Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.

6964618, ISSN 2822-4353

Research Article

Implementation of DepEd Support Programs: Basis for an Enhanced

Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism

Ronilo H. Palingcod*
For affiliations and correspondence, see the last page.

Abstract
This study aimed to assess the level of implementation of support programs and the level of
efficiency of the existing monitoring and evaluation of programs in public secondary schools of the
3rd congressional district of Bohol in school year 2018-2019. The survey method was employed using
a self-made questionnaire. The gathering tool underwent pilot testing and the reliability was good. In
the actual survey, detailed explanation was provided by the researcher which guided the respondents
in answering the items properly. They were informed, beforehand, that data confidentiality was an
essential consideration and that whatever their responses may be, the data gathered including their
personal identity will be held confidential. Questionnaires were retrieved right away and then the
gathered data were statistically treated to test the hypotheses. After data gathering, it was revealed
that there was difference in the level of implementation of support programs and in the level of
efficiency of the existing M&E mechanism used which meant that the two major categories of
programs were not in the same way implemented, monitored and evaluated in the schools. It was
concluded that School Health and Nutrition Programs (SHNP) were likely given higher priority in
terms of program implementation, monitoring and evaluation than Dropout Reduction Programs
(DORP). Hence, an enhanced monitoring and evaluation tool was developed to guide all concerned
individuals in the future implementation, monitoring and evaluation of support programs in the
Department of Education.

Keywords: Support Programs, Monitoring and Evaluation of Programs, Public Secondary Schools,
M & E Mechanism, Department of Education

Introduction According to World Bank, an effective monitoring and

The Department of Education in cooperation with
other government agencies initiated support programs
in schools to address common issues on student
dropout, absenteeism, health and nutrition, low
academic performance, and the shortage of resources
and equipment. These support programs and other
related innovations are non-negotiable in nature and
are aimed at resolving specific concerns or issues
concerning instructional delivery at the school level
with the hopes to improve relevance and quality in
education.
It is now generally accepted by all that support
program success hinges on strict monitoring and
evaluation. At the program level, monitoring and
evaluation has an important purpose and that is to
systematically track implementation including
program outputs, and to measure effectiveness. This is
essential as it helps determine exactly when a program
is on track and when changes may be needed.
Effective monitoring and evaluation mechanisms are
key to program implementation success in the
Department of Education as there are several programs
in the system, at the recent times that have no working
and functional monitoring and evaluation initiatives.
evaluation mechanism is critical for raising awareness
and promoting a debate about the efficiency of
programs. In the educational milieu, a functional
monitoring and evaluation mechanism is essential for a
program to prosper, to sustain and to produce positive
results. It is also important as it gives feedback to the
department in general maintaining authority,
responsibility and accountability of government
programs and other initiatives (RA 9155).
In the Department of Education, Bohol Division,
dropout remains a major concern in the secondary
schools. Data reveal that in school year 2014-2015, the
recorded dropout is 3.1 percent. In the following
school year 2015-2016, it slightly reduces to 2.58
percent and 2.48 percent in school year 2016-2017.
These figures are alarming since DepEd sets zero
percent for dropout and various support programs are
already initiated to address this issue to keep learners
in school and totally eradicate this major problem at all
levels.
This research work aims to assess the level of
implementation of support programs and the level of
efficiency of the existing monitoring and evaluation of
programs in the public secondary schools of the 3 rd
congressional district of Bohol school year 2018-2019

