Cristine DP 2 101123 1

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 20
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN THE SCHOOLS DIVISION OF ABRA: BASIS

FOR STRATEGIC INTERVENTION PROGRAM
CRISTINE BAROÑA GANDEZA
DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY

OPEN UNIVERSITY SYSTEM
CITY OF SAN FERNANDO, LA UNION
DOCTOR OF PHILOSOPHY
(Development Administration)
OCTOBER 2023
APPROVAL SHEET
This dissertation proposal, School Improvement Plan in The Schools Division
of Abra: Basis for Strategic Program, prepared and submitted by Cristine B.
Gandeza in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor of Philosophy
in Development Administration will be examined and passed on October 14, 2023 by
the Oral Examination Committee composed of :
BERNARDO D. LAMADRID, Ph.D BRILLO S. PAJE, Ph.D

Chairman Adviser
CRISTITA G. GUERRA, Ph.D MELJO APILADO, Ph.D

Member Member
JAYSON O. MADAYAG, Ph.D MARIO B. MENDOZA, Ph.D

Member Member
YOLANDA P. ORFIANO Ph.D

External Evaluator
Accepted and approved in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree
Doctor of Philosophy in Development Administration
BERNARDO D. LAMADRID Ph.D

Executive Director
____________________________
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Page
TITLE PAGE....................................................................................................................... i
APPROVAL SHEET………………………………………..................................... …… ii
ACKNOWLEDGEMENT………………………………………......................................iii
DEDICATION………………………………………....................................................... iv
LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii
ABSTRACT ………..................................................................................................…... iv
CHAPTER
1 INTRODUCTION
Situation Analysis ............................................................................................1
Framework of the Study................................................................................... 14
Statement of the Problem………………………..............................................23
Definition of Terms ……………………….….................................................25
2 METHODOLOGY
Research Design ……….…………..............................................................27
Sources of Data ………….…………………...................................................28
Instrumentation and Data Collection …………………................................... 29
Analysis of Data ………..…………………....................................................31
APPENDICES
Chapter 1
INTRODUCTION
Situation Analysis
Education has long been acclaimed as a vital instrument for development. It is the
bedrock of all forms of development (social, economic, technological and political) of
any nation, along this line, (World Bank, 2021) emphasizes that for several decades the
international community has tried to create a common vision and a global action to bring
nations together, to mobilize resources and create enthusiasm towards the attainment of
the Education for All Framework formulated on 2000 at Doha Qatar and the 2030
Agenda which reflects on the fourth sustainable goal towards Quality Education. Along
this line (World Bank, 2023) stressed that Education is a human right, a powerful driver
of development, and one of the strongest instruments for reducing poverty and improving
health, gender equality, peace, and stability. It delivers large, consistent returns in terms
of income, and is the most important factor to ensure equity and inclusion.
Towards this end, advocates for reforming education systems worldwide are
constantly pressing governments of putting education at the fore front of their
governance, looking for ways and means of getting more children into the classrooms,
more so in providing quality education. World Development Report (WDR 2018) stated
that learning is not guaranteed, for education to work, requires better policies—both
within and outside the education system; that learners especially those who are poor or
marginalized, leave school equipped with the foundational skills they need for life,
interventions that promote learning by ensuring that learners are prepared, teachers are
both skilled and motivated as well as scaling up effective interventions, countries must
also overcome technical and political barriers. The Organization for Economic
Cooperation and Development (OECD 2023) argued that High-quality early childhood
education and care helps to give all children an equitable start in life and is especially
vital for the most disadvantaged children. In short providing education is not enough.
What is important, and what generates a real return on investment, is learning and
acquiring skills.
The central and prominent role of education in global development has recently
been confirmed by the Sustainable Development Goal 4: "Ensure inclusive and equitable
quality education and promote lifelong learning". To increase the prospects of achieving
the global goal of education for all, effective, good quality education policies, strategies
and programs must be in place. South Korea for instance understood that education was
the best way to pull itself out of economic misery, so it focused on overhauling schools
and committed itself to educating every child. On one hand the United States enacted the
No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law significantly increasing the federal role in holding
schools responsible for the academic progress of all students. And it put a special focus
on ensuring that states and schools boost the performance of certain groups of students,
such as English-language learners, students in special education, and poor and minority
children.
Although Education systems, schools and universities worldwide are established
to provide favorable environment for the overall well-being and development of the
learners, schools all over the world faced many difficulties in their efforts to give all
students needed education, the achievement gap has long been a topic of conversation for
those striving for equity in education. More resources are thus urgently required to boost
both the quantity and quality of basic education in the developing world.
(https://online.lsu.edu/newsroom/articles/what-purpose-school-improvement-plan/)
The United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF) reported
that over 600 million children and adolescents worldwide are unable to attain minimum
proficiency levels in reading and mathematics, even though two thirds of them are in
school. Worse, children are deprived of education and learning for various reasons.
Poverty remains one of the most obstinate barriers. Children living through economic
fragility, political instability, conflict or natural disaster are more likely to be cut off from
schooling.
In the developing world, the quality of basic education is often very low due to
the lack of adequate facilities, competent teachers, textbooks, parental support, and
community involvement. In some countries, education opportunities for girls remain
severely limited. Even a lack of trained teachers, (OECD 2023) countries are facing
teacher shortages in schools, inadequate education materials. Even where enrollment
numbers are good, dropout and class repetition rates are often very high.
(https://globalissuesnetwork.org/learn-about-our-global-issues/education/) and poor
infrastructure make learning difficult for many students. Others come to class too hungry,
ill or exhausted from work or household tasks to benefit from their lessons.
Children and youth in developing countries face many barriers to obtaining
quality education. (https://www.international.gc.ca/world) These range from: distant,
overcrowded or unsafe schools; poor quality of teaching, irrelevant curriculum and

