NAME OF SCHOOL ________________________________________________________________

NAME OF SCHOOL HEAD ________________________________________________________________

CLUSTER _____________________ DISTRICT _________________________________________

PREVIOUS RATING _______________ DATE OF VALIDATION ______________________________

I. LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE (30)

A network of leadership and governance guides the education system to achieve its shared vision, mission, and
goals making them responsive and relevant to the context of diverse environments.
SELF SDO
INDICATOR STANDARD MOVs LEVEL OF PRACTICE
RATING RATING
1. In place is a 1. APPROVED School LEVEL 0: Not Evident
Development Plan (e.g. Improvement Plan (SIP)
SIP developed - Reviewed/Adjusted/Enhanced LEVEL 1 Indicator: The
SIP development plan guided by the
collaboratively by the
Attachments: School school’s vision, mission, and
stakeholders of the
Memorandum, Letter of goal (VMG) is developed through
school and community Invitation, Activity Completion the leadership of the school and
Report the participation of 50%
community stakeholders.
2. APPROVED Annual
Implementation Plan LEVEL 2 Indicator: The
Attachments: School development plan is evolved
Memorandum, Letter of Invitation, through the shared leadership of
Activity Completion Report the school and the
participation of 51-80%
3. APPROVED Office community stakeholders.
Performance Commitment &
Review Form LEVEL 3 Indicator: The
Attachments: School development plan is enhanced
Memorandum, Minutes of with the 81-100% community
the Meeting, ACR, School participation in performing the
Organizational Structure, Process leadership roles with the school
flow providing technical support.

2. The development 4. Programs, Project, Activities LEVEL 0: Not Evident

plan (e.g. SIP) is (PPAs-Title) as indicated in
regularly reviewed by the SIP/AIP/OPCRF
Attachments: School
the school community
Memorandum, Minutes of
to keep it up the Meeting, Project Proposal,
responsive and relevant Activity Completion Report
to emerging needs,
challenges and Innovative Programs for the
opportunities improvement of ACCESS
Other regular school programs:
- Wash in School Program,
Gulayan sa Paaralan,
Feeding Program, Others
5. Modes of Dissemination
Attachments: School Website,
Facebook
Account Page,
Leaflets/Brochures/Newsletters,
3. The school is Transparency/Bulletin Board,
School Paper, Communication
organized by a clear
Plan, Flow and System.
structure and work
arrangements that 6. School-based implementing
promote shared guidelines on Child Protection
leadership and Policy, Anti-Bullying, etc.
governance and define Attachments:
the roles and ▪ School Memorandum
responsibilities of the ▪ Consultation Report
(Attendance and Pictures)
stakeholders.
LEVEL 1 Indicator: The school
leads the regular quarterly
review and improvement of the
development plan
LEVEL 2 Indicator: The school
and 75-80% community
stakeholders working as full
partners, lead the quarterly
review and improvement of the
development plan
LEVEL 3 Indicator: The school
and 81-100% of the
community stakeholders lead
the quarterly review and
improvement process; the school
stakeholders facilitate the
process.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: The school
defines the organizational
structure, and the roles and
responsibilities of stakeholders.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: The
school and 51-80% community
collaboratively define the
 ▪ Proposed School structure and the roles and
implementing guidelines responsibilities of stakeholders
▪ Finalized School
implementing guidelines LEVEL 3 Indicator: Guided by
▪ School Handbook with an agreed organizational
Dissemination Report structure, the school and 81-
(pictorials, attendance) 100% of the community
▪ Intake Sheets
stakeholders lead in defining
the organizational structure and
7. EBEIS – Performance
the roles and responsibilities;
Indicators
school provides technical and
Gross Enrolment Rate, Net
administrative support.
Enrolment Rate, Cohort Survival
Rate, Transition Rate
4. A leadership network LEVEL 0: Not Evident
School Leaver Rate, Repetition
facilitates Rate, Completion Rate
communication LEVEL 1 Indicator: A network
ALS Completion Rate
has been collaboratively
between and among Percentage of ALS learners who
established and is continuously
school and community completed either elementary or
improved by the school
leaders for informed secondary level in accordance with
community yearly.
decision-making and the requirements
ALS A&E Passer Rate
solving of school- LEVEL 2 Indicator: The
Percentage of ALS Learners who
community wide- network actively provides
passed the ALS Accreditation and
learning problems stakeholders information for
Equivalency
making decisions and solving
Test
learning and administrative
problems twice a year.