Ronilo H. Palingcod
2/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
with the desired end in mind to produce a quality
monitoring and evaluation tool needed in the
implementation of support programs - to make sure
that every support program will serve its purpose in
the Department of Education.
Research Questions
The primary objective of this study is to assess the
level of implementation support programs and the
level of efficiency of the existing monitoring and
evaluation of programs in public secondary schools of
the 3rd congressional district of Bohol in school year
2018-2019. Specifically, this study seeks answers to
the following questions:
1. Is there a significant degree of correlation between
the following variables:
1.1 number of teachers and level of implementation;
and
1.2 level of implementation and SBM Level?
2. Is there a significant difference in the level of
implementation between the two main categories of
DepEd support programs?
3. Is there a significant difference in the level of
efficiency of the existing monitoring and evaluation in
the two category of support programs?
Literature Review
Success of programs and projects depends on how
monitoring and evaluation is done during the process
of implementation. As an essential factor to program
success, monitoring is the collection and analysis of
information about a project or program undertaken
while the project or the program is on-going, while
evaluation is the periodic and retrospective assessment
of an organization, project or program that might be
conducted internally or by external independent
evaluators (Blondal, 2013).
Monitoring and evaluation is anchored on the “Theory
of Change” which emerged in the 1990s to address
monitoring and evaluation issues of complex social
development programs. This belief stresses to consider
the sequence of change necessary for long-term goals
to be reached (O’Flynn, 2012). Theory of Change can
be seen as an ‘on-going process of discussion-based
analysis and learning that produces powerful insights
to support program design, strategy, implementation,
evaluation and impact assessment, communicated
through diagrams and narratives which are updated at
regular intervals’ (Vogel, 2012, p5). According to
James (2011), ‘Theory of Change’ is most useful for
Ronilo H. Palingcod
complex organizations and programs that involve
multiple partners as they enable a shared
understanding of how change happens and an
organization or program’s own role in bringing about
change.
‘Theory of Change’ thinking requires a commitment to
take a reflective, critical and honest approach to
answer difficult questions about how our efforts might
influence change, given the political realities,
uncertainties and complexities that surround all
development initiatives. This requires organizations to
have the willingness but also the power and
opportunity to be realistic and flexible in their
programing at the design stage and during
implementation.
Innovation in our educational system is fast-paced.
There is an immediate need for every DepEd employee
to be adaptive and responsive to change and one of the
very notable changes in the system these days is the
implementation of educational support programs
which are aimed at resolving issues and other specific
problems concerning students in the public schools.
The Department of Education implemented support
programs and policies to address educational issues in
public elementary and secondary schools and to keep
children in school as mentioned in the Philippine
Education For All (EFA) Review Report in 2015.
Anchored on the belief that academic performance of
the pupils and instructional outcomes are determined
by the quality of health of the school children, the
Department of Education released DO No. 65 s. 2009
entitled ‘Implementation of Essential Health Care
Programs for School Children’ to address health
problems among school children, to keep them in
school, and to prevent them from dropping out. A year
after its release, the Department of Education (DepEd)
together with the support of the Department of Health
(DOH), the German Development Cooperation, Fit For
School Inc., other private sector and non-government
organizations, and stakeholders released the third
edition of the Teacher's Manual for the Essential
Health Care Program (EHCP) to guide teachers in the
elementary and secondary schoo ls in the
implementation of health programs like handwashing,
toothbrushing, and deworming at the school level.
In 2011, the Department of Education released DO No.
43 s. 2011 entitled ‘Strengthening the School Health
and Nutrition Programs for the Achievement of
Education For All (EFA) and Millennium
Development Goals (MDGs)’ which calls all
concerned officials including elementary and
3/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
secondary school heads to take the lead in ensuring
that school health and nutrition programs and projects
are integrated in regional and division annual and
medium-term plans and School Improvement Plans
(SIPs) with administrative and financial support in line
with the School-Based Management (SBM) principles.
The Department of Education (DepEd) through the
Health and Nutrition Center (HNC) is strengthening
the School Health and Nutrition Programs (SHNP)
into its key programs and aligning all its activities into
one seamless whole. This is envisioned to make this
department better able to determine effectiveness and
relevance of its programs and to make these more
responsive to the DepEd’s mission of enhancing
students’ motivation and capacity for learning,
improving learning outcomes, reducing absenteeism,
and ensuring the school-age children are able to stay in
school. In this department order, a comprehensive
matrix of activities including a timeframe for
implementation is attached to guide schools on the
