This study was conducted in all secondary schools in Pangasinan II. There are
four (4) Districts in Pangasinan II, namely: District IV which comprises Manaoag,
Mangaldan, San Fabian and San Jacinto, District V includes Alcala, Bautista,
Binalonan, Laoac, Pozorruio, Sison, Sto. Tomas and Villasis, and District IV which
includes Asingan, Balungao, Natividad, Rosales, San Manuel, San Nicolas, San
Quintin, Sta Maria, Tayug and Umingan.

Population of the Study

All DORP Coordinators in the 110 schools were taken as samples

Data Gathering Instrument

The researcher-made questionnaire was used in gathering data. This tool was
subjected to validation by experts for further modifications and improvements such
that it would answer specific questions in Chapter 1.

Validation of Instrument

The questionnaire was subjected for evaluation to make sure that all the
necessary areas to be evaluated were measured accordingly.

Statistical Treatment

The researcher will be using a descriptive analysis of variables using Excel or

SPSS. The results will be presented as frequencies and percentages.

BIBLIOGRAPHY

Aguiar, E., Chawla, N. V., Brockman, J., Ambrose, G. A., & Goodrich, V. (2014, March)
Engagement vs performance: using electronic portfolios to predict first semester
engineering student retention. In Proceedings of the Fourth International Conference on
Learning Analytics And Knowledge (pp. 103-112). ACM. doi:10.1145/2567574.2567583
Amatea, E., & West-Olatunji, C. (2007). Joining the conversation about educating our
poorest children: Emerging leadership roles for school counselors in high poverty
schools. Professional School Counseling, 11(2), 81-89.
Alvares, M & Estevao, P. (2014). What do we mean by school dropout? Early school
leaving and the shifting of paradigms in school dropout measurement. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/262580862_What_do_we_mean_by_school_dr
opout_Early_School_Leaving_and_the_shifting_of_paradigms_in_school_dropout_meas
urement
Andrada, Lolita M. “Drop Out Reduction Program Handbook” Department of Education,
July 2008.
Bar-Am, & Arar, O. (2017). Dropouts and Budgets: A test of dropout reduction Model
among Students in Israeli higher education. European Journal of Educational Research,
6(2), 123 – 134
Bar-Am, & Arar, O. (2017). Dropouts and Budgets: A test of dropout reduction Model
among Students in Israeli higher education. European Journal of Educational Research,
6(2), 123 – 134
Bonneau, K. (2006) Brief 3: What is a drop out?, Retrieved from
https://www.purdue.edu/hhs/hdfs/fii/wp-content/uploads/2015/07/s_ncfis04c03.pdf
Campbell, S. (2017). What are the disadvantages of dropping out of high school.
Retrieved from https://classroom.synonym.com/disadvantages-dropping-out-high-school-
9599.html
Chenge, R. et.al., (2017). Family Factors that contribute to school dropout in Rushinga
District in Zimbabwe. Retrieved from http://www.ijlhss.com/wp-
content/uploads/2017/09/Family-Factors-that-contribute-to-school-dropout-in-Rushinga-
District-in-Zimbabwe.pdf
DepEd. (2013). Drop Out Reduction Program. Retrieved from
https://www.slideshare.net/staritaes/dropout-reduction-program-drp-tagbina-i-and-ii-
districts
Gabbard, A., & Mupinga, D. M. (2013). Balancing open access with academic standards:
implications for community college faculty. Community College Journal of Research and
Practice, 37(5), 374-381. doi:10.1080/10668921003609160
Jenkins-Guarnieri, M. A., Horne, M. M., Wallis, A. L., Rings, J. A., & Vaughan, A. L.
(2015). Quantitative evaluation of a first year seminar program relationships to
persistence and academic success. Journal of College Student Retention: Research,
Theory & Practice, 16(4), 593-606.
Kadil, R. (2017). School Dropout Study: Philippines and Turkey. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/333145578_School_Dropout_Study_Philippine
s_and_Turkey
Moore, A. (2017). Dropped out: Factors that cause students to leave before graduation.
Retrieved from
https://www.cn.edu/libraries/tiny_mce/tiny_mce/plugins/filemanager/files/Dissertations/
Dissertations2017/Andrea_K_Parton_Moore.pdf
Lim, S & Rumberger, R. (2008). Why students drop out of school: A review of 25 years
of research. Retrieved from
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/268424401_Why_Students_Drop_Out_of_Scho
ol_A_Review_of_25_Years_of_Research
NDPC/N. (2009). 15 Effective Strategies for Dropout Prevention. Retrived from
http://dropoutprevention.org/wp-
content/uploads/2015/03/NDPCN15EffectiveStrategies.pdf
Orbeta, Jr. Aniceto C. “A glimpse at the school dropout problem” The Filipino child –
Global study on child poverty and disparities: Philippines, Policy Brief No.4, 2010

Raya, Rene R. “The missed education of the Filipino people” Missing Targets: An
Alternative MDG midterm report”, Social Watch Philippines
Shah, M., & Whannell, R. (2016). Open access enabling courses: risking academic
standards or meeting equity aspirations. Perspectives: Policy and Practice in Higher
Education, 1-12. doi:10.1080/13603108.2016.1203370
Tadong, C.M.(2009). Drop-out Reduction Plan of the 15 SEDIP Divisions: An
Analysis.Department of Education
Wandrei, K. (2019). Not finishing high school? Retrieved from
https://education.seattlepi.com/effects-high-school-students-not-finishing-high-school-
3118.html

APPENDIX A
Interview Questions

1) How are the attendances of your students?

2) Are there any SARDOs in your class?

3) Do you have any drop outs? What are the reasons for dropping out?

* Additional probing questions will be asked as the interview commences,

that will depend on the previous answers and information given by each
adviser

APPENDIX B
LIST OF SARDOS

Name of Sex Year Section Birth Age FICS FICS

Student Level date Code Analysis

LIST OF DROPOUT

Name of Sex Year Birth Age FICS FICS Date of

Student Level date Code Analysis Dropping

FICS CODE:

F – Family
I – Individual
C – Community
S – School

Family Related Problems: (F1 – F7)

1. Broken Family
2. Orphan
3. Deceased Father/Mother
4. Living with relatives
5. Big family Size
6. Financial Problems/Non-working/unemployed Parents/siblings
7. Parents are working abroad/distant places

Community Related Problems: (C1 – C6)

1. Peace and Order Situation

2. Lack of Basic Services (transportation, Health water, lights, etc)
3. Lack of Community Support for education (Public Library, Learning
resource Center. Etc)
4. In conducive Social Environment
 4.1. Internet Café/Video Games
4.2. Gambling/Gaming
4.3. Drug-related problems
4.4. Going to Malls during class hours
5. Calamity Prone are
6. Living in far-flung area

Individual Related Problems (I1 – I8)

1. Identity Complex (Lesbian/Gay)

2. Inferiority complex
2.1 due to physical defects
2.2 due to over-age
3. Family abuse
3.1 Incest
3.2 Maltreatment
3.3 Child Labor
3.4 Commercial/sexual exploitation
4. Laziness
5. Sickness/Accident
6. Early Marriage
7. Vices
8. Academically Challenged with failing grade

School Related Problem (S1 – S4)

1. Rigid School rules and regulations

2. Uncompassionate teachers
3. Passive teaching-learning Strategies
4. Peer/classmates regarding behavior