LEVEL 3 Indicator: The

network allows easy exchange
and access to information
sources beyond the school
community every quarter.
5. A long term program LEVEL 0: Not Evident
is in operation that
addresses the training LEVEL 1 Indicator: Developing
structures are in place and
and development needs
analysis of the competency and
of school and
development needs of leaders is
community leaders. conducted; result is used to
develop a long-term training and
development program every
year.

LEVEL 2 Indicator: Leaders

undertake training modes for 2
quarters that are convenient to
them (on-line, off-line, modular,
group, or home-based) and
which do not disrupt their
regular functions. Leaders
monitor and evaluate their own
learning process.

LEVEL 3 Indicator: Leaders

assume responsibility for their
own training and development
every quarter. School
community leaders working
individually or in groups, coach,
and mentor one another to
achieve their VMG.
Sub-Total
 I. LEADERSHIP AND GOVERNANCE

Findings: Recommendations:

Best Features:

Validated by: ________________________________________

NAME OF SCHOOL ________________________________________________________________
NAME OF SCHOOL HEAD ________________________________________________________________
CLUSTER _____________________ DISTRICT
PREVIOUS RATING _______________ DATE OF VALIDATION ______________________________
II. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION (30)
The curriculum learning systems anchored on the community and learner’s contexts and aspirations are
collaboratively developed and continuously improved.
INDICATOR STANDARD MOVs
1. The curriculum 1. Teacher’s Portfolio LEVEL 0: Not Evident
provides for the Attachments:
development needs of ▪ RPMS/IPCRF portfolio LEVEL 1 Indicator: All types of
- Proportion of teachers learners of the school community
all types of learners in
meeting PPST career stage 3 in are identified, their learning
the school community all domains
(Highly Proficient)
▪ Monthly Supervisory
Plan
▪ Classroom Observation
Tool, Observation Notes,
Class Program, Sample
Lesson Plan
▪ DepEd e-mails and FB
accounts
▪ School Leadership with
Designation
▪ List of
Localized/Contextualize
d IMs with sample (Big
Books, MTB dictionary
etc.)
▪ School Initiated
SLM/LAS (sample)
▪ School Forms
▪ Improvised/Localized
LMs/ IMs/DLL
▪ List of instructional
materials
▪ List of Visual Aids,
Digitized IMs and
Quality Assured and
accepted Localized LMs
2. Training Development Plan
Attachments:
▪ Teacher’ s
Developmental Needs
▪ LAC/INSETs
Implementation Plan
(LAC template as per
DepEd/Division
2. The implemented Memorandum
curriculum is localized Issuances)
▪ Project Proposal
to make it more
▪ School Memorandum
meaningful to the ▪ Technical Working
learners and applicable Group
to life in the ▪ Activity Completion
community. Report which includes
training details,
attendance, pictures
financial and monitoring
report)
▪ Sample Certificate and
Program
▪ Technical Assistance
Plan (based on
DepEd/Division
Memorandum
Issuances)
_________________________________________
SELF SDO
LEVEL OF PRACTICE
RATING RATING
curves assessed; appropriate
programs with its support
materials for each type of learner
is developed with 26-50 percent
decrease of the non-numerates
and non-literate.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: Programs
are 100% implemented and
closely monitored to address
performances discrepancies,
benchmark best practices, coach
low performers, mentor potential
leaders, reward high achievement,
and maintain environment that
makes learning meaningful and
enjoyable with 51-75 decrease of
non-numerates and non-literates.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: These
educational needs of all types of
learners are being met as shown
by continuous improvement on
learning outcomes (see the table
under the MOVs and products of
learning.
Teachers’ as well as students’
performance is motivated by
intrinsic rather than extrinsic
rewards.
The schools’ differentiated
programs are frequently
benchmarked by other schools.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: Local beliefs,
norms, values, traditions,
folklores, current events, and