implementation of other health programs.
The School Health and Nutrition Program (SHNP) in
government schools is categorized into four categories.
Medical, Dental and Nursing Services and Nutritional
Assessment are classified under “Health and Nutrition
and Examination for Children and Youth” which are
aimed to promote, protect and maintain the health
status of school children and teachers including non-
teaching personnel through the provision of health
services.
To reduce drop-out rate and absenteeism and to
improve general health services including learning
capacity, School-based Deworming Program, Vision
and Auditory Screening, Oral Health Care Program
and Essential Health Care Programs (EHCP) fall
under the second category which is called “Health
Services Provision”.
Essential Health Care Programs (EHCP), Oral Health
Care Program is discussed in DepED Order No. 65, s.
2009. In this department order, DepEd stresses that
education and health are interrelated and that academic
performance of the pupils and instructional outcomes
are determined by the quality of health of the school
children. It is also noted there that unhealthy children
cannot develop their full potential which may result to
high drop-out rates and low academic performance.
Furthermore, as mentioned, the health status of public
school pupils in public schools is alarmingly poorly.
Dental caries, infectious diseases (respiratory tract
infections and diarrhea) and worm infestations are the
most common hygiene deficiency related infectious
diseases in public schools which are due to lack of
Ronilo H. Palingcod
water and functional sanitary facilities. If unattended,
these will lead to malnutrition, poor physical growth
and other diseases like anemia, toothache, among
others.
To address these problems, the Essential Health Care
Program (EHCP) for school children shall be
institutionalized in all schools. Through this project,
soap, toothbrush, toothpaste with fluoride and
deworming medicines will be provided for the conduct
of daily handwashing, daily toothbrushing and bi-
annual deworming of all children. These are the most
cost effective, evidence-based preventive interventions
to improve the health of school children in public
schools and thereby, improving their academic
performance.
Recently, the Department of Education (DepED),
League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP) and Fit
for School Inc., forged a Memorandum of
U n d er s t an d in g (MOU) for a n atio n wid e
imp lemen tation of EHCP.
The third category is called ‘Supplementary Feeding
for Undernourished Children’ and under which are the
Gulayan sa Paaralan Program and Breakfast Feeding
Program which are also aimed at reducing dropout and
absenteeism, promoting health and life enhancing
behaviors and easing hunger and extreme poverty.
Finally, to promote health enhancing behaviors and to
prevent diseases among school-age children and other
youths are the main objectives of the fourth set of
nutrition programs called ‘Complementary Programs
for Schools and Communities’ which include School-
based HIV/AIDS Prevention and Education Program,
National Drug Education Program, Traditional and
Alternative Health Care, and Health Promoting
School Program.
In 2018, the Department of Education together with
the World Health Organization (WHO) and the Bureau
of Learner Support Services (BLSS) launched the
Oplan Kalusugan sa Department of Education or ‘OK
sa DepEd Program’. This program aims to implement
several health and nutrition programs to maintain and
improve the health of learners and even school
personnel through the prevention and control of
diseases and the promotion of health-related
knowledge, skills and practices. In the past years,
school health and nutrition support programs under the
SHNP were composed of 12 individual or separate
programs. In this new initiative, DepEd focuses on
major programs specifically on School-Based Feeding
4/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
Program (SBFP), National Drug Education Program
(NDEP), Adolescent Reproductive Health Education
(ARH), Water Sanitation and Hygiene (WASH) in
Schools (WinS) and Medical, Dental and Nursing
Services. Other health and nutrition programs will
continue to be implemented in support of these five
flagship programs.
During the ‘OK sa DepEd Program’ launching in
Makati City on July 16, 2018, Deped Secretary
Briones elaborated that health challenges faced by the
country today are different from the health challenges
five years ago and timely support programs in school
health and nutrition are needed. At the division level,
several health personnel were hired in order to
implement this program in both elementary and
secondary schools. According to Maria Aurora D.
Lumaad, MD, MA, Medical Officer III, In-Charge of
SHNP in DepEd Bohol, the previous school health
programs were integrated in the major services under
the ‘OK sa DepEd Program’. As to implementation of
programs, several medical workers were already hired,
assigned or deployed to the different districts in the
division of Bohol.
On the other hand, Drop-out Reduction Programs
(DORP) are aligned to Article XIV of the Philippine
Constitution which stresses on the role of the state to
protect and promote the right of every citizen to
quality education at all levels and shall take
appropriate steps to make such education accessible.
Further, as mentioned on the same article, it is a duty
of the state to establish and maintain a system of
education relevant to the needs of the people and the
society; and to encourage non-formal, informal, and
indigenous systems as well as self-learning,
independent, and out-of-school study programs
particularly those that respond community needs.
Education Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 232) underscores the
right of every individual to relevant quality education
