ENHANCED Drop

Out

Reduction

Program

June 2013

H a n d b o o k

I .TABLE OF CONTENTS

Preface ii

Introduction iii

Acronyms and Abbreviations v

Section One. The Dropout Reduction Program 1

What is the DORP?

What are the underlying assumptions of the DORP?

What are the guiding principles of the DORP?

What are the legal bases of the DORP?

What is the conceptual framework of the DORP?

What is the DORP operational framework?

What are the strategic components of the school DORP?

What are the critical factors that contribute to the successful

Implementation of the DORP?

Who are the target clients of DORP?

Section Two. The School DORP in Action

What is a DORP Cycle?

Phase 1: Planning

Phase 2: The Implementation of the School DORP Plan

Phase 3: Evaluation

Section Three. The Management of the School DORP

What is the DORP’s management structure?

- Roles and Responsibilities

Section Four. The Evaluation of the DORP

Why evaluate the DORP?

Who should be responsible for the evaluation of the School DORP?

When should the DORP evaluation be done?

What kind of data may be used to evaluate DORP?

What steps are suggested to evaluate the DORP?

Appendices

Appendix A1: Sample of the Student-Learning Plan

Appendix A2: Sample of the Student-Learning Plan (LMP)

Appendix B: DORP Critiquing Criteria

Appendix C: Student Profile

ii

PREFACE

Philippine education today faces two serious problems: low student achievement and

high dropout rate. Unless these problems are properly addressed, the EFA (Education For All)

goal of making every Filipino functionally literate by 2015, will not be attained. This handbook is

intended to help schools solve the problems. In making this handbook the writers who were the

participants of this research and the researcher followed these guidelines:

The Handbook should-

• be in the language of the users;

• highlight the best schools practices in reducing dropout rate and increasing learning;

• freely use graphics to explain complex concepts and processes;

• present DORP (Drop Out Reduction Program) as an integral part of the SIP (School

Improvement Plan) and LMP (Learning Management Program), Guidance Counseling

and other regular class programs; and • be open to better ideas, approaches, and challenges so

that it will grow with the times.

ACKNOWLEDGMENT

I acknowledge the assistance of –

the Schools Division of Camarines Sur through the support of the Schools Division

Superintendent Dr. Gilbert T. Sadsad; Assistant Schools Division Superintendent Dr.

Nympha D. Guemo, all Secondary School Principals and Guidance Counselors that

helped in the field validation of this Handbook;

Dr. Maria C. Aquino, Engr. Federico B. Ordinario, Jr., and Dr. Francisco A. Trespeces, the

team that wrote the first DORP Handbook from which this handbook was based.

iii

INTRODUCTION

The total Philippine population as of 2007 stood at 88.7 million; for 2008 it was

projected to be 90.5 million (2000 Census-Based Population Projections). How literate is the

population? Is it sufficiently equipped with the basic competencies for individual development

and effective democratic citizenship?

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

that out of 57.4 million Filipinos who are 10 to 64 years old, 3.8 million ten years old and above,

do not know how to read and write and a total of 9.2 million are not functionally literate.

According to the National EFA Committee (Manila, Philippines, 2006), a survey of young

people,7-21 years old showed that 65% do not participate in any community activities; only

37% can sing the national anthem, and only 38% can recite the Panatang Makabayan. The

Committee further noted that the low participation in community activities, lack of awareness of

Philippine history, and weak engagement with matters of public interest, provided a picture of

educational disadvantage from the viewpoint of nation building.

The EFA report also pointed out that the school system is disadvantaged because of its

poor completion rate and low academic performance. For example, in 2002-2003, only 90.32%

of the total population of children 6-11 years old, enrolled at the start of the school year. The

9.68% that did not enroll constituted nearly 1.2 million children who most likely will eventually

join the ranks of the adult illiterate. The 90.32% of the children who enrolled showed these

trends: For every 1,000 Grade 1 entrants, 312 or 31.2% will leave school before finishing Grade

6; 249 or 24.9% will finish the six-year program at an average of 9.6 years, each one repeating

some grade levels two to three times; and only 439 or 43.9% will graduate in six years. Of

these graduates only six will have sufficient mastery of English, Science and Mathematics. At

the secondary level, for every 1000 entrants to first year high school, 389 or 38.9% will leave

school without completing four years; 353 or 35.3% will graduate after repeating two to three

times; and only 248 or 24.8% will graduate within the required four years.