existing technologies are
documented and used to develop
a lasting curriculum.
Localization guidelines are agreed
to by school community and
teachers are properly oriented.
Developed localized curriculum in
4 learning areas.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: The localized
curriculum is implemented and
monitored closely to ensure that it
makes learning more meaningful
and pleasurable, produces desired
 ▪ TA report with results,
analysis and pictures
▪ Certificates of
Attendance to
Trainings/Seminar
(Division/Region/Nation
al/International)
3. Learners’ Outcome
Attachments:
▪ Performance Indicators
(Drop-Out, Graduation,
Cohort-Survival, etc.)
▪ Learners’ Tracking
System/Progress Report
▪ Learners’ profile with
their learning needs
▪ Learner’s Portfolio
▪ Alternative Delivery
Mode (ADM)
▪ Periodic Assessment
Results with analysis
3. A representative ▪ Summative Test Results
- Proportion of Students
group of school and
performing at proficient level
community - Numeracy Level
stakeholders develop - Literacy Level
the methods and
materials for The results of the reading test
developing creative in Filipino and English and
thinking & problem numeracy test shall be
solving. considered – with reference to
the policy standard set by the
CLMD.
The percentage weight for the
learning outcomes shall be:
10% - Filipino Reading Test
10% - English Reading Test
10% - Numeracy Test
To determine the improvement
of learning outcomes, the
rating standard below shall be
followed:
% of Decrease Rating
76-100% or 0 non- 3
reader/non-
numerates
51-75% 2 community to develop critical,
26-50% 1 creative thinking and problem-
25 and below 0 solving community of learners
Overall
High Proficient 3 all learning areas in all grade
(90-100%)
Proficient (75-89%) 2
Nearly Proficient (50- 1 LEVEL 0: Not Evident
4.The learning systems
74%)
are regularly and 49 below 0
collaboratively
monitored by the
community using 4. School Best Practices/
appropriate tools to Remarkable Accomplishments
ensure the holistic Attachments:
growth and ▪ School initiated
programs/projects
development of the ▪ Log sheet/logbook
learners and the showing names of
community. visitors benchmarked
school’s-initiated
programs
▪ Learners-initiated
projects
▪ Best Practices
▪ Innovations
▪ Programs for
improvement of the
learning outcomes, and directly
improves community life.
Ineffective approaches are
replaced, and innovative ones are
developed.
Developed localized curriculum in
6 learning areas.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: Best
practices in localizing the
curriculum are mainstreamed and
benchmarked by other schools.
There is marked increase in
number of projects that uses the
community learning laboratory,
and the school as an agent of
change for improvement of the
community.
Developed localized curriculum in
all learning areas.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: A
representative group of school and
community stakeholders assess
content and methods used in
teaching creative, critical thinking
and problem solving.
Assessment results are used as
guide to develop materials.
Developed learning materials in 4
learning areas in all grade
levels.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: Learning
materials and approaches to
reinforce strengths and address
deficiencies are developed and
tested for applicability on school,
family, and community.
Developed learning materials in 6
learning areas in all grade
levels.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: Materials
and approaches are being used in
school, in the family and in
and are producing desired results.
Developed learning materials in
levels.
LEVEL 1 Indicator: A school-
based monitoring and learning
system is conducted regularly and
cooperatively; and feedback is
shared with stakeholders.
The system uses a tool that
monitors the holistic development
of learners once a year.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: The school-
based monitoring and learning
systems generate feedback that is
used for making decisions that
enhance the total development of
learners for 2 quarters.
A committee take care of the
continuous improvement of the
tool.