regardless of sex, age, creed, socio-economic status,
physical and mental condition, racial or ethnic origin,
political and other affiliation. These notions led the
Department of Education to implement Drop-Out
Reduction Program (DORP) in the secondary schools
where support programs like Open High School
Program (OHSP), Effective Alternative Secondary
Education (EASE), School Initiated Interventions
(SIIs), and Other Interventions (OIs) are implemented.
It is an inalienable right of every individual to receive
education which will enable him/her to become a
productive citizen. The Philippine Constitution,
recognizing this right, mandates that every individual
regardless of age, sex, race, political or socio-
Ronilo H. Palingcod
economic status must enjoy access to quality and
relevant basic education. The Open High School
Program (OHSP) is an alternative mode of delivering
secondary education for both public and private
schools. It puts premium on independent, self-pacing
and flexible study to reach learners who are unable to
start or complete secondary education due to problems
of time, distance, physical impairment, financial
difficulties, social or family problems. This program
aims to retain in school potential dropouts, to
encourage out-of-school youth of high school age (12-
16) to return to school and to contribute to the
accomplishment of the Education For All (EFA 2015)
target which is 100% participation rate and zero
dropout rate by 2015.
To strengthen the holding power of the schools,
Project EASE (Effective Alternative Secondary
Education) is implemented for students who cannot
attend class regularly due to personal, economic or
financial reasons. It was intended to complement the
existing formal system to make secondary education
more accessible to students in disadvantaged
situations. An EASE student can enter into a contract
with the school to study at home for a period of time
until he/she is ready to return to the formal system.
Learning is facilitated with the use of modules as
instructional materials during the period when they are
out of the classroom.
To address student performance concerns and other
academic related issues of students in schools,
interventions like home visitation is initiated to give
importance on the idea that a home visit is a way to
bridge the gap between school and home for students,
families, and teachers. Next, personalized mentoring is
an intervention that teachers design in order to cater
students individual learning needs – in order for them
to cope up with regular lessons in the class. Lastly, to
promote coaching and mentoring among learners,
competent students are given special tasks to give
support or offer assistance to other learners in order to
keep them on track and that peer mentoring or tutoring
is initiated. All these fall under School Initiated
Interventions (SIIs).
Other Interventions (OIs) like the Amuna Giya Alang
sa Kalampusan (AGAK) Program and Continuous
Improvement are also implemented. Consistent with
the Education For All (EFA) Program of the
Department of Education, the Division of Bohol
implemented the "AGAK" Program - a Child Nurture
Program that envisions a 100 percent completion of all
students in basic education in the province of Bohol.
Through the collective effort of all DepED - Bohol
5/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
teachers and school heads, AGAK aims to provide
sponsorship to indigent students and those that are at
risk of dropping out. This means a teacher will monitor
the child’s attendance and progress and help him/her if
there are difficulties encountered by students along the
way while schooling. As an initiative on improving
access to basic education, the goal of AGAK is to
ensure that every Boholano student will have the
chance to finish elementary and high school.
Consistent with RA 9155, the national educational
policies, plans and standards, the schools division
superintendents, education program supervisors,
school heads and other stakeholders shall have
authority, accountability and responsibility for
developing and implementing education development
programs and ensuring compliance of quality
standards and this can be done only when concerned
offices implement a quality, comprehensive, and
executable monitoring and evaluation tool that can be
utilized in tracking program process, progress and
success in the department. Further, section five (5) of
RA 9155 stresses the importance of shared governance
which recognizes that every unit in the education
bureaucracy has a particular role, task and
responsibility inherent in the office and for which it is
principally accountable for the outcomes and that
feedback mechanisms shall be established to ensure
coordination and open communication of the central
office with the regional, division and school levels.
In order for educational support programs and other
related innovations to prosper and sustain, a strict
monitoring and evaluation needs to be considered.
Monitoring and Evaluation (M&E) provides concerned
individuals with means to learn from past experience
in order to improve planning and resource allocation
decisions and in order to demonstrate results as part of
accountability to key stakeholders. Within the context
of the Department of Education, specifically at the
school level, there is a growing interest in monitoring
and evaluation yet there is often a confusion about
what monitoring and evaluation of programs entails.
DepEd Order No. 27 s. 2006 entitled “Implementation
of the Education for All (EFA) Plans on Critical Tasks
on Regular Monitoring of Progress” states that DepEd
officials are enjoined to undertake and participate in
the establishment of planning, monitoring and
evaluation teams in the regional and division levels to
monitor implementation of priority programs in the