Taking the two levels together a typical group of 1000 Grade 1 entrants, eventually

yields only 395 or 39.5% finishing high school; only 162 or 16.2% finishing elementary and

secondary school in 10 years; and 233 or 23.3% finishing elementary and high school each

taking up more than 10 years to complete the basic education schooling cycle. The National

Education for All Committee (NEC) further notes that it is highly probable that a very small

number of these high school graduates will have acquired the necessary competencies expected

from ten years of schooling.

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

excellence, as well as, assure general fairness to the 90% of school-aged children that they

take into Grade 1 each year, a failure that has continued yearly for the past four decades. The

data show according to the NEC that most students either do not complete the full 10 years of

basic education, or graduate without mastering the basic competencies.

In sum, there is still a large number of Filipinos who are not basically literate (3.8

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

disadvantaged or handicapped to engage intelligently in various social, economic, civic and

political activities and use to advantage their rights and privileges as members of society.

Moreover, they cannot participate fully nor contribute significantly to the task of nation building.

With an intractable high dropout rate and graduates not mastering the basic education

competencies, how then can the Philippine EFA Action Plan achieve its goal of making every

Filipino functionally literate by 2015? This Handbook on the Dropout Reduction Program (DORP)

attempts to explain how.

Acronyms and Abbreviations

ALS – Alternative Learning System

D-DORP – Division Dropout Reduction Program

DEDP – Division Education Development Plan

DORP – Dropout Reduction Program

EASE – Effective Alternative Secondary Education

EFA – Education For All

LGU – Local Government Unit

LMP – Learning Management Program

M&E – Monitoring and Evaluation

NEC - National EFA Committee

OHSP – Open High School Program

OI – Other Interventions

OSY – Out of School Youth

PTCA – Parent-Teacher-Community Association

R-DORP – Regional Dropout Reduction Program

REDP – Regional Education Development Plan

SARDO – Student-at-Risk at Dropping Out

S-DORP – School Dropout Reduction Program

SII – School Initiated Interventions

SIP – School Improvement Plan

SLP – Student-Learning Plan

Section One THE DROPOUT REDUCTION PROGRAM (DORP)

This section presents what DORP is all about. It covers the definition, goal, objectives,

underlying assumptions, guiding principles, legal bases, conceptual framework, process flow,

operational framework, the critical success factors in managing the DORP, and its beneficiaries.

What is the DORP?

It is an intervention program to reduce the high dropout rate and improve learning

outcomes in public and private schools of the country, using formal, non-formal and informal

approaches. The program aims to facilitate access of every Filipino to quality basic education,

which equips him with the basic literacy tools and content that are essential for his growth and

development as a person and as a citizen of a democratic society. To achieve this aim, DORP

has the following specific objectives:

1. reduce, if not totally eliminate school dropout;

2. increase retention rate;

3. increase significantly the achievement level of the Students-at-Risk of Dropping Out

(SARDO);

4. retrieve learners who are out of school;

5. increase the capability of schools to establish, implement, monitor, evaluate and

continuously improve the DORP;

6. design and continuously improve DORP practices and learning materials; and

7. benchmark the best DORP practices.

What are the underlying assumptions of the DORP?

1. If the continued increase in the rate of school dropout is not arrested, then the EFA goal

of making every Filipino functionally literate by 2015 would not be achieved.

2. The increase in dropout rate could be arrested if the causes of the dropout problem are

properly identified and described and appropriate intervention programs are initiated to

remove the causes.

3. If the school, the home, the community and the SARDO are actively involved in

planning, developing, and implementing the DORP, then the DORP would succeed.

4. The likelihood of students leaving school could be reduced if students’ felt needs are

being satisfied and learning experiences are pleasurable.

5. Learning is scaffolding. New knowledge, skills and attitudes are developed, shaped,

modified or reconstructed on the basis of previous ones. If student attendance is

irregular and previous lessons are not fully mastered, then the scaffolding process is

weakened.

6. The full mastery of basic competencies could be achieved if the instructional process has

a strong remedial component.

7. If the school has a strong and effective DORP, which is collaboratively planned and

managed by the school head, teachers, students, parents, and other key stakeholders,

then the school dropout rate would be diminished.

8. The school DORP would have higher probability of success if it is provided adequate

technical and administrative support by the Division, Regional and Central offices.

What are the guiding principles of the DORP?