learning materials; the pressure for children to work to support the family; school fees,
uniforms and supplies that millions of families are unable to afford; (Hossain, and
Hickey) For girls, children from minority ethnic groups, children with disabilities, and
children living in conflict areas, the barriers are even greater. However, the learning crisis
aggravates, and is aggravated by, social and economic inequalities of all kinds.
children’s unreadiness to learn, along with teacher and school management skills, and
inadequate school inputs, as the proximate determinants of the learning crisis (World
Bank 2017).
Global learning crisis was blatant. (World Bank and UNESCO Institute of
Statistics and launched in 2019). Many children ten years old are not able to read This
gives a simple but sobering measure of the magnitude of this learning crisis: the
proportion of 10-year-old children that are unable to read and understand a short age-
appropriate text. In low- and middle-income countries, the share of children living in
Learning Poverty already reached 57%. In developing countries (Gilmore, 2021) roughly
53 percent of children in these countries “cannot read and understand a short story by the
time they” complete primary education. The COVID-19 pandemic heightened the global
learning crises the global disruption to education caused by is without parallel, and its
effects on learning have been severe (UNESCO, UNICEF, AND WORLD BANK
REPORT 2021) The crisis brought education systems across the world to a halt, with
school closures affecting more than 1.6 billion learners. Studies and research conclude
that many children in low- and middle-income countries leave the school system without
being able to read simple texts or perform simple mathematical exercises. (Damon et al
2016)
Governments around the world are introducing a range of strategies aimed at
improving the financing and delivery of education services, with a more recent emphasis
on improving quality as well as increasing quantity (enrollments) in education. The
difficult part is to find out what type of intervention is likely to work best in a given
community or school. There are also many context-specific problems in the education
sector that need to be addressed, such as low school attendance, ineffective pedagogy and
unsatisfactory school performance in terms of test scores.
One such strategy is the introduction of school-based management (SBM). Aimed
to decentralize education decision-making by increasing parental and community
involvement in schools, the decentralization and devolution of authority to school level
have emerged as a phenomenon in most education systems since 1980s. This has
occurred in the search of strategies to improve student outcomes and the effectiveness of
the school systems. School-based management (SBM) is one strategy for providing
school and community with more opportunities to make decisions that determine the
goals and future direction of the school by relocation of decision-making authority
After initial implementation in the United States, the United Kingdom, Australia
and Canada, SBM currently have been implemented and developed in a number of
countries in Asia and Africa. The goals of the SBM programs vary among countries,
however the common characteristics are: increasing the participation of parents and
communities in schools, empowering principals and teachers, building local level
capacity, and improving the quality and efficiency of schools to improve student
achievement levels proportionately more than is customary however to meet the
requirements for implementing SBM, principals, teachers and administrative staff must
have two characteristics, namely professional and managerial, they must have in-depth
knowledge of students and educational principles, so that all decisions taken are based on
educational considerations. (Imam Tabron 2022) Although scholars have proposed school
climate as a key mediator through which school-based management (SBM) (Khanal and
Guha 2023) can improve educational outcomes, empirical evidence on the relationship
between SBM and school climate improvement is sparse.
Another strategy for performance in schools was the introduction of a school
improvement plan (SIP) which was practiced in schools all over the world. Long before
the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic institutions have embarked on a
school improvement planning (SIP) process to ensure that all students, regardless of race,
gender, socioeconomic status, or any other demographic distinction, can study in learning
environments that are equitable and deliver effective education. These plans aim to
establish a unified vision for a school, assess its needs, and then outline a program to
resolve all the issues uncovered. School administrators use these plans to close the
achievement gap, address low performance, and create equity in classrooms.
School Improvement Plan was introduced to involve and increase the level of
participation of local people and organizations in the planning, management and
implementation of local school affairs, enhancing the pace of quality improvement of
primary schools. As a result, each school in selected districts developed a periodic
education plan, which became a requirement for development funding.
School improvement is at the center of education reform and is perceived by
many as a key to social and economic advance. It contributes to determining personal
fulfilment and career paths of individual students and consequently engages the interests
of parents and community members. It is an ever – present commitment of teachers and
managers in schools. This view indicates that school improvement is a change or reform
which requires the schools to engage in a process that will help them to achieve their
goals, so as to maximize student achievement.
The improvement plans are educational innovation projects carried out in schools,
with the participation of all the members, with the aim of improving the organization.
SIPs have virtually the same characteristics as the strategic planning process. A Study of
SIPs, School Decision-Making and Advocacy, and Their Correlation to Student
Academic Achievement’, (Escobar 2019) concluded that the strategies found in the
School Improvement Plans may increase student achievement, particularly in Math and
Writing. However, Despite over 40 years of using SIPs as a tool for improving schools,
the current peer-reviewed empirical literature base on the topic remains thin (Bickmore et
al., 2021). Of the limited published work, studies have more often examined the quality
and effects of SIPs rather than the day-to-day implementation of SIPs. A synthesis of this
extant research suggests that SIPs tend to be of low quality when assessed against
research-informed criteria related to developing clear and coherent organizational plans
According to an analysis of SIPs across the United States since the passage of No
Child Left Behind Act of 2015 (NCLB), (Duke et al, 2012) suggest three broad goals for
school improvement are present: (1) increasing student achievement, (2) closing
achievement gaps, and (3) improving high school graduation rates. In short, schools are
striving to improve learning for all students while preparing students to be college,
career, and citizenship ready upon graduation.

In our country, The Philippine Business for Education (PBEd 2023) reported that
the country's education system is in a "crisis." the declining mental health among students
and teachers; lack of support for teachers; culture of “mass promotion” of learners, and
the lack of proper assessments are among the most pressing issues that must be
addressed. The COVID-19 pandemic has caused one of the most dramatic disruptions to
the educational system in the Philippines and continued to worsen the country’s
economic state. Due to the hindrances of students to attain quality education, the number
of out-of-school youth (OSY) had a significant increase. According to the data of the
Dep-Ed, (PNA, 2021) close to 4 million students were not able to enroll in the school
year of 2021-2022.
On the other hand Dr. Gera, (2022) University of the Philippines Cebu, in her
report published by the United Nations Department of Economic and Social Affairs
(UNDESA) mentioned that “the pandemic forced us outside of our comfort zone… to
face and act on a rather underdeveloped innovation ecosystem” and issues of inequality
and quality education” this was bolstered (Briones 2020) there are challenges in 21st-
century education facing the Dep-ed towards achieving the objectives of Education for
All (EFA) framework. (Duterte 2023) The lack of school infrastructure and resources to
support the ideal teaching process is the most pressing issue pounding the Philippine
basic education. there is a need to build, repair, and maintain school infrastructures to
accommodate the growing number of learners all over the Philippines. Latest inventory
shows the country has 327,851 school buildings in the country. Out of these school
buildings, only 104,536 are in good condition.

In the Philippines, results of the National Achievement Test (NAT) prior to the
pandemic “gravitates towards the low proficiency levels” especially in Science, Math and
English. NAT is administered for Grade 6, Grade 10 and Grade 12 students. Likewise,
DepEd also revealed the latest result of the Programme for International Student
Assessment (PISA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development
(OECD where the Filipino learners placed last among 79 participating countries and near
last in science and mathematics. Poor quality of education has resulted in low proficiency
levels among students. The 2018 Programme for International Student Assessment
(PISA) results show that 72 percent of Filipino students performed lower than expected at
their academic level. Filipino students scored an average of 340 points in Reading against
the OECD average of 487. In Mathematics and Science, they scored an average of 353
points and 357 points, respectively, against a 489-point OECD average for both.
However, there are almost no studies that empirically examine the effectiveness
of SIPs. The few studies examining the planning activities of organizations have
generally focused on the private sector and have not provided clear or consistent evidence
that such planning is effective. Some studies have even suggested formal planning can
lead to inflexible and myopic practices or may simply waste time and resource. On the
other hand, little research focuses on how school leaders lead the process of creating a
SIP and how expert school leaders engage in problem-solving and planning to develop a
SIP that leads to improved outcomes for all students.
In the province of Abra, all schools are mandated to have the School
Improvement Plan – a 3-year plan of programs, projects, and activities of the school in
collaboration with the internal and external stakeholders. These are implemented
annually through an Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) and validated by the School
Monitoring and Evaluation Team together with the Public Schools District Supervisors.
Since the school heads and teachers are the main implementers, it may caused additional
loads and work especially the teachers who are handling classes. Because at the end of
the school year, the accomplishment report are monitored and evaluated by the School
Monitoring and Evaluation Team (SME) in the Division. The purpose of the monitoring
and evaluation is to evaluate the impact of processes on the outcomes. The outcomes are
the basis for necessary interventions and adjustments to fully implement the projects and
programs. However, in the actual situation, this school improvement plan has not been
religiously followed because of the pandemic for two (2) years, earthquake magnitude
7.2, and the recent strongest typhoon that struck the province. School properties are
extremely damaged including the infrastructure. Most of the programs and projects are
delayed in the implementation procedure and projects that are subject for implementation
and others are implemented are delayed destroyed. Due to shortage of funds, it is very
difficult to recover the losses immediately. This will cause the delay on the assessment of
the outcomes or result. There are also unexpected programs and activities that need to be
prioritized because of the deadlines. This may oftentimes cause overlapping of activities.
However, based on the observations, all schools are not the same in the implementation,
there are schools that are not updating their school report card or even reporting to the
stakeholders because of so many activities to work on. So, the actual implementation of
SIP here in Abra based on observation may depend on the leadership of the school heads
and support from the other stakeholders in the community.