system.
According to the study entitled “The Roles of
Monitoring and Evaluation in Projects”, monitoring
and evaluation when carried out correctly and at the
Ronilo H. Palingcod
right time and place are two of the most important
aspects of ensuring the success of many projects.
Though monitoring and evaluation is known to many
project developers and implementers, they both tend to
be given little priority, and as a result they are done
simply for the sake of fulfilling the requirements of
most funding agencies without the intention of using
them as a mechanism of ensuring the success of the
projects. Suited monitoring and evaluation
mechanisms are to be considered since each project
may have unique requirements (Otiebo, 2012).
According to the journal Engaging Stakeholders
published by RMC Research Corporation, Arlington
VA in September 2009, schools seeking improved
outcomes usually have one or more “champions for
change” on the inside of the organization, and these
leaders can often engage other staff to produce better
results in the short term. If schools are going to build
support for on-going success, they also need advocates
for improved program outcomes outside the immediate
organization—constituents who understand the
mission of the school, who share the champions’
vision and passion for student success, and who have a
personal stake in the performance of the school and its
students and that strict monitoring and evaluation of
relevant programs and other innovations needs to be
initiated. The Department of Education implemented
various support programs which are being cascaded
starting from the national down to the school level to
resolve education issues our school children are
challenged upon but due to overlapping of programs
and activities in the division, in the district and in the
schools and the constant implementation of programs
in education, many programs are not properly
monitored (Durban, 2012).
Anuradha (2017) conducted a study entitled ‘Factors
Affecting Successful Implementation of Poverty
Alleviation Policy in Sri Lanka’. This study integrates
communication, top management support, disposition,
capability, availability of resources, number of people
involved in the implementation, and past experience in
order to propose suitable model to identify the factors
influencing successful implementation of poverty
alleviation program in Sri Lanka. The unit of analysis
of this study was the implementing officers. This study
found that disposition factor has the most significant
impact on successful implementation, followed by past
experience, capability, and number of people involved
in the implementation. In this study, he found out that
the number of people involved in implementation
phase has a significant impact towards implementation
success.
6/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
According to Durlark & Dupre (2008) in the study
entitled ‘The Importance of Quality Implementation
for Research Practice and Policy’ quality program
implementation is one critical factor associated with
positive outcomes regardless of characteristics of the
target population, the type of program and specific
program goals. Additional research findings indicate
the importance of high quality implementation. In
reviews of bullying prevention programs (Smith,
Schneider, Smith, & Ananidou, 2004) and youth
mentoring programs (DuBois, Holloway, Valentine, &
Cooper, 2002), authors have compared outcomes for
youth who had participated in programs that varied in
the quality of their implementation. Compared to
participants in programs that were poorly
implemented, youth who had been in programs that
had been implemented with higher quality
demonstrated two or three times as much benefit on
outcomes such as increased social competence and
lower levels of bullying.
Still another example illustrates the importance of
quality implementation in affecting critical youth
outcomes. In a large-scale review of school-based
programs involving over 200 studies and over a
quarter of a million youth, the benefits demonstrated
by students receiving programs associated with higher
quality implementation were compared to those
participating in programs that were implemented with
poorer quality (Durlak, Weissberg, Dymnicki, Taylor
& Schellinger, 2010). The former students showed
gains in academic performance that were twice as high
as the latter group; furthermore, the students in the
better implemented programs also showed a reduction
in emotional distress (e.g., depression and anxiety) that
was more than double the reduction shown by the
latter group and a reduction in levels of conduct
problems that was nearly double that of the latter
group. In other words, effective implementation can
lead to larger gains for youth in several important
domains of adjustment. With poor implementation,
you may get no or just a small amount of change; with
effective/high quality implementation, you may get
changes of larger magnitude. The above data indicate
it is clearly worthwhile to strive for high quality
implementation.
Methodology
Design
This study is a quantitative research employing the
survey method. Survey method is a technique of
gathering data by asking questions to the respondents
Ronilo H. Palingcod
who are thought to have desired information. A formal
list of questionnaire was prepared.
To examine the entire population of this study, the
total enumeration was employed. Total enumeration is
a type of purposive sampling technique that involves
examining the entire population that have a particular
set of characteristics. A self-made questionnaire was
used in gathering data from the respondents which
passed the reliability test and was pilot tested. Pilot
Testing is a small scale experiment conducted in order
to evaluate time, cost, feasibility and other factors that