1. DORP as an intervention should contribute significantly to the attainment of the School

Improvement Plan (SIP) objective to reduce dropout rate and increase retention and

achievement rates.

2. DORP should not merely keep the SARDO in school nor prevent them from dropping

out; it should also seek to help them master the basic learning competencies.

3. Home visit as a DORP intervention, whether scheduled or unscheduled, focused or

unfocused, should be properly planned; objectives, expected outputs and approaches

should be clear and specific.

4. DORP must educate the SARDO to be independent, critical and creative problem solvers;

hence, the SARDO should be involved actively in planning, executing and evaluating

intervention programs intended to address their problem. They must actively participate

not merely as objects but also as subjects of their own development.

5. DORP should not only prevent students from dropping out; it should also seek to

retrieve those who have dropped out.

6. DORP has for its clients, learners in disadvantaged circumstances; as such, the program

must not depend solely on formal or conventional modes of learning; it should explore

alternative modes that best meet the learning needs of its clients.

7. Being in distressed and disadvantaged situations (poverty, poor health, physical

handicap, low intelligence quotient) is not conducive to the development of a

positive self-concept; hence, DORP should endeavour to build up the self-

confidence and self-reliance of the SARDO.

8. Good decisions are informed decisions; thus, decisions on the type of intervention

appropriate to an individual should be based on a careful analysis of adequate, relevant,

accurate and up-to-date information.

9. Teachers should be fully aware that fast learners who are bored or not challenged by

the mediocrity of the lessons which are generally attuned to the average learner, can

also be potential if not actual dropouts. DORP therefore, in its zeal to focus on the

SARDO must see to it that the bright students, do not become underserved and

disadvantaged.

10. DORP should not only be reactive and preventive, but should also be proactive to cover

the needs of those who dropped out and re-enrolled.

What are the legal bases of the DORP?

Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that the State shall:

1. protect and promote the right of every citizen to quality education at all levels and

shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all;

2. establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system of

education relevant to the needs of the people and society; and

3. encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous systems, as well as self-learning,

independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to

community needs .

The Education Act of 1982 (BP Blg. 232) stipulates that “The State shall provide 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.”

Republic Act (RA) 9155 (Governance for Basic Education Act of 2001) envisions a curriculum

that shall promote the holistic growth of Filipino learners and enable them to acquire the core

competencies and develop the proper values. This curriculum shall be flexible to meet the

learning needs of a diverse studentry, be relevant to their immediate environment and social

and cultural need.

Article 28 of the United Nations Convention on the Rights of the Child (November 1989)

provides that States Parties recognize the right of the child to education, and with a view to

achieving this right progressively and on the basis of equal opportunity, they shall in particular:

1. make primary education compulsory and available free to all;

2. encourage the development of different forms of secondary education, including general

and vocational education, make them available and accessible to every child, and take

appropriate measures such as introducing free education and offering financial

assistance in case of need; and

3. take measures to encourage regular school attendance and reduce dropout rate.

What is the Conceptual Framework of the DORP?

The conceptual framework graphically represents how the DORP supports the regular

class program to attain the goal of the SIP and the DEDP in producing a functionally literate

learner/graduate. It also shows the relationship of the DORP to the Alternative Learning System

(ALS). This conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1.

Figure 1: The DORP Conceptual Framework

DESIRED LEARNER

Legend:

ADM- Alternative Delivery Mode ALS – Alternative Learning System

DEDP – Division Education Development Plan DORP – Dropout Reduction Program

EASE – Effective Alternative Secondary Education OHSP – Open High School Program

OI – Other Interventions SII – School Initiated Interventions

SIP – School Improvement Plan ____ Line of authority

The DORP and the Regular Class Program

The regular class program provides the major contribution to produce the desired

learner which is the goal of the SIP and the Division Education Development Plan (DEDP). The

DEDP

SIP

Regular Class Program

DORP

ALS ADM

EASE OHSP

SII

OI

DORP enhances the delivery of the regular program as it prevents potential school leavers from

leaving. Furthermore, DORP seeks to retrieve those who are out of school and who want to join

the regular classes. DORP supports the regular class program through its strategic components,

namely: the Open High School Program (OHSP), the Effective Alternative Secondary Education

(EASE), School Initiated Interventions (SII) and Other Interventions (OI).