This study therefore will be conducted to assess if there is a strong and consistent
association between the quality of school planning and implementation of developmental
activities under the SIP in terms of Continuous Improvement Program (CIP), the creation
and mobilization of Learning Action Cells (LACs), determine the overall SIP
implementation performance and the extent of compliance of SIP Guidelines under DO
44, s. 2015 in the selected elementary schools in the Schools’ Division of Abra.
Framework of the Study
The study is based on the premise of policy reforms initiated by the Department
of Education’s Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA one of which is the
introduction of a school-based management (SBM) system, under Key Reform Thrust 1
(KRT1) which underscores the empowerment of key stakeholders in school communities
to enable them to actively participate in continuous improvement of schools. The SBM
framework identifies and explains the elements, logical structure, and interrelationship of
units for a) securing adequate inputs and managing them efficiently and effectively; b)
establishing and developing structures; c) introducing and sustaining continuous process;
and d) ensuring that every school produces the intended outputs that lead to the
attainment of better education outcome.
In the Philippines, the enactment of Republic Act 9155 Governance of Basic
Education Act of 2001 signed into law in August 2001, provided among others the
framework for the governance of basic education which shall set the general directions
for educational policies and standards and establish authority, accountability and
responsibility for achieving higher learning outcomes; encourage local initiatives for the
improvement of schools and learning centers and to provide the means by which these
improvements may be achieved and sustained; and establish schools and learning centers
as facilities where schoolchildren are able to learn a range of core competencies
prescribed for elementary and high school education programs.
The passing RA 9155 marked the pivotal start of the never-ending search
for solution to improve quality of basic education in the country. It has resorted to,
restructuring the basic education curriculum, re-engaging teachers on maximum time-on-
task and re-evaluation of duties and functions of the people in the education structure.
The reinvention of school governance gives more independent status of operations guided
by self-regulation in compliance with DepEd standard of excellence.
Subsequently, pursuant to the provisions Governance of Basic Education act (RA
9155, 2001) Dep-Ed issued Department Order 44, S. 2015 (DO 44, S. 2015) to strengthen
School-Based Management (SBM) by further devolving the governance of education by
mandating all elementary schools nationwide, to prepare their respective School
Improvement Plan (SIP) The SIP is roadmap that lays down specific interventions that a
school, with the help of the community and other stakeholders, will undertake within a
period of three consecutive years. Essentially, an effective school improvement plan
contributes to the attainment of three key result areas. It helps ensure that 1) every
Filipino has access to complete basic education (access); 2) every graduate is prepared
for further education and the world of work (quality); and 3) there is effective,
transparent, and collaborative governance of basic education (governance). The

development of a school improvement plan (SIP) has become an integral part of many
school reform efforts.
School improvement as a field of study has evolved not subtly but decisively over the
past 60 years (Hopkins, 2001:33-34). This particular study however, wish to investigate
how extensive is the participation of various stakeholders in assessing priority
improvement areas; formulation and implementation of the SIP during the COVID 19
pandemic and how the stakeholders engage in in problem-solving and planning for the
purpose of developing a SIP that leads to improved outcomes for all students.
Harris and Chrispeels (2006:3) explained that the pressure upon schools to
improve performance has resulted in a wide range of school improvement programs and
initiatives in Ethiopia, have resulted in changes in the way education is viewed and the
way schools are run, hence Marishame and Botha (2013:95) state that in the era of
massive organizational change schools in our times are no exception to this trend.
Like other organizations, schools today find themselves in a changing
environment to which they have to adjust their operations if they are to continue to be
relevant. Walter (2004) cited in Marishame and Botha (2013:94-95) also state that, in
order to be responsive and to deal successfully with change, schools - particularly
secondary schools require adaptation in school leadership and management, teaching and
learning processes, the learning environment, and parents and community involvement to
harness this change and direct it towards sustainable school improvement. Therefore,
School improvement has become a dominant feature of educational reform and has
gained prominence and recognition internationally.

Hopkins (2002:12) describes school improvement as a distinct approach to
educational change that aims to enhance student outcomes as well as strengthen the
school’s capacity for managing change. Barth (1990:45) in turn defines school
improvement as an effort to determine and provide, from within and without, conditions
under which the students who inhabit schools will promote and sustain learning among
them. From these definitions, it appears the purpose of school improvement is to impact
outwardly on the relationship between the teaching and learning process and the
conditions that support it. Hargreaves (1994:2) and Hopkins (2001:13) expand that the
change which should take place as a result of the school improvement effort should not
merely reflect the implementation of policies, but rather should also reflect improvements
or adaptations of practices which transform the learning process to achieve the maximum
impact on students, teachers and schools.
School improvement is also concerned with the “how” that is, the process of
changing schools which focuses on the process that schools go through to become more
successful and sustain improvement (Hopkins, 1999:13). OCED & ISIP (1987:7) and
Gray (2011:17) give a more comprehensive definition of school improvement and they
say it is a systematic, sustained effort aimed at change in learning conditions and other
related internal conditions in one or more schools, with the ultimate aim of accomplishing
educational goals more effectively, concerned with raising student achievement through
focusing on the teaching and learning process and conditions that support it.
For school improvement to occur there must be a will and a strong commitment to
undertake change, skill to make it happen and persistence to see it through,
because school improvement is a way of generating organizational change, it inevitability

requires both pressure and support which predominantly focuses on improving the quality
of teaching and learning. In order to improve, schools need to locate their change efforts
at the level of the classroom and the level of the school. That is, school improvement
will not occur unless efforts are made within the school to build internal capacity and
conditions that best foster and support school improvement. Besides, schools have their
own distinctive cultures and sometimes these work against organizational change. Hence
the real target for school improvement is to change school culture. In this case changing
school culture means to change the attitudes and beliefs of school principals, teachers,
administrative staff, students and parents both inside the school and in the external
environment, the norms of the school, and the relations between persons in the school
through articulating shared beliefs about the learning principles which form the
foundation on which we plan and build our teaching and learning experiences.
In order for school improvement programs to be effective, there is a need to equip
teachers and the school leadership with relevant skills to run these programs. In this case,
Hopkins and Levin (2000:21-24) add that one of the educational inputs that contributes a
remarkable role to ensure school improvement is the availability of sufficient and
qualified teachers. Fullan (1991:2) and Workneh & Tassew (2013:12) summarizes that
the school improvement program depends on what teachers do and think; it’s as simple
and complex as that. The heart of school improvement, therefore, is teacher development
and a desire to change the school culture in order to promote a school improvement
program.
By giving emphasis to school improvement programs Ogden, (2013) argued that
in London secondary schools although there were distinct interventions of common

features that linked together all of the interventions in four themes, in particular,
emerged: the power of data; the importance of professional development; the contribution
of educational leaders and significance of sustainable political support that everywhere
performances of disadvantaged students were taken into account. Besides, Sahlgren
(2013) showed that the most effective local authorities in London typically placed a
substantial emphasis on the need to support school improvement through a challenge
support model based on: strong leadership of school improvement function; systematic
analysis of school-level performance data; challenge in secondary schools that appear to
be relatively underperforming; early interventions in secondary schools causing concern
and robust performance management of head teachers.
Then again, school improvement program of South Korea and Singapore
demonstrated that a school system can go from low performance to high performance
within few years. This achievement is even more remarkable given that it typically takes
a long time to see the impact of a school improvement as a reform effort. Boston and
England have also demonstrated that substantial improvement in both the outcomes and
the factors that drive the schools (for instance, the status of the teaching profession) can
be achieved in short period of time (Scheerens 2013:12; Chi-Chi & Michael, 2014:31). In
Boston, England, South Korea and Singapore practiced that different school systems have
improved significantly and have done so primarily common themes. For example, to
make school improvement successful they have produced a system that is more effective
in doing three things like: getting more talented people to become teachers, developing
these teachers into better instructors, and ensuring that these instructors deliver their tasks
consistently for student in the secondary school education to achieve good quality results
(Scheerens, 2013:22) & Chi-Chi & Michael, 2014:35).
Firdissa (2008:15-16) and Abebe (2012:1), who reviewed literature on school
improvement programs in developing countries, indicate that though education financing
both in terms of aid and public spending has improved schools in many countries, this has
not been accompanied by good and effective education management systems. Both
authors argue that in many developing countries poor education management and
leadership result in overcrowded classrooms, high pupil/teacher ratios, and a high student
dropout rate where the overall effect of this is a low quality of education.
In relation to school improvement programs in Africa, particularly in sub-Saharan
African countries, UNESCO (2010:36) reveals that the major causes of low achievement
in secondary schools include: poor school organization and school management,
inadequate teachers’ training on subject mastery and pedagogic skills, poor school
facilities, lack of instructional materials and absence of an attractive school climate.
Furthermore, UNESCO (2010:37) states that in secondary school education, most school
principals lack relevant skills, school leadership qualities and commitment to school
improvement programs; as a result, school improvement is greatly hindered by
inadequate resources in terms of physical facilities, finances and human resources and
high leadership and teacher turn over.
Lack of training also hinders school improvement programs. In Ethiopia, there is
a greater task ahead of school management and leadership teams in meeting the
challenges of unattractive and poor conditions of buildings, crowded classrooms, non-
availability of recreational facilities and aesthetic surroundings which have perhaps

