Republic of the Philippines

Department of Education
NATIONAL CAPITAL REGION
SCHOOLS DIVISION OF SAN JUAN CITY
Office of the Schools Division Superintendent
PROJECT PROPOSAL

I Project Title ARTICULATION SESSIONS WITH THE SCHOOL HEADS

II Rationale This is a contextualized version of the Professional Learning Community and/or Learning
Action Cell stipulated in DepEd Order No. 35. S. 2016. PLC/LAC is a session conducted
by a similar job occupational group that engages in collaborative learning sessions to
solve shared challenges encountered in the organization. This activity will strengthen
the understanding of the mandate, key result areas, and job-related functions for
organizational efficiency and productivity. In addition, this will be an avenue to
understand the Central, Regional, and Division Offices cascaded/implemented
programs, projects, and activities.

The activity is anchored to various DepEd Issuances and Orders such as:
1. Curriculum Implementation Division Functions version 3
2. DepEd Order 42, s. 2017 Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine
Professional Standards for Teachers
3. DepEd Order 24, s. 2020 Adoption and Implementation of the Philippine
Professional Standards for School Heads
4. DepEd Order 25, s. 2020 Adoption and Implementation of the
Philippine Professional Standards for Supervisors

The undertaking will jointly address the complementary roles of supervisors and school
heads in a broad conceptual sphere of leadership practices for all school leaders. The
learners at the center of all initiatives emphasize the coordinated and interconnected
roles of supervisors, school heads, and teachers for the improvement of learner
achievement.
II Objectives The objectives of the project are as follows:
1. to set out clear expectations of what supervisors and school heads need to know,
be able to do, and value to become competent managers and exemplary leaders
2. to collaboratively address issues and concerns on curriculum implementation and
other initiatives
3. to engage supervisors and school heads to assess and reflect on their practices
continuously.
IV Date/Venue January 8, 2024
March 4, 2024
May 20, 2024
June 17, 2024
July 22, 2024
August 5, 2024
September 16, 2024
October 7, 2024
V Expected Capacitated school leadership and seamless implementation of curricular initiatives
Outcome/ and activities.
Outputs
VI Implementat Responsible
ion and M&E Office/Officer
Mechanism Success (RO/O) and
Activity Timeline
Indicator Responsible
Officer in the
M&E (ROM&E)
Pre-implementation Stage
1. Preparation of project RO/O:
proposal and Procurement Program Managers,
procurement process, learning ROM&E:
January 2, 2024
documents (WFP, APP, resource package CID Chief and
PPMP) ASDS
2. Preparation of the RO/O:
event logistics (e.g. Program Managers
posting, bidding, Confirmed venue January 4, 2024
ROM&E:
awarding)
CID Chief and
 ASDS
RO/O:
Program Managers,
3. Planning Meeting with Topics/Agenda for Division L&D
Manager
CID EPSs and Program the Articulation January 5, 2024
Owners Sessions ROM&E:
SGOD Chief and
ASDS
Implementation Stage
RO/O: January 8, 2024
Registration sub- March 4, 2024
committee May 20, 2024
Division L&D
1. Registration of 100% attendance of June 17, 2024
Manager
participants expected attendees July 22, 2024
ROM&E: August 5, 2024
SGOD Chief and September 16, 2024
ASDS October 7, 2024
RO/O: January 8, 2024
Number of
Program Managers, March 4, 2024
capacitated
Division L&D May 20, 2024
supervisors and
Manager June 17, 2024
2. Workshop proper school heads
July 22, 2024
ROM&E: August 5, 2024
Number of resolved SGOD Chief and September 16, 2024
issues and concerns ASDS
October 7, 2024
RO/O: January 8, 2024
Documentation March 4, 2024
sub-committee May 20, 2024
Division L&D
3. Documentation of the June 17, 2024
Documentary report Manager
conduct of the activity July 22, 2024
ROM&E: August 5, 2024
SGOD Chief and September 16, 2024
ASDS October 7, 2024
RO/O: January 8, 2024
Division L&D March 4, 2024
Manager, May 20, 2024
4. Presentation of the 100% QAME Registration Sub-
June 17, 2024
Committee
QAME access link/QR participation of July 22, 2024
code attendees August 5, 2024
ROM&E: September 16, 2024
SGOD Chief and October 7, 2024
ASDS
Post-implementation Stage
RO/O: January 10, 2024
Documentation March 6, 2024
Sub-Committee May 22, 2024
1. Submission of Final Documentary June 19, 2024
documentary reports Report ROM&E: July 24, 2024
Division LRMS August 7, 2024
Manager, CID September 18, 2024
Chief
October 9, 2024
2. Preparation and Distributed RO/O: January 12, 2024
distribution of Certificates Certificate Sub- March 8, 2024
certificates Committee May 24, 2024
June 21, 2024
ROM&E:
Division LRMS July 26, 2024
Manager, CID August 9, 2024
Chief September 20, 2024
October 11, 2024
3. Submission of Liquidation Report RO/O: January 12, 2024
liquidation report Program Managers, March 8, 2024
Division LRMS May 24, 2024
Manager
June 21, 2024
ROM&E: July 26, 2024
CID Chief and August 9, 2024
ASDS September 20, 2024
October 11, 2024
VII Target SDS and ASDS – 2 ; Chief– 1; EPS-10; Program Owners – 3, TWG – 3 , School Heads – 14 ,
Participants HT/MT/SGOD Personnel – 7