may affect statistical variability. These are usually
carried out on the members of a relevant population
but not on those who will form part of the final sample
because doing so may influence the behavior of
research subjects who will be involved in the final test.
It is often used to test the design of a full-scale
experiment which then can be adjusted. Pilot testing is
primarily done to improve the study design prior to the
conduct of a full-scale research project. In this study,
pilot testing was conducted in 30 secondary schools in
the 2nd Congressional District prior to its full
administration in the 3rd Congressional District.
Before the questionnaires were distributed for pilot
and final testing, a letter request was submitted to the
office of the schools division superintendent to seek
approval and then copies of the approved letter
requests were furnished to the respondents.
Respondents
The respondents of this study are the 61 secondary
school heads coming from 19 towns in the 3 r d
congressional district of Bohol in school year
2018-2019.
Environment
Composed of 19 towns or districts, the locale of this
study was the 3rd congressional district of Bohol.
Every town or district is managed and supervised by a
full-fledged Public Schools District Supervisor (PSDS)
or if not, an Acting or OIC PSDS is designated. Based
on DepEd’s structure and staffing system, a secondary
school is either managed by a full-fledged school head
with Head Teacher or Principal appointment or with
temporary designation to manage or supervise a school
issued by the division superintendent in which case is
applied for School In-Charge (SIC) or Teacher In-
Charge (TIC). While school heads have different
appointments, positions and designations in the
secondary schools, their functions, responsibilities and
7/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article
duties as administrative and instructional leaders are
the same. In this study, the school heads of the
respondent schools from 19 towns of the 3 r d
congressional district were targeted regardless of their
current appointment or designation.
Instrument
Respondents were asked to answer the self-made
questionnaire which was composed of four parts. The
first focused on the profile of school heads according
to sex, age, designation, length of service, highest
educational attainment and seminars attended. The
second and the third section dealt with the level of
implementation and the level of efficiency in the
existing monitoring and evaluation of DepEd support
programs where respondents choose from among the
given scaling an appropriate response on specific items
asked as reflected on the questionnaire. Further, the
last part of the questionnaire asked about the
perception of the respondents on the relevance,
effectiveness, timeliness and sustainability of the
existing support programs. Moreover, secondary
school data like the number of teachers, the number of
non-teaching personnel, school size and SBM level
were also gathered.
Data Gathering Procedure
To have a smooth flow throughout this research work,
a schedule of activities was carefully planned.
Essential activities were considered before respondents
were given the cue to start answering. A detailed
explanation was undertaken in order to guide them in
answering the items properly as reflected on the
questionnaire. Respondents were informed, beforehand
that data confidentiality was an essential consideration
and that whatever their responses may be, the data
gathered including their personal identity will be held
confidential. Questionnaires were retrieved right away
and then the gathered data were tallied in tables for
analysis and interpretation. The gathered pieces of
information were statistically treated to test the
hypotheses, and the findings became the bases for
recommendation.
Results
This section deals with the presentation, analysis and
interpretation of the gathered data which unveils the
significant degree of correlation between the number
of teachers and the level of implementation of
programs and the level of implementation of programs
and SBM Level. Finally, this section also presents the
Ronilo H. Palingcod
significant difference in the level of implementation
between the two main categories of support programs
and the significant difference in the level of efficiency
of the existing monitoring and evaluation in the two
main categories of support programs as mentioned in
this study.
The Correlation Between the Number of Teachers
and Level of Implementation of Support Programs
Table 1 presents the degree of correlation between the
number of teachers and level of implementation of
support programs.
There is no significant relationship between the
number of teachers and the level of implementation of
support programs; p=0.827(>0.05) which implies that
the number of teachers is not associated with the level
of implementation of support programs. This negates
to the results gathered by Anuradha (2017) in his study
where he found out that the number of people involved
in implementation phase has a significant impact
towards implementation success.
Table 1. Degree of Correlation Between No. of
Teachers and Level of Implementation
The C o rr e la t io n Betwee n the Lev el of
Implementation of Support Programs and SBM
Level
Table 2 displays the degree of correlation between the
level of implementation of support programs and SBM
level. There is no significant relationship between the
level of implementation of support programs and SBM
level; p=0.501(>0.05) which can imply that the SBM
level of schools in not necessarily linked to the level of
implementation of support programs and that other
external aspects can possibly be a contributing factor.
Tab le 2. Deg ree of Co r rela tio n Level of
Imp lementa tion and SBM Level
8/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