contributed to poor quality instructional processes and non-attainment of quality
education by students in secondary schools (UNESCO, 2013:14).Sean (2013:66)
postulated that part of the learning process is trying new approaches, exploring new
methods and testing new ideas for improving the various processes in school
management. So, experimentation can be an important part of its organizational learning.
Naturally, many of these workers-led experiments will fail, so it is important to recognize
that there is some risk associated with this experimentation.
The study is anchored on the following theories such as:
Theory of Change stipulates that a key reason complex programs are so difficult
to evaluate is that the assumptions that inspire them are poorly articulated (Weiss, 1995).
She argued that stakeholders of complex community initiatives typically are unclear
about how the change process will unfold and therefore give little attention to the early
and mid-term changes that need to happen in order for a longer term goal to be reached.
The lack of clarity about the “mini-steps” that must be taken to reach a long term
outcome not only makes the task of evaluating a complex initiative challenging, but
reduces the likelihood that all of the important factors related to the long term goal will
be addressed.
Systems Theory as introduced by (Bertalanffy,1940) a biologist and furthered by
(Ashby, 1956) and (Bateson, 1979) is very appropriate as it is a framework based on
the principle that the component parts of a system can best be understood in the context
of the relationships with each other and with other systems, rather than in isolation. SIP
stakeholders and implementers therefore needs to work coherently as an organized
system for continuous improvement.

Dependency Theory, (Prebisch, 1950) by the Argentine economist and statesman,
proposed the theory as an approach to understanding economic underdevelopment. He postulates
that underdeveloped countries relies heavily on the economies of developed countries to spur
economic development of third world countries. Relatively, the study would sought to determine
to negate or confirm the statement that Public Elementary Schools’ dependency on the support of
Local Government Officials particularly in the Schools’ Division of Abra.
Modernization Theory, elaborated by a political scientist (Rostow, 1960)
premised that all societies progress over time from one stage to another. The ultimate
goal of all societies will be to become a modern or post-modern society the
establishment of an ideal of the modernized nation, setting universal standards of
economic, social and cultural development to all countries. In similar way, the study seek
to determine the strategies and innovations initiated by Public Elementary Schools in
Abra in response to challenges and constraint brought about by the occurrence of COVID
19 pandemic in terms technological advancement and modernization..
Figure 1 presents the research paradigm of the study. As shown, there are three
boxes pertaining to input, process and output. Input box pertains to the main variables of
the study include the profile of the respondents , the level of implementation of SIP, the
extent of compliance in SIP implementation and the seriousness of problems encountered
in the implementation of SIP.
The process box pertains on the procedures that are to be undertaken in order to
come up with valid Strategic Intervention Program. This includes the analysis of
qualitative and quantitative procedures-through questionnaire, interview, home visitation
which will pave the way for the analysis and synthesis of the data gathered.
The output box shows the product or the yield of the study which is a proposed
Strategic Intervention Program which will be validated in order to aptly be applicable in
the target clients or beneficiaries.

INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT
School Improvement Plan

1. Analysis of the ff:
1. Profile of the respondents
1.1 Internal a. Profile
a. School Heads b. Level of implementation
b. Teachers of SIP
c. Supreme Elementary c. Extent of compliance in
Learner Government the SIP Implementation
Officials d. Degree of seriousness of
1.2 External challenges and constraints
a. Barangay/ encountered
Local Officials
b. PTA Officers 2. Documentary Analysis
c. Alumni
2. Level of Implementation 3.Interviews and Visitation Proposed formulation and
of stakeholders in terms validation of a Strategic
of: Survey Questionnaire
Intervention PLAN in
a. Planning order to strengthen School
b. Testing and Improvement Plan( SIP)
Implementation
c. Assessment
d. Monitoring
e. Reporting
4. Proposed formulation
3. Extent of Compliance in and validation of Policy
the SIP Implementation Guidelines
4. Degree of seriousness of
problems encountered in
the SIP Implementation
FEEDBACK
Figure 1. The Research Paradigm

Figure 1 shows the research paradigm of the study, reflecting an Input-Process-
Output framework. The inputs include the: profile of elementary schools,
level of implementation, extent of compliance, and degree of seriousness of challenges
and constraints encountered. The process comprises of documentary analysis, the used of
a survey questionnaire, and analysis of data taken from survey questionnaire. The output
is the strategic intervention program of the school improvement plan. The further process
and analysis yields the set of SIP program interventions to enhance its implementation.
Statement of the Problem
This study will assess the overall implementation of the School’s Improvement
Plan(SIP) of the Department of Education Schools Division of Abra, amidst the COVID-
19 pandemic as a basis for the formulation of a proposed Strategic Intervention Program.
Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following questions:
1. What is the profile of the respondents in terms of :
a) Age;
b) Sex;
c) Civil Status;
d) Highest Educational attainment;
e) Monthly Income;
f) Length of service;
g) Average number of trainings/seminars attended;
h) Levels of in-service trainings attended ;
i) Eligibilities and
j) Number of awards received?
2. What is the level of implementation of the SIP in terms of;
2.1 Planning;
2.2 Testing and Implementation
2.3 Assessment;
2.4 Monitoring and Evaluation and
2.5 Reporting?
3. What is the extent of compliance of public elementary schools to the procedures
relevant to the implementation of the School Improvement Program?
4. What are the degree of seriousness of the challenges and constraints encountered
in the SIP implementation?
5. What validated policy implementation guidelines can be proposed for better
implementation of the SIP?

Definition of Terms
Access refers to the ways in which educational institutions and policies ensure
that students have equal and equitable opportunities to take full advantage of their
education. Generally, requires schools to provide additional services and remove
potential barriers.
Age refers to the chronological years of the respondents.
Challenges and Constraints are the problems and weaknesses of the
implemented programs and policy.
Civil status refers to the single and married respondents.
Educational Attainment refers to the highest academic degree earned and
obtained by the respondents.
Elementary Schools are schools under the Department of Education in the
Division of Abra that provide educational services to school children mostly from
Kindergarten to Grade 6.
Extent of Compliance refers to state of being in accordance with established
guidelines in implementing such programs necessary for the curriculum. It encompasses
efforts to ensure that organizations are abiding by policy or regulation given.
Extent of Participation refers to the coverage or scope of the program that are
planned and executed to detect the effectiveness, strength and weaknesses.
Governance refers to decisions and processes that define relationships within the
organizations. It is also the ways in which educational systems are governed and
managed contribute a great deal to the eventual success of teaching and learning in
schools and classrooms.
Implementation Plan spells out the WHAT (needs to happen). WHO (will do it),
WHEN (it will be completed), and OUTCOME (expected results); determines tasks and
timeline; Prepare budget and resource requirements.
Length of Service refers to the actual number of years in service rendered by the
respondents upon employment whether in public or private agencies.
Monitoring and Evaluation refers to the purposive gathering of pertinent
information and analyze the monitoring phase to make judgement on the effectiveness of
school.
Quality refers to high - standard of education provided to all learners with
capabilities they require become productive individual well-being.
Sex refers to the biological distinction of the respondents as male or female.
Trainings Attended refers to the average number of relevant training attended by
the respondents within the past five years.