Total: 40 pax ( 25 Females & 15 Males)

VIII Funding
Requirements Particulars Amount in Pesos
and Sources:3 Meals (lunch and P 300.00 AC-24-5979-GASS-026
snacks) AC-24-5979-GASS-027
AC-24-5979-GASS-028
40 pax x 8 sessions AC-24-5979-GASS-029
AC-24-5979-GASS-030
AC-24-5979-GASS-031
 AC-24-5979-GASS-032
AC-24-5979-GASS-033
TOTAL P 96,000.00

All expenses relative to the conduct of this activity shall be charged against OC-24-5979-GASS-
008.

IX HGDG Score 14.67 (See attached GAD Checklist 2)

Prepared by:

JOSEFINO C. POGOY JR.

Chief Education Supervisor, CID

Certified Funds Available: Certified Cash Available:

ALLAN ELIEZER M. MAL-IN JAMES EDUARD J. TUZON

Administrative Officer V Accountant III
OIC-Budget Officer

Recommending approval:

BUENAFE E. SABADO
Assistant Schools Division Superintendent

Approved:
MARGARITO B. MATERUM
Schools Division Superintendent
 October 24 and 25, 2023
VENUE: TBA

EXECUTIVE COMMITTEE

MARGARITO B. MATERUM
Schools Division Superintendent
Office of the Schools Division Superintendent

BUENAFE E. SABADO
Assistant Schools Division Superintendent
Office of the Assistant Schools Division Superintendent

JOSEFINO C. POGOY JR. DOMINIQUE T. RIVERA

CID Chief SGOD Chief

COMMITTEE MEMBERS

Program Leonardo P. Dagum

Registration/Attendance Marienel V. Pacheco

Irish Fatima S. Tiomico

Documentation Jushua C. Terrazola

Certificates Marienel V. Pacheco

Irish Fatima S. Tiomico

Evaluation Orlando Claor

Master of Ceremony Leonardo P. Dagum

 GAD Checklists 2: For the Project Identification and Design Stages

Note: Put 'X' mark on

appropriate box
Score
Done?
for Comments/
Element and an
items/question (col.2) item/ gender issues

No Partl
(col.1) y Yes element identified

(2a) (2b) (2c) (col.3) (col.4)