5. Appropriate
assessment tools for
teaching and learning
are continuously
reviewed and improved,
and assessment results
are contextualized to
the learner and local
situation and the
attainment of relevant
life skills
5. School Research Outcomes
Attachments:
6. Learning managers and
facilitators (teachers,
administrators and
community members)
- Project Proposal
nurture values and
- Activity Completion Report
environments that are
protective of all children
and demonstrate 6. Sample Assessment Tool
behaviors consistent to Attachments:
the organization’s vision,
mission and goals.
7. Methods and
resources are learner
and community-
friendly, enjoyable,
safe, inclusive,
learning environment
and increased learning LEVEL 3 Indicator: The
outcomes monitoring system is accepted
▪ Continuous and regularly used for collective
Improvement (CI) decision making every quarter.
projects The monitoring tools has been
▪ Institutionalized improved to provide both
programs for inclusive
quantitative and qualitative data.
education
▪ Literary Services
▪ Guidance Forms LEVEL 0: Not Evident
▪ Guidance Records and
Reports LEVEL 1 Indicator: The
▪ Computer/Science/TLE assessment tools are reviewed by
Laboratory (if, any) the school and assessment results
▪ Learner’s initiated are shared with school’s
projects stakeholders once a year.
▪ Classroom Structuring
▪ Reading Centers/Study LEVEL 2 Indicator: The
Shed (Reading Books) assessment tools are reviewed by
▪ Co-curricular Activities the school community and results
Report (ex. Scouting, are shared with community
Religious Instructions,
stakeholders for 2 quarters.
Science Camp,
Education Summit, etc.)
LEVEL 3 Indicator: School
assessment results are used to
develop learning programs that
are suited to community, and
▪ List of Researches customized to each learner’s
(Proposal and context, results of which are used
Completed) as for collaborative decision-
▪ Dissemination Plan and making every quarter.
Report on Research
Outcomes LEVEL 0: Not Evident
▪ Innovations/Interventio
n/Enrichment / LEVEL 1 Indicator: Stakeholders
Remediation Programs are aware of child/learner-
centered, rights-based, and
inclusive principles of education.
Learning managers and
facilitators conduct activities
aimed to increase 50% of
stakeholders’ awareness and
▪ Table of Specification commitment to fundamental
▪ Formative/Summative rights of children and the basic
Tests principle of education them.
▪ Periodical Tests
Questions
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 75-80% of
▪ Evaluation Notebooks
Stakeholders begin to practice
▪ Test/Item Analysis
▪ Item Bank per learning child/learner-centered principles
area of education in the design of
▪ Rubric used support to education.
▪ Enhanced Assessment Learning managers and
Tools adopted from facilitators apply the principles in
Partners designing learning materials.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: Learning
environments methods and
resources are community driven,
inclusive and adherent to child’s
rights and protection
requirements with 81-100% of
stakeholders’ adherence to
child/learner-centered principles.
Learning managers and
facilitators observe learners’ rights
from designing the curriculum to
structuring the whole learning
environment.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: Practices,
tools and materials for developing
self-directed learners are 100%
accessible and aimed observable in school, but not in
at developing self- the home or in the community.
directed learners. Learning programs are designed
and developed to produce learners
Learners are equipped
who are responsible and
with essential
accountable for their learning.
knowledge, skills, and
values to assume LEVEL 2 Indicator: Practices,
responsibility and tools and materials for developing
accountability for their self-directed learners are
own learning. observable in the school and 51-
80% in the community.
The program is collaboratively
implemented and monitored by
teachers and parents to ensure
that it produces desired learners.