noncompliant to Republic Act 9155 “Governance of

Basic Education Act” which stresses that shared
The Significant Difference in the Level of
governance of programs and projects is indispensable.
Implementation Between the Two Main Categories
DepEd initiates support programs to make public
of Support Programs education accessible to all by providing support and
other learning modalities to the learners regardless of
Table 3 unveils the significant difference in the level status and relative to this, an unbiased quality M & E
of implementation between the two main categories of has to be practiced.
su p p ort p ro g r am s. The av er ag e lev el of
implementation of School Health and Nutrition Table 4. Significant Difference in the Level of
Programs (3.1475) is significantly different (t = 8.677 Efficiency of the Existing Monitoring and Evaluation
<0.05) from the average level of implementation of
Dropout Reduction Programs (2.3197). It can be
inferred that there is a significant difference in the
level of implementation of the main category of
support programs. This means that SHNPs are not in
the same way implemented as DORP. According to
Durlark (2008), quality program implementation is one
critical factor associated with positive outcomes and
for support programs to serve their purpose, quality
implementation is necessary.

Table 3. Significant Difference in the Level of Discussion

Implementation of the Two Main Category of Support
Programs
Based on the analysis of the gathered data, the
following emerged which served as basis for
conclusions and recommendations.

Profile of Respondents. There was almost an even

The Significant Difference in the Level of Efficiency
of the Existing Monitoring and Evaluation of the
Main Category of Support Programs
Table 4 exhibits the significant difference in the level
of efficiency of the existing monitoring and evaluation
of the main category of support programs.
The average level of efficiency of the existing M & E
on SHNP (mean = 3.1694) significantly differs (t =
7.541, p<0.05) from the average level of efficiency of
the existing M & E on DORP (2.3156). There is a
significant difference in the level of efficiency of the
existing M & E between the two main categories of
support programs. This denotes that SHNP and DORP
are not coequally monitored and evaluated. This is
number of females and males. Majority of the
respondents were within 45-49 and 50-54 years old,
respectively. Majority of them were full-fledged
school heads with either a principal item or a head
teacher item. Most were serving as school heads for 1-
10 and 11-20 years. Most of them had only 18 MA
units and had undergone trainings on either
Continuous Improvement (CI) projects and School
Heads Development Programs (SHDP) but there were
still a few who were not sent to relevant trainings and
seminars.
School Profile. Most of the secondary schools were
recorded to have 11-20 and 21-30 teachers and
majority had 1-2 and 3-4 non-teaching personnel. As
to school size, majority of the secondary schools were
classified as ‘medium school’ and many were also
under the ‘large school’ category. Majority of the
schools had a ‘maturing’ SBM level which meant that
they had a moderate level of management practice in
the components of SBM.
Perception of Respondents to the Support
Programs. Majority of the respondents had ‘moderate