1.0 Involvement of women and
men (max score: 2; for
2
each
item, 1) 0 0.5 1
1.1 Participation of women and
men in beneficiary
groups in the identification
X 1
of the problem
(possible scores: 0, 0.5,
1.0)
1.2 Participation of women and
men in beneficiary
X 1
groups in project design
(possible scores: 0, 0.5, 1.0)
2.0 Collection of sex-
disaggregated data and gender-
X 2
related information (possible
scores: 0, 1.0, 2.0)
3.0 Conduct of gender analysis
and identification of
gender issues (max score: 2;
for each item, 1) 2
3.1 Analysis of gender gaps and
inequalities related to
gender roles, perspectives
X 1
and needs, or access to
and control of resources
(possible scores: 0, 0.5, 1.0)
3.2 Analysis of constraints and
opportunities related
to women's and men's
X 1
participation in the project
(possible scores: 0, 0.5,
1.0)
4.0 Gender equality goals,
outcomes, and outputs
(possible scores:0, 1.0,
2.0)
X 1
Does the project have
clearly stated gender
equality goals, objectives,
outcomes or outputs?
5.0 Matching of strategies with X X 0
gender issues
(possible scores: 0, 1.0,
2.0)
 Do the strategies and
activities match the gender
issues and gender eqality
goals identified?
6.0 Gender analysis of the likely
impacts of the
1.67
project (max score: 2, for
each item, 0.67)
6.1 Are women and girl chldren
among the direct or
X 0.67
inderect beneficiaries?
(possible scores: 0, 0.33, 0.67)
6.2 Has the project considered
its long-term
impact on women's
X 0.67
socioeconomic status and
Empowerment? (possible
scores: 0, 0.33, 0.67)
6.3 Has the project included
strategies for avoiding or
minimizing negative impacts
X 0.33
on women's status
and welfare? (possible
scores: 0, 0.33, 0.66)
7.0 Monitoring targets and
indicators (possible
scores: 0, 1.0, 2.0)
Does the project include
gender equality targets X 1
and indicators to measure
gender equality
outputs and
outcomes?
8.0 Sex-disaggregated database
requirements (possible
scores: 0, 1.0, 2.0)
Does the project M&E X 2
system require the
collection of sex-
disaggregated data?
9.0 Resources (max score: 2; for
1
each item, 1)
9.1 Is the budget allotted by the
project sufficient
for gender equality
promotion or integration?
OR, will the project tap X 0
counterpart funds from
LGUs/ partners for its GAD
efforts? (possible
scores: 0, 0.5, 1.0)
9.2 Does the project have the X 1
expertise to promote
gender equality and
women's empowerment?
OR, is the project committed
to investing project
staff time in building
capacities within the project
 to integrate GAD or promote
gender equality?
(possible scores: 0, 0.5,
1.0)
10.0 Relationship with the
agency's GAD efforts
2
(max score: 2; for each
item, 0.67)
10.1 Will the project build on or
strengthen the
agency/ PCW/
government's commitment
to the empowerment of
women?
(possible scores: 0, 0.33, X 0.67
0.67)
IF THE AGENCY HAS NO
GAD PLAN: Will
the project help in
formulating the implementing
agency's GAD plan?
10.2 Will the project build on the
initiatives or actions
of other organization in the
X 0.67
area? (possible
scores: 0, 0.33,
0.67)
10.3 Does the project have an
exit plan that will ensure
the sustainability of GAD
X 0.66
efforts and benefits?
(possible scores: 0, 0.33,
0.67)
TOTAL GAD SCORE FOR THE
PROJECT IDENTIFICATION
AND DESIGN STAGES 14.67

Interpretation of
the GAD score

0 - 3.9 GAD is invisible in the project (proposal

is retured).

4.0 - 7.9 Proposed project has promising GAD prospects

(proposal earns
a "conditional pass," pending identification of
gender issues and
strategies and activities to address these and inclusion of the
collection of
sex-disaggregated data in the monitoring and
evaluation plan).

8.0 - 14.9 Proposed project is gender-sensitive (proposal passes the GAD

test)
15.0 - 20.0 Proposed project is gender-responsive (proponent is commended).