LEVEL 3 Indicator: There is

continuous exchange of
information, sharing of expertise
and materials among the schools,
home, and community for the
development of self-directed
learners with 81-100% are
observable in the school and 81-
100% in the home and
community.
The program is mainstreamed but
continuously improved to make
relevant to emergent demands.
Sub-Total
 II. CURRICULUM AND INSTRUCTION

Findings: Recommendations:

Best Features:

Validated by: ________________________________________

NAME OF SCHOOL ________________________________________________________________
NAME OF SCHOOL HEAD ________________________________________________________________
CLUSTER _____________________ DISTRICT
PREVIOUS RATING _______________ DATE OF VALIDATION ______________________________
III. ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT (25)
A clear, transparent, inclusive, and responsive accountability system is in place, collaboratively developed by
the school community, which monitors performance and acts appropriately on gaps and gains.
INDICATOR STANDARD MOVs
1. Roles and 1. School Monitoring,
responsibilities of Evaluation & Adjustment
accountable person/s (SMEA)
Attachments:
and collective body/ies
▪ SMEA Committee
are ▪ SMEA Meetings with
clearly defined and School Memorandum
agreed upon by ▪ Minutes of the Meeting
community ▪ SMEA Plan with
stakeholders. ➢ Quarterly Schedule of
Reporting to stakeholders
➢ Dissemination Report
relative to SMEA Results
- Quarterly/Semestral SMEA
Results
- Report on Midyear
Assessment and Year-End
Performance
▪ WinS TWG
2. School Organizational
Structure
- Functional
organizations/teams/com
2. Achievement of goals mittee
is recognized based on ▪ MPTA (DO No. 54,s. 2009,
a collaboratively DO No. 67, s. 2009)
▪ SGC
developed
▪ SSG/SPG (DM 4, s.
performance 2012),
accountability system; ▪ Finance Team
gaps are addressed ▪ SPT (School Planning
through appropriate Team)
action. ▪ SMEA Team
▪ Grievance Committee
▪ QA Team for school LRMD
▪ Organized school Quality
Management System,
others
Attachments:
-Structures / Chart,
-Constitutions and by-Laws
-Terms of Reference (TOR)
Attachments:
-Structures / Chart,
3. The accountability -Constitutions and by-Laws
system is owned by the -Terms of Reference (TOR)
community and is Responsibilities
-Designation / Appointment
continuously enhanced
-Oath of Office
to ensure that
-Invitation Letter
management
-School Memorandum
structures and
-Minutes of the Meeting
mechanisms are -List of Project Proposal refer to
responsive to the Principle 1: Leadership and
emerging learning Governance (PPA)
needs and demands of -Activity Completion Report
the community.
_________________________________________
SELF SDO
LEVEL OF PRACTICE
RATING RATING
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: There is an
active party that initiates
clarification of the roles and
responsibilities in education
delivery with 50% of
stakeholders’ participation.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: There is
51-80% stakeholders’
engagement in clarifying and
defining their specific roles and
responsibilities.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: Shared and
participatory processes with 81-
100% stakeholders’
engagement in determining
roles, responsibilities and
accountabilities of stakeholders
in managing and supporting
education.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator:
Performance accountability is
practiced at the school level with
50% gaps addressed.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: A
community-level accountability
system is evolving from school-
led initiatives with 51-80% gaps
addressed.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: A
community-accepted