Chapter 2
METHODOLOGY
Research Design
This study will utilize descriptive-evaluative design, because descriptive
evaluations utilize a variety of qualitative and quantitative data collection and analysis
methods; and the study design can apply a range of assumptions. Research (Wilkerson, et
al., 2012) has shown that in effective schools, educators collect, analyze, interpret, and
use data to identify learning problems and guide improvement efforts at all levels
including school, classroom, and individual student levels. The study aims to describe
qualitatively the performance of selected public Elementary Schools in the Schools
Division of Abra and measure quantitatively their achievement with reference to set goals
and objectives in their respective Schools Improvement Plan.
The mixed methods research paradigm is an intellectual and practical synthesis
based on qualitative and quantitative research. It is accepted as the third research
paradigm and offers a powerful choice that often provides the most informative,
complete, balanced, and useful research results (Johnson, 2007:112). Johnson (2007:113)
states that this research paradigm can be adopted in a study at different phases in
optimizing the strengths of each approach and counteracting their limitations. In the
quantitative research approach, researchers generalize from a sample to a population, and

in the qualitative research approach the researchers gain a richer, contextual
understanding of the phenomenon being researched.
Sources of Data
Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents. There are 316 total respondents
composed of 34 school heads, 174 teachers and 27 PTA officers, 27 Local Government
Officials, 27 Supreme Pupil Government Officer and 27 Alumnae.
Table I. Distribution of respondents by clustered districts

Barangay
/
School Classroom PTA Local SELG
Districts Heads Teachers Officers Officials Officers Alumnae
Bangued 2 30 1 1 1 1
Tayum -
Dolores 2 20 1 1 1 1
San Juan 2 4 1 1 1 1
Tineg 1 4 1 1 1 1
Lagayan 1 4 1 1 1 1
La Paz 1 11 1 1 1 1
Danglas 1 5 1 1 1 1
Lagangilang 1 12 1 1 1 1
Lacub 1 4 1 1 1 1
Baay 1 4 1 1 1 1
Licuan’ 1 4 1 1 1 1
Malibcong 1 4 1 1 1 1
Bucloc 1 4 1 1 1 1
Daguioman 1 4 1 1 1 1
Boliney 1 4 1 1 1 1
Sallapadan 2 4 1 1 1 1
Bucay 2 6 1 1 1 1
Manabo 2 4 1 1 1 1
Luba 1 4 1 1 1 1
Tubo 1 4 1 1 1 1
Pilar 1 4 1 1 1 1
San Isidro 1 4 1 1 1 1
Villaviciosa 1 4 1 1 1 1
Peñarrubia 2 8 1 1 1 1
Pidigan 1 6 1 1 1 1
Langiden 1 4 1 1 1 1
San Quintin 1 4 1 1 1 1
Total 34 174 27 27 27 27
This study will be conducted in selected public elementary school in the Division
of Abra. The respondents are the elementary school heads, elementary school teachers
and the PTA officers, Supreme Pupil Government Officer, Local Officials and Alumni in
these schools. A purposive sampling method will be used for obtaining the sample in
order for the study to meet its goals. The respondents will be chosen “on purpose.” based
on their respective and particular roles in the implementation of the school improvement
plans. To determine the number of respondents, the researcher will look into the total
number of Public Elementary Schools within the Schools Division of Abra, including the
total number of classroom teachers and school heads. The schools will be grouped into
clusters so that each district will be represented in the study. The total number of school
heads, while the majority of the classroom teachers in the clustered district will be chosen
as respondents to the study.
Instrumentation and Data Collection
A structured questionnaire will be the research instrument in gathering pertinent
data from the respondents. The researcher adopted the questionnaire based on the content
of the SIP being implemented by the Department of Education in the whole country. It
will undergo content validation by a pool of experts from the school authorities of DepEd
in the province of Abra.

The questionnaire are composed of three (4) parts: Part I determined the profile of
the respondent public elementary school teachers, school heads, Supreme Elementary
Learner Government Officers (SELG), PTA Officers, Barangay/Local Officials, Alumni
who served as respondents; Part II dealt with the level of implementation of SIP; Part III
dealt with the extent of compliance with the guidelines in the implementation of SIP; and
Part IV determined the degree of seriousness of problems encountered in the
implementation of SIP in the elementary schools in the Division of Abra. To support the
data gathered from the questionnaire, interviews and observations will also be conducted.
The researcher will prepare interview guides and observation checklists to facilitate the
task.
The Annual Implementation Plan (AIP) submitted by the selected public
elementary schools will also used to substantiate and validate the results of the survey
questionnaire.
Validity of the Questionnaire
The validity of the questionnaire will be made possible with the assistance of the
members of the Oral Evaluation Committee (OREC) the Public School District
Supervisors of the Schools Division of Abra and various school heads who will share
their expertise, suggestions, and comments to improve the questionnaire.
The reliability of the structured questionnaire will be established by conducting a
pilot test to non-participating public elementary schools in Abra, where thirty (30)
respondents from the classroom teachers, five school heads, five Local Government
Officials, and five PTA officers. Modifications as a result of the reliability and validity
will be incorporated to further improve the survey questionnaire. Thereafter, a letter

request will be prepared to be addressed to the Executive Director, Open University
System, the Superintendent, Schools Division of Abra, requesting among others approval
and permission to float the questionnaire to the aforementioned respondents.
Analysis of Data
After the floating and retrieval of questionnaires from the target respondents, they
will be grouped and processed. Frequency count, percentage, rank, and mean will be used
in describing the profiles of the respondents. The weighted mean will be utilized in
describing the level of implementation of the SIP program and the extent of compliance
of SIP program under the DepEd Order guidelines in implementing school improvement
plan.
To determine the level of implementation of the SIP program in the selected
public elementary schools in the Division of Abra, the following descriptive rating and
equivalence will be used:
Point Scale Range Description Code

Equivalent
5 4.20 -5.00 Very Highly Implemented VHI
4 3.40 - 4.19 Highly Implemented HI
3 2.60 - 3.39 Fairly Implemented FI
2 1.80 – 2.59 Low implemented LI
1 1.00 – 1.79 Very Low Implemented VLI
In determining the extent of compliance in the implementation of the SIP program
under the DepEd Order guidelines. The following ratings and descriptive equivalence
will be applied:

Equivalent
5 4.20 -5.00 Very Highly Compliant VHC
4 3.40 - 4.19 Highly Compliant HC
3 2.60 - 3.39 Moderately Compliant MC
2 1.80 – 2.59 Slightly Compliant SC
1 1.00 – 1.79 Not Compliant NC
To determine the degree of seriousness of the problems encountered in the
implementation of the school improvement plan to the elementary schools the following
ratings and descriptive equivalence will be applied:

Equivalent
5 4.20 -5.00 Very Serious VS
4 3.40 - 4.19 Serious S
3 2.60 - 3.39 Moderately Serious MS
2 1.80 – 2.59 Slightly Serious SS
1 1.00 – 1.79 Not Serious NS

OPEN UNIVERSITY SYSTEMS

CITY OF SAN FERNANDO LA UNION
Dear Sir/Madam,
May I invite you to participate in the conduct of a study entitled
“Implementation of the School Improvement Plan in the Schools Division of Abra: Basis
for Strategic Intervention Program” by answering and providing information in this
questionnaire. The study aims to determine the status of the implementation of the School
Improvement Plan and compliance with the standards of the SIP Program. Rest assured
your answers are treated with utmost confidentiality.
Thank you very much
Cristine B. Gandeza
Researcher
________________________________________________________________________
SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN THE SCHOOLS DIVISION OF ABRA: BASIS
FOR STRATEGIC INTERVENTION PROGRAM
QUESTIONNAIRE
Part I. Profile of the Respondents (to be filled up by the School Heads/Principals,

Teachers, PTA, Barangay/LGU Officials and Alumni
Name ______________________________________________ (Optional)
Designation/Position_____________________________
1. Age: _____ years old

2. Sex: _____ Male
_____ Female
3. Civil Status:
_____ Single
_____ Married
_____ Widow/Widower
_____ Separated/Annulled
4. Highest Educational Attainment:

________ Elementary Undergraduate
________ Elementary Graduate
________ Highschool Graduate/Undergraduate
________ 2 -Year Course
________ Vocational Course

________ College Graduate
________ College Undergraduate
________ College Graduate with Masteral Units
________ Master’s Degree
________ Master’s Degree with Doctoral Units
________ Doctor’s Degree
5. Length of Service
________ 30 years and above
________ 25-29 years
________ 20-24 years
________ 15-19 years
________ 10-14 years
________ 5 – 9 years
________ 4 years and below
6. Average Number of Trainings/Seminars Attended:

________ 10 and more
________ 7 – 9
________ 4 – 6
________ 1 -3
________None
7. Levels of In-Service Trainings Attended:
________ School
________ District
________ Division
________ Regional
________ National
________ International
8. Eligibilities:
________PBET
________ LET
________ CS Professional Examination
________ CS Sub- Professional Examination
________ Others (Please Specify)
9. Monthly Income
________ Php5,000.00 below
________ Php5,000.00 Above
________ Php10,000.00-Php30,000.00
________ Php35,000.00-Php50,000.00
________ Php60,000.00 Above
________ None
10. Number of Awards Received

________School ________Regional
________District ________National
________ Division ________International
Part I. Profile of the Respondents (to be filled up by the Supreme Elementary

Learner Government Officers)
Name ______________________________________________ (Optional)

2. Sex: _____ Male
_____ Female
3. Civil Status:
_____ Single
_____ Married
_____ Widow/Widower

________ 10 and more
________ 7 – 9
________ 4 – 6
________ 1 -3
________None
________ School
________ District
________ Division
________ Regional
________ National

Part II. The level of implementation of the School Improvement Plan in terms of
planning, testing and implementing, and monitoring & evaluation.
Direction: Kindly rate the level of implementation of the School Improvement Plan
in the elementary school where you are heading, by using the following scale as your
guide:
5 – Very High (VHI)

4 – High (H)
3 - Moderate (M)
2- Low (L)
1 – Very Low (VL)
For School Heads 5 4 3 2 1

Implementation of SIP in terms of:
A. Assessment
1. Initiated the conduct of a survey to define the
status of the school.
2. Guide the school planning team in identifying the
Priority Improvement Areas (PIAs) of the school.
3. Analyzed the Priority Improvement Areas (PIAs)
and do the root cause analysis with the school
planning team.
4. Initiated the conduct of the school analysis
processes of the Priority Improvement Areas
(PIAs).
5. Lead the school planning team in conducting the
root cause analysis.
B. Planning
1. Initiated the formulation of the School Planning
Team.
2. Convened the School Planning Team through a
series of meetings/conferences, orientation, and
workshops.
3. Provided leadership and guidance in the
development of the plan.
4. Clearly explain the SIP planning process to the
planning team and helped them understand their
role in the process.
5. Involved the teachers in identifying the priority
needs of learners.
B. Testing and Implementation
1. Conducted pilot testing on small populations to
reduce the risk of failures.
2. Conducted testing of all the identified solutions

and chose the most effective one then rolled out
to stakeholders.
3. Revisited the implementation process to test the
effectiveness of the solution.
4. Communicate to the stakeholders the initial
implementation results.
5. Conducted LAC Sessions to address the problems
or issues in the teaching and learning process.
C. Monitoring
1. Take a corrective action during monitoring
2. Convened regularly (e.g. monthly, quarterly) to
discuss the implementation issues as a basis for
intervention if necessary.
3. Monitor educational strategic plans carried out
timely.
4. Ensured that the tasks specified in the action plan
are carried out during school improvement
planning practices.
5. Monitoring procedures include review meeting
D. Evaluation
1. Conducted evaluation of programs, projects and
activities with the school planning team using the
SIP Monitoring tool.
2. Conducted mid-year and year-end evaluation of
the programs, projects, and activities.
3. Reported the accomplished programs, projects,
and activities (PPAs) of SIP through an
accomplishment report from the AIP.
4. Presented to the stakeholders the result of
evaluated programs, projects, and activities
(PPAs) of SIP through conferences and meetings
5. Gathered feedback comments, and suggestions
are the basis of decision-making for the SIP
improvement.
For Teachers 5 4 3 2 1
A. Assessment
1. Provided assistance in the conduct of a survey to
define the status of the school.
2. Participated with the other school planning team
in identifying the Priority Improvement Areas
(PIAs) of the school.
and do the root cause analysis with the
stakeholders.
4. Helped in the conduct of the school analysis
(PIAs)
5. Provided assistance to the school planning team in
conducting the root cause analysis
B. Planning
1. Attended the meetings/conferences, orientation,
and workshops with other school planning teams.
2. Provided needed information relative to the
teaching and learning process.
3. Helped in the conduct of a survey to define the
4. Participated with the other school planning team in
enhancing the SIP during the revisit of the plan
every year.
5.Actively participated during the development of the
SIP establishing priorities, setting goals, and
formulating implementation strategies for the plan.
to stakeholders.
implementation result.
C. Monitoring
1. Take corrective action during monitoring.
2. Attended regularly (e.g. monthly, quarterly) to

3. Provided assistance in monitoring the educational
strategic plans carried out timely.
planning practices.
5. Shared actual observations during the conduct of
the review meeting as part in the monitoring
procedures.
D. Evaluation
1. Helped in the conduct of programs, projects and
activities evaluation and activities with the school
planning team using the SIP Monitoring tool.
(PPAs) of SIP through conferences and meetings.
5. Participated in the gathering of feedback comments,
and suggestions of the other stakeholders.
For Supreme Elementary Learner Government Officers 5 4 3 2 1

A. Assessment
1. Provided assistance in the conduct of a survey to
define the status of the school.
2. Participated with the other school planning team
in identifying the Priority Improvement Areas
(PIAs) of the school.
and do the root cause analysis with the
stakeholders.
4. Helped in the conduct of the school analysis
(PIAs)
5. Provided assistance to the school planning team in
conducting the root cause analysis
B. Planning
1. Attended the meetings/conferences, orientation,
and workshops with other school planning teams.

2. Provided needed information relative to the
teaching and learning process.
3. Helped in the conduct of a survey to define the
enhancing the SIP during the revisit of the plan
every year.
5.Actively participated during the development of the
SIP establishing priorities, setting goals, and
formulating implementation strategies for the plan.
to stakeholders.
implementation result.
C. Monitoring
1. Take corrective action during monitoring.
2. Attended regularly (e.g. monthly, quarterly) to
3. Provided assistance in monitoring the educational
strategic plans carried out timely.
planning practices.
5. Shared actual observations during the conduct of
the review meeting as part in the monitoring
procedures.
D. Evaluation
1. Helped in the conduct of programs, projects and
activities evaluation and activities with the school
planning team using the SIP Monitoring tool.

(PPAs) of SIP through conferences and meetings.
5. Participated in the gathering of feedback comments,
and suggestion of the other stakeholders.
Part III. The Extent of Compliance in the Implementation of School Improvement

Plan
Direction: Kindly rate the extent of compliance with the guidelines of the School
Improvement Plan, by using the following scale as your guide:
5 – Very Highly Compliant (VHC)

4 – Highly (HC)
3 - Moderately (MC)
2- Slightly Compliant (SC)
1 – Not Compliant (NC)
Guidelines of the School Improvement Plan 5 4 3 2 1

(DepEd Order No. 44, s. 2015)
1. The School has prepared and implemented the SIP,
AIP, and SRC following the processes articulated in
the SIP Guidebook.
2. The publication and reporting of the SRC are
monitored together with the SIP and AIP by the
SDO through the SGOD and by the Central Office
through BHROD-SED and OPS.
3. The SIP is anchored in the DepEd vision, mission,
core values, and strategies and in the Central,
Regional, Division, and school goals.
4. The SIP is evidence and results-based, child and
learner-centered.
5. Involved the active participation in the formulation
and implementation of the SIP of all education
stakeholders in the school and community such as
the school heads, teachers, parents, community
leaders, and the learners themselves, among others.
6. The voice of stakeholders is gathered carefully and
determined whether something is in need or wants.
7. The gathering tools is a combination of interviews
and survey to quantify and verify the responses of
the stakeholders.
8. It had the involvement of stakeholders through
consultation on school improvement issues.
9. It had participation as implementers of delegated
powers in the school improvement program.
10. The school-community planning team is informed
about the mandate of DepEd on the SIP, key features
and principles, and SIP development and
implementation cycle and phrases.
11. Identified and reviewed the Priority Improvement
Areas (PIAs).
12. Identified, reviewed, and analyzed the Priority
Improvement Areas (PIAs).
13. Organized the Project Teams.
14. Analyzed the school processes.
15. Write the School Improvement Plan and prepare the
Annual Implementation Plan.
Part IV. Degree of Seriousness of problems encountered SIP Implementation
Direction: The following are the problems encountered in the implementation of