Ronilo H. Palingcod
9/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

positive perception’ on both SHNP and DORP. This Conclusion

indicated that support programs regardless of
categorization were relevant, effective, timely and
sustainable programs that can help reduce absenteeism In the implementation, monitoring and evaluation of
and dropout thus positively increase participation and support programs at the school level, School Health
completion rate in the secondary schools. and Nutrition Programs (SHNP) are likely given
higher priority than Dropout Reduction Programs
Level of Implementation of the Main Category of (DORP).
Programs. Majority of the respondents answered that
the level of implementation of programs under school The resear ch er arriv es on the fo llo win g
health was ‘good’. On the hand, most of them recommendations: (1) Expected to effectively perform
answered that DORPs were ‘fairly implemented’ and both the job of an instructional and administrative
leader, a secondary school head needs to upgrade
only very few of them responded that DORP were
professionally by acquiring relevant post-graduate
‘excellently implemented’.
courses aside from attending relevant seminars
Level of Efficiency of the Existing M & E of because formal schooling opens extensive learning
Support Programs. The efficiency of the existing M opportunities which cannot be equated in short-term
& E of SHNP was ‘moderately efficient’ which meant trainings. This is an essential undertaking of a school
head because his or her job requires a different skill
that M & E related activities of programs under this
set. (2) To raise the SBM level practice of many
category were conducted only once every year.
secondary schools, ROs and SDOs need to conduct
Moreover, a ‘somewhat efficient’ level for DORP was
regular trainings about SBM’s attached components:
recorded which meant that M & E of support programs
leadership and governance; curriculum and instruction;
in this class was done only when needed.
accountability and continuous improvement and
management of resources. (3) SHNP and DORP are
Significant Degree of Correlation
essential support programs which need to be fully and
coequally implemented, monitored and evaluated.
No. of Teachers and Level of Implementation.
With this, program ownership and shared governance
There is no significant relationship between the
may be observed. (4) School Division Offices (SDOs)
number of teachers and the level of implementation of
must implement a doable, regular and fair monitoring
support programs which signified that the number of
and evaluation of support programs to ensure that the
teachers was not associated with the level of
prescribed programs are religiously implemented,
implementation of support programs.
monitored and evaluated at the school level and not
just executed for the sake of compliance. (5) Public
Level of Implementation and SBM Level. There is
Schools District Supervisors / Acting PSDSs need to
no significant relationship between the level of
strictly implement in their level strict monitoring and
implementation of support programs and SBM level
evaluation of support programs and craft a matrix of
which indicated that the SBM level of schools is not
regular M & E activities to ensure that appropriate
necessarily linked to the level of implementation of
intervention or support program will serve its purpose
support programs and that other external aspects can
for the benefit of at-risk learners. (6) A reward system
possibly be a contributing factor.
may0 be initiated to recognize effort, to encourage
participation and to sustain the implementation of
S i g n i f i ca n t D i f f e r e nc e in the Lev el of
programs at all levels. (7) Future researchers are
Implementation. There is a significant difference in
encouraged to conduct similar studies to validate the
the level of implementation of the main category of
findings and conclusions of this study.
support programs. This implied that SHNPs were not
coequally implemented as DORPs or vice versa.
References
Significant Difference in the Level of Efficiency of
the Existing M & E. There is a significant difference Blondal (2013). Theory of Change: How to Navigate Towards
Positive Social Change in Complex Settings. Faglight Fokus. Osney
in the level of efficiency of the existing M & E
Mead, Oxford, United Kingdom
between the two main categories of support programs.
It can be implied from the findings that SHNP were Daniels (2009). Engaging Stakeholders. RMC Research
Corporation, Arlington VA
not in the same way monitored and evaluated as
DORP. Durban et. al. (2010). Asian journal of social science & humanities,

Ronilo H. Palingcod
10/11
Psych Educ, Document ID: PEMJ0, doi: 10.5281/zenodo.6964618, ISSN 2822-4353
Research Article

issues and concerns of the Philippine education through the years. Monse B. et al. (2010) Manual for teachers for the implementation
Far Eastern University, Manila; University of San Agustin Iloilo of essential health care program in schools. Fit for School Inc.,
City, Philippines Cagayan de Oro, Philippines

Engela, Ronette, and Tania Ajam (2010). Implementing a O’Flynn, M (2012). Theory of Change: What’s it all about?
Governmentwide Monitoring and Evaluation System in South ONTRAC no. 51, INTRAC, Osney Mead, Oxford, United Kingdom
Africa. Independent Evaluation Group, ECD Working Paper Series
21, World Bank, Washington D.C. Otiebo (2012). The Roles of Monitoring and Evaluation in Projects.
World Bank, Washington D.C.
Fao Otiendo (2012). The Roles of Monitoring and Evaluation in
Projects Engineering Programme Group. Technikon, Southern
Africa

Green, D (2013). What is a theory of change and how do we use it? Affiliations and Corresponding Information
August 2013. From
http://oxfamblogs.org/fp2p/what-is-a-theory-of-change-and-does-it-a
Ronilo H. Palingcod
ctually-help/ Rizal High School
Batuan District Region
Kusek & Rist (2004). Ten steps to a results-based monitoring and Bohol, Philippines
evaluation system: a handbook for development practitioners.
WorldBank, Washington D.C.

Ronilo H. Palingcod
11/11