performance accountability,
recognition and incentive system
is being practiced with 81-100%
gaps addressed.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: The school
articulates the accountability
assessment framework with
basic components, including
implementation guidelines to the
50 % of stakeholders.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 51-80% of
Stakeholders are engaged in the
development and operation of an
 -Enhanced School Process (QMS)
like in enrolment, module
distribution and retrieval (process
flow)
3. Feedback Mechanism
Attachments:
▪ Feedback from
Stakeholders regarding
school policies
▪ Feedback Tools
4. Accountability ▪ Suggestion Box, Clients’
Satisfaction Survey,
assessment criteria Checklist Form, Survey
and tools, feedback
Questionnaire, Tracer
mechanisms, and Study Tool, Text Brigade
▪ Summary of Suggestions
information collection
and Action Taken
and validation
▪ Survey Results, Analysis
techniques and
and Interventions
processes are inclusive
and 4. Stakeholders’ Recognition
collaboratively Attachments:
developed and agreed ▪ Institutionalized
upon. Recognition & Incentive
System on:
Internal Stakeholders
Learners
- Criteria, School Memorandum,
Quarterly Learner’s Recognition,
List of Awardees, Sample
Certificates, Pictorials, ACR on the
Awarding Activity
Teachers
- Criteria, School Memorandum,
5. Participatory Teacher’s Recognition, List of
assessment of Awardees, Sample Certificates,
performance is done Pictorials, ACR on the Awarding
Activity
regularly with the
Parents
community - Criteria, School Memorandum,
assessment results and Parent’s Recognition, List of
lessons learned serve Awardees, Sample
as basis for feedback, Certificates, Pictorials, ACR on
technical the Awarding Activity
assistance, recognition
and plan adjustment. External Stakeholders
- ACR on Stakeholders’
Convergence, List of Awardees,
Sample Certificates
Pictorials, Rubric/ Criteria
Awards received by the
Students/Pupils, teachers and
the School across governance
levels
(Division/Region/National/Inte
rnational)
- List of Awards, Sample
Certificates, Pictorials
5. School Performance and
Accomplishment
Attachments:
▪ School Report Card (SRC)
▪ State of the School
Address (SOSA)
Sub-Total
appropriate accountability
assessment system.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: 81-100%
of School community
stakeholders continuously and
collaboratively review and
enhance accountability systems’
processes, mechanisms and
tools.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: The school,
with the participation 50% of
stakeholders, articulates an
accountability assessment
framework with basic
components, including
implementation guidelines.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 51-80%
Stakeholders are engaged in the
development and operation of an
appropriate accountability
assessment system.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: 81-100%
Stakeholders continuously and
collaboratively review and
enhance accountability systems;
processes, mechanism and
tools.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: The school
initiates periodic performance
assessment with the
participation of 50%
stakeholders.
LEVEL 2 Indicator:
Collaboratively conduct of
performance assessment
informs planning, plan
adjustments and requirements
for technical assistance with 51-
80% stakeholders’
participation.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: School-
community-developed
performance assessment is
practiced and is the basis for
improving monitoring and
evaluation system, providing
technical assistance, and
recognizing and refining plans
with 81-100% stakeholders
participation.
 III. ACCOUNTABILITY AND CONTINUOUS IMPROVEMENT