School Improvement Plan (SIP) in the elementary schools with the following scale as
basis.
5 – Very Serious (VS)
4 – Serious (S)
3 - Moderately Serious (MS)
2- Slightly Serious (SS)
1 – Not Serious (NS)
No. Challenges and Constraints in the SIP Implementation 5 4 3 2 1
1. Lack of awareness about the school improvement

program among the school community
2. Shortage of material resource
3. Shortage of financial resource

4. There is little or no assistance, especially financially
coming from the LGU to back up infrastructure projects
5. Lack of well-trained human resource
5. Overlapping schedule of programs and activities
6. Occurrence of pandemic or natural disaster
7. Teachers and students do not involve themselves in
planning programs, projects, and activities set by the
school head.
8. The alumni of the school could hardly be contacted when
the school needed their help and assistance in carrying out
implementing a project, program, or activity.
9. Changes in management (transfer of a school head to
another school) affect the implementation of SIP.
10. Absence of evaluation at the end of each academic year
11. Others, please specify

Plan

4 – Highly (HC)
3 - Moderately (MC)
the SIP Guidebook.
learner-centered.

the stakeholders.
Areas (PIAs).
Part IV. Degree of Seriousness of the Challenges and Constraints in the SIP
Implementation
Direction: The following are among the challenges in the SIP Implementation in
elementary schools. Please indicate the degree of seriousness of the challenges and
constraints in the SIP implementation using the following scale as basis:
5 – Very Serious (VS) - when the problem is very much evident

4 – Serious (S) - when the problem is evident
3 - Moderately Serious (MS) - when the problem is tolerable
2- Slightly Serious (SS) - when the problem is slightly evident
1 – Not Serious (NS) - when the problem is not evident
No. Challenges and Constraints 5 4 3 2 1

7. Students do not involve themselves in planning programs,
projects, and activities set by the school head.
Part I. Profile of the Respondents (to be filled up by the Supreme Elementary

Learner Government Officers (SELG)
Name: _____________________________________________________(Optional)
Designation/
Position__________________________________________________________
1. Age: _____years old
2. Sex: _____ Male
_____ Female
3. Civil Status:
_____ Single
_____ Married
_____Widow/Widower
4. Educational Attainment:
________30 years and above
________ 25-29 years
________ 20-24 years
________ 15-19 years
________ 10-14 years
________ 5 – 9 years

________ 10 and more
________ 7 – 9
________ 4 – 6
________ 1 -3
________ None

________ School
________ Division
________ Regional
________ National

________ District ________National
planning, testing, and implementing, monitoring & evaluation, and reporting
Direction: Kindly rate the level of implementation in the School Improvement Plan
in the elementary school where you are studying, by using the following scale as
your guide:
5 – Very High (VH) - when you very much agree on the provision
4 – High (H) - when you agree on the provision
3 - Moderate (M) - when you are in doubt on the provision
2- Low (L) - when you slightly agree on the provision
1 – Very Low (VL) - when you do not agree on the provision
No. C. Supreme Elementary Learner Government Officials 5 4 3 2 1

(SELG)
1. Actively participated in the preparation of the school
improvement plan.
2. Attended the meetings/conferences, orientation, and
workshops with other school planning teams.
3. Shared insights about difficulties in the school.
4. Helped in the conduct of a survey to define the status of
the school.
5. Participated in setting goals, strategies, and priorities for
the school.
enhancing the SIP during the revisit of the plan every
year.
7. Helped the teachers and school head encourage co-
learners to participate in the school programs and
activities of the school, district, division, region, or
national.
8. Provided financial and technical support towards the SIP
Implementation.
9. Provided assistance to the school in its advocacy effort for
the SIP.
10. Submitted accomplishment report to the SELG Adviser
and school head.

Plan

4 – Highly (HC)
3 - Moderately (MC)
the SIP Guidebook.
learner-centered.
the stakeholders.
Areas (PIAs).
Implementation

7. Lack of involvement in planning programs, projects, and
activities set by the school head.
Part I. Profile of the Respondents (to be filled up by the Barangay/Local Officials)
Name: __________________________________________(Optional)
Designation/Position _________________________________________________ ___
1. Age: _____years old

2. Sex: _____Male
_____ Female
3. Civil Status:
_____ Single
_____ Married
_____Widow/Widower
________ 2 – Year Course
________ Vocational Course
________ 25-29 years
________ 20-24 years
________ 15-19 years
________ 10-14 years
________ 5 – 9 years

_________10 and more
_________7 – 9
_________4 – 6
_________1 -3
_________None

________ Barangay
________ Municipal
________ Provincial
________ National
8. Monthly Income
________ Php5,000.00 below
________ Php5,000.00 Above
________ Php10,000.00-Php30,000.00
________ Php35,000.00-Php50,000.00
________ Php60,000.00 Above

________Barangay ________Regional
________Municipal ________National
________Provincial ________International
in the elementary school where you are serving, by using the following scale as your
guide:
No. A. Barangay/Local Officials 5 4 3 2 1
1. Attended the meetings/conferences, and orientation with
other school planning teams.
2. Participated in the preparation of the school improvement
plan.
3. Share valuable information on the interest of the
community in school improvement.
4. Participated in setting goals, strategies, and priorities of
the school.
5. Participated with other school planning teams in
year.
6. Participated in the discussion of the implementation
issues as a basis for intervention if necessary.

7. Provided recommendations to the priority improvement
area team regarding interventions that are considered
necessary for successful plan implementation.
8. Committed available resources in the implementation of
the plan.
9. Provided assistance to the school in its advocacy effort
for the SIP.
10. Provided assistance in the implementation, monitoring,
and evaluation of the SIP.
Plan
4 – Highly (HC)
3 - Moderately (MC)
the SIP Guidebook.
learner-centered.
the stakeholders.

Areas (PIAs).
Implementation

Part I. Profile of the Respondents (to be filled up by the PTA)
Name:______________________________________________ (Optional)

2. Sex: ______Male
______ Female
3. Civil Status:
_____ Single
_____ Married
_____ Widow/Widower
________Doctor’s Degree
________ 25-29 years
________ 20-24 years
________ 15-19 years
________ 10-14 years
________ 5 – 9 years

________10 and more
________ 7 – 9
________ 4 – 6
________ 1 -3
________None

________ School
________ District
________ Division
________ Regional
________ National
8. Eligibilities:
________PBET
________LET
________CS Professional Examination
________CS Sub- Professional Examination
9. Monthly Income
________ Php5,000.00 below
________ Php5,000.00 Above
________Php10,000.00-Php30,000.00
________Php35,000.00-Php50,000.00
________Php60,000.00 Above

________Division ________International
in the elementary school where you are serving, by using the following scale as your
guide:
No. B. PTA 5 4 3 2 1
plan.
3. Share insights about their children's need to learn and the

difficulties they face in school.
the school.
year.
the plan.
for the SIP.
Plan
4 – Highly (HC)
3 - Moderately (MC)
the SIP Guidebook.
learner-centered.

the stakeholders.
Areas (PIAs).
Implementation

Part I. Profile of the Respondents (to be filled up by the Alumni)
Name ___________________________________________(Optional)

2. Sex: ______Male
______ Female
3. Civil Status:
_____ Single
_____ Married
_____ Widow/Widower
________Doctor’s Degree
________ 25-29 years
________ 20-24 years
________ 15-19 years
________ 10-14 years
________ 5 – 9 years

________ 10 and more
________ 7 – 9
________ 4 – 6
________ 1 -3
________None

________ School
________ District
________ Division
________ Regional
________ National
8. Eligibilities:
________PBET
________LET
________ CS Professional Examination
________ CS Sub- Professional Examination
9. Monthly Income
________ Php5,000.00 below
________ Php5,000.00 Above
________Php10,000.00-Php30,000.00
________Php35,000.00-Php50,000.00
________Php60,000.00 Above

in the elementary school where you are graduated, by using the following scale as
your guide:
No. C. Alumni 5 4 3 2 1
plan.
3. Share insights about their children's need to learn and the

difficulties they face in school.
the school.
year.
the plan.
for the SIP.

Plan
4 – Highly (HC)
3 - Moderately (MC)
the SIP Guidebook.
learner-centered.

the stakeholders.
Areas (PIAs).
Implementation


8. Lack of communication on the involvement in carrying
out implementing a project, program, or activity.

Thank you very much!
CRISTINE BAROÑA GANDEZA

Researcher
Literature Cited
Damon, et al (2016) Education In Developing Countries What Policies And Programmes

Affect Learning And Time In SchooL? Macalester College Paul Glewwe
University of Minnesota Suzanne Wisniewski University of St. Thomas Bixuan
Sun University of Minnesota
Delaney, Gilmore (2021) https://borgenproject.org/
Duterte, Sarah (2023) Basic Education Report 2023 Speech retrieved from
https://ovp.gov.ph/post/basic-education-report-2023-speech September 24, 2023
Education at a Glance (2023)

https://www.oecd-ilibrary.org/sites/e13bef63-en/index.html?itemId=/content/
publication/e13bef63-en accessed September 18 2023
Elni Jeini Usoh (2020) Advances in Social Science, Education and Humanities Research,
volume 566 Proceedings of the 5th Asian Education Symposium 2020 (AES 2020)
Escobar, I. H. G. (2019). School improvement plans, a tool to improve the quality of

education. New Trends and Issues Proceedings on Humanities and Social
Sciences retrieved from https://www.r
Fileteo, Mariel (2021) The Philippine Education in Crises Philippine Institute for
Developmental Studies https://pids.gov.ph/ accessed September 24, 2023
Gera, Weena,(2022) The Higher Education Sustainability Initiative (HESI) New York, 27
April 2022—https://sdgs.un.org/news/higher-education-sustainability-initiative-
discusses-transformation-higher-education-result
Gianini, Stefania & Brandolino, John (2022) UNESCO/UNODC 2020
Hayat, A.A., Keshavarzi, M.H., Zare, S (2021) Challenges and opportunities from the
COVID-19 pandemic in medical education: a qualitative study.BMC Med Educ21,
247 (2021). https://doi.org/10.1186/s12909-021-02682-zISBN 978-91-88143-12-9
Printed by Elanders Sverige AB Stockholm 2016
Khanal, S., Guha, P. (2023) Exploring the relationship between school-based

management and school climate using PISA data. Asia Pacific Educ. Rev. (2023).
https://doi.org/10.1007/s12564-023-09846-0
Malipot, Merlinda 2023 Education Crises at a Glance The Philippine Business for
Education (PBEd) https://mb.com.ph/2023/5/29/ph-education-in-crisis-1 accessed
Sept 24 2023
Rini Purnama Sari2, Ummu Salamah3, Sri Mulyani4 STAI Dr. KH. EZ. Muttaqien
Purwakarta Education Quality Improvement Through School Based Management
Imam Tabroni1*, ISSN-E: 2808-5639
https://journal.yp3a.org/index.php/mudima/index
Stephanie B. Wilkerson, Ph.D., Lisa C. Shannon, Ph.D., Mary K. Styers, Ph.D., Billie-Jo
Grant, Ph.D., 2012 National Center for Education Evaluation and Regional
Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences (IES), U.S. Department of Education.
http://ncee.ed.gov http://edlabs.ed.gov.
The World Bank. “School-based management,” Retrieved from

http://web.worldbank.org/WBSITE/EXTERNAL/TOPICS/, 2007Volume28,Issue3
Weiss, Carol 1955 https://www.theoryofchange.org/what-is-theory-of-change/toc-

background/toc-origins/ accessed June 10, 2023 accessed 7/8/2023by DL
Duke·2014·Cited by 75—Duke DL,Carr M, Sterrett W (2013) The School
Improvement Planning Handbook. Lanham, MD: Rowman & Littlefield. Google
Scholar. US
https://doi.org/10.1177/0892020614537665
https://gpseducation.oecd.org/revieweducationpolicies/#!node=41761&filter=all accessed
7/5/2023
https://online.lsu.edu/newsroom/articles/what-purpose-school-improvement-plan/
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/state-philippine-education-system-overcoming-State of
Philippine Education System: Overcoming the Pandemic accessed September 24,
2023
https://www.pna.gov.ph/articles/1129909 accessed September 24, 2023
https://www.unicef.org/education#:~:text=Over%20600%20million%20children
%20and,numeracy%20are%20further%20from%20grasp.
https://www.unodc.org/dohadeclaration/en/news/2020/05/covid-19-education-is-the-
bedrock-of-a-just-society-in-the-post-covid-world.html accessed 7/5/2023
https://www.worldbank.org/en/publication/wdr2018 accessed June 8, 2023
https://www.worldbank.org/en/topic/education/overview accessed June 8, 2023

Researchgate.net/publication/333009755 September 24, 2023

Cristine DP 2 101123 1

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Cristine DP 2 101123 1

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

PAGE \* MERGEFORMAT 20

SCHOOL IMPROVEMENT PLAN IN THE SCHOOLS DIVISION OF ABRA: BASIS

CRISTINE BAROÑA GANDEZA

DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL STATE UNIVERSITY

This dissertation proposal, School Improvement Plan in The Schools Division

of Abra: Basis for Strategic Program, prepared and submitted by Cristine B.

in Development Administration will be examined and passed on October 14, 2023 by

the Oral Examination Committee composed of :

BERNARDO D. LAMADRID, Ph.D BRILLO S. PAJE, Ph.D

CRISTITA G. GUERRA, Ph.D MELJO APILADO, Ph.D

JAYSON O. MADAYAG, Ph.D MARIO B. MENDOZA, Ph.D

YOLANDA P. ORFIANO Ph.D

BERNARDO D. LAMADRID Ph.D

LIST OF TABLES............................................................................................................ vii

Situation Analysis ............................................................................................1

Framework of the Study................................................................................... 14

Statement of the Problem………………………..............................................23

Definition of Terms ……………………….….................................................25

Research Design ……….…………..............................................................27

Sources of Data ………….…………………...................................................28

Instrumentation and Data Collection …………………................................... 29

Analysis of Data ………..…………………....................................................31

bedrock of all forms of development (social, economic, technological and political) of

constantly pressing governments of putting education at the fore front of their

Although Education systems, schools and universities worldwide are established

The United Nations International Children Emergency Fund (UNICEF) reported

community involvement. In some countries, education opportunities for girls remain

teacher shortages in schools, inadequate education materials. Even where enrollment

(https://globalissuesnetwork.org/learn-about-our-global-issues/education/) and poor

Children and youth in developing countries face many barriers to obtaining

quality education. (https://www.international.gc.ca/world) These range from: distant,

overcrowded or unsafe schools; poor quality of teaching, irrelevant curriculum and

Governments around the world are introducing a range of strategies aimed at

on improving quality as well as increasing quantity (enrollments) in education. The

unsatisfactory school performance in terms of test scores.

One such strategy is the introduction of school-based management (SBM). Aimed

to decentralize education decision-making by increasing parental and community

involvement in schools, the decentralization and devolution of authority to school level

goals and future direction of the school by relocation of decision-making authority

communities in schools, empowering principals and teachers, building local level

achievement levels proportionately more than is customary however to meet the

between SBM and school climate improvement is sparse.

Another strategy for performance in schools was the introduction of a school

the occurrence of the COVID-19 pandemic, academic institutions have embarked on a

achievement gap, address low performance, and create equity in classrooms.

participation of local people and organizations in the planning, management and

implementation of local school affairs, enhancing the pace of quality improvement of

primary schools. As a result, each school in selected districts developed a periodic

education plan, which became a requirement for development funding.

School improvement is at the center of education reform and is perceived by

many as a key to social and economic advance. It contributes to determining personal

of parents and community members. It is an ever – present commitment of teachers and

goals, so as to maximize student achievement.

SIPs, School Decision-Making and Advocacy, and Their Correlation to Student

research-informed criteria related to developing clear and coherent organizational plans

career, and citizenship ready upon graduation.

buildings, only 104,536 are in good condition.

Assessment (PISA) of the Organization for Economic Cooperation and Development

SIP that leads to improved outcomes for all students.

and support from the other stakeholders in the community.

association between the quality of school planning and implementation of developmental

implementation performance and the extent of compliance of SIP Guidelines under DO

Framework of the Study