Findings: Recommendations:

Best Features:

Validated by: ________________________________________

NAME OF SCHOOL ________________________________________________________________

NAME OF SCHOOL HEAD ________________________________________________________________

CLUSTER _____________________ DISTRICT _________________________________________

PREVIOUS RATING _______________ DATE OF VALIDATION ______________________________

IV. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES (15)

Resources are collectively and judiciously mobilized and managed with transparency, effectiveness and
efficiency.
INDICATOR STANDARD MOVs
1. Regular resource 1. APPROVED Work and
inventory is Financial Plan
collaboratively Attachments:
• School Memorandum
undertaken by learning
• Minutes of the Meeting
managers, learning
• Attendance
facilitators, and
• Pictures
community
stakeholders as basis
2. APPROVED School Operating
for resource allocation Budget
and mobilization. Attachments:
• School Memorandum
• Minutes of the Meeting
• Attendance
• Pictures
3. Social Mobilization &
Networking System
Attachments:
• Brigada Eskwela Report
(Acknowledgment Receipt,
Delivery Receipt, Pledges,
Deed of Donations, MOA/
MOU)
• Records of Donations with
Pictures
2. A regular dialogue
• Inventory of Projects given
for planning and by stakeholders
resource programming,
• Percentage of financial
that is accessible and contribution from
inclusive, continuously stakeholders and other
engage stakeholders partners
and support • Financial Report of School
implementation of PPAs
community education • State of the Barangay
plans. Address
• Barangay Development
Plan
• Barangay IRA
• Report on the Barangay
Assistance to schools
• Innovations for the
collective and judicious
utilization and
transparent, effective and
efficient resource
management system
4. School Finance
- Disbursement Documents for
3. In place is a funds
community-developed Attachments:
resource management • Liquidation Report
system that drives • Income Generating
Projects
appropriate behaviors
SELF SDO
LEVEL OF PRACTICE
RATING RATING
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: 50% of
Stakeholders are aware that a
regular resource inventory is
available and is used as the
basis for resource allocation and
mobilization.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: Resource
inventory is characterized by
regularity, with 51-80% of
participation of stakeholders,
and communicated to the
community as the basis for
resource allocation and
mobilization
LEVEL 3 Indicator: Resource
inventories are systematically
developed and with 81-100%
stakeholders’ engagement in a
collaborative process to make
decisions on resource allocation
and mobilization.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: 50%
Stakeholders participation in
the development of an
educational plan in resource
programming and in the
implementation of the
educational plan.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 51-80%
Stakeholders are regularly
engaged in the planning and
resource programming and in
the implementation of the
educational plan.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: 81-100%
Stakeholders collaborate to
ensure timely and need-based
planning and resource
programming and support
continuous implementation of
the educational plan.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: 50 % of
Stakeholders support judicious,
of the stakeholders to • Canteen
ensure judicious, • No Adverse COA Findings
appropriate, and on MOOE liquidation
• Cash Disbursement
effective use of
Register (MOOE)
resources.
• Report on Checks
• Bank Reconciliation
Statements
• Report of Accountability
of Accountable Forms
5. School Plan & Resources
Attachments:
• Annual Procurement Plan
• Human Resource
Developmental Plan
(HRDP)
4. Regular monitoring,
• Financial Mgt.
evaluation, and Development Plan (FMDP)
reporting processes of
• Technology Resource
resource management Improvement Plan (TRIP)
are collaboratively • School Physical
developed and Development Plan (SPDP)
implemented by the • Physical Facilities
learning managers, Improvement of the
School
facilitators and
• IGP Sustainability Plan
community
• Resources Allocation &
stakeholders.
Mobilization Plan (RAMP)
• School Site Titling
• Program of Works
• Report on the Physical
Count of Inventories
(RCPI)
• Report on the Physical
Count of Property, Plant
and Equipment (RPCPPE)
• Report on Supplies and
Materials Issued Copies of
Inventory Custodian
Slips/PARs/MRs
5. There is a system
that manages the 6. School Inventory of
Resources
network and linkages
• Human Resources
which strengthen and
- Pupil/Student Classroom
sustain partnerships Ratio
for improving resource - Teacher-Student Ratio
management - 201 Files
- Leaves of absences
- Contracts (LSB Teachers, Jos)
- Payroll/Form 7
• School Facilities
- Seat-Student ratio
- Functional Library
- Inventory of Rooms
- Furniture, Equipment
• Technological resources
- ICT package/E-classroom
package
- Internet Access
- Electricity connection
- WinS Assessment
Sub-Total
appropriate, and effective use of
resources.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 51-80% of
Stakeholders are engaged and
share expertise in the
collaborative development of
resource management system.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: 81-100%
of Stakeholders sustain the
implementation and
improvement of a collaboratively
developed, periodically adjusted,
and constituent-focused
resource management system.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: 50% of
Stakeholders are invited to
participate in the development
and implementation of
monitoring, evaluation and
reporting processes on resource
management.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 51-80% of
Stakeholders collaboratively
participate in the development
and implementation of
monitoring, evaluation and
reporting resource management.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: 81-100%
of Stakeholders are engaged,
held accountable and implement
a collaboratively developed a
system of monitoring, evaluation
and reporting resource
management.
LEVEL 0: Not Evident
LEVEL 1 Indicator: An
engagement procedure to
identify and utilize partnerships
with 50% stakeholders for
improving resource management
is evident.
LEVEL 2 Indicator: 51-80%
Stakeholders support a system
of partnerships for improving
resource management.
LEVEL 3 Indicator: An
established system of
partnership is managed and
sustained by 81-100%
stakeholders for continuous
improvement of resource
management.
 IV. MANAGEMENT OF RESOURCES

Findings: Recommendations:

Best Features:

Validated by: ________________________________________