Alternative Delivery Mode (ADM)

The OHSP and EASE as strategic components of DORP are considered ADM because

students do not attend the regular class program while enrolled in the OHSP or EASE. The

OHSP as an intervention has an indirect link with the regular class program since it is distance

learning; however, the learner has the option to join the regular class anytime during the period

of his study.

The EASE students on the other hand, are temporary leavers of the regular class

program and they re-enter the class after satisfactory completion of the EASE modules. The SII

and the OI are for the SARDO who do not qualify in the EASE and OHSP. These students are

members of the regular class program but who participate in either of the two interventions (SII

& OI) or a combination of both to prevent them from dropping out. More information about

each component is given in subsequent discussions and separate handbooks.

The DORP and the ALS

As mentioned earlier, the primary objective of the DORP is to prevent students from

dropping out, at the same time, it motivates those who are out of school to return and finish

basic education. In cases where a SARDO cannot be saved, he has the option to participate in

the ALS so that he can attain functional literacy.

ALS is a parallel learning that provides a viable alternative to the existing formal

instruction. This is done through its three programs, namely: Basic Literacy Program,

Accreditation and Equivalency Program and Indigenous Peoples Education Program.

The out-of-school youths (OSYs) and adults enrolled in the ALS program, likewise, have the

option to re-enter the school to finish basic education either through the regular class program

or the OHSP of the DORP.

What is the DORP operational framework?

The DORP operational framework presents how the program functions at the school

level and how the division, regional and central offices of the department support the program

in accordance with RA 9155 (Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001). This is shown in

Figure 2.

In operationalizing the DORP, the school is the actual implementor of the various

interventions specified in the School DORP Plan (S-DORP Plan). The S-DORP Plan supports the

SIP as it contributes in improving school outcomes, specifically in decreasing drop-outs, and in

increasing completion, retention and achievement rates. Being the direct implementor, the

school needs the support of the various levels of the education system, namely: Central,

Regional and Division.

The Central Office sets the national program policy, direction and standards, monitors,

and evaluates the impact of the program. The Regional Office implements and monitors the

national program policy and direction at the regional level. The Regional Office supports the

Division DORP by providing technical and administrative assistance to its implementors. This

assistance is defined in the Regional DORP (R-DORP) which is an integral part of the Regional

Education.

Figure 2: The DORP Operational Framework

Development Plan (REDP). The Division Office prepares its Division DORP (D-DORP)

based on the set program policy and direction and the needs of the schools. The D-DORP sets

the direction and strategies of the Division in addressing the dropout problem. The various

components of the D-DORP provide the services and assistance to the school in implementing

the S-DORP plans. This assistance comes in the form of capacity building activities, technical

and administrative support, advocacy and linkaging, research, documentation, and

dissemination of best practices. The D-DORP supports the DEDP, and the DEDP supports the

SIP in general and the S-DORP in particular.

What are the strategic components of the school DORP?

Strategic components refer to the sub-programs of the DORP. These components are

strategic because each is an innovative strategy to address the dropout problem. The following

are the strategic components of the DORP:

1. Open High School Program (OHSP). This is an alternative mode of secondary

education that addresses learning problems of students who cannot join the regular class

CENTRAL

LEVEL

Policy Direction Standards Advocacy M & E

REGIONAL

LEVEL

R

D

O

R

P

R

E

D

P

DIVISION LEVEL

Planning Capacity Building System Support Technical Administrative Research Advocacy Networking M&E

D

D

O

R

P

D

E

D

P

SCHOOL LEVEL

EASE OHSP SII OI

S D O R

P

S

I

P

program due to justifiable reasons. These reasons may include physical impairment,

employment, distance of home to school, education design, family problems, and the like.

This mode uses distance learning and makes use of multi-media materials which the

learner studies at his own pace and consults only with teachers and capable persons when

needed. Hence, as a requisite, the learner shall undergo the Independent Learning Readiness

test (ILRT) to assess his capacity for self-directed learning and the Informal Reading Inventory

(IRI) to measure his reading level.

The learner, therefore plans and manages his own learning. This is done through the

use of a Student Learning Plan (Appendices A1 & A2). Teachers and students together agree on

the date, time, and manner of assessing learning outcomes. The learner has a maximum of six

years to complete secondary education. He has also the option to join the regular class anytime

during the period he is in the OHSP.

2. Effective Alternative Secondary Education (EASE). This is an alternative mode

of learning for short-term absentees or temporary leavers of the regular class program due to

justifiable reasons: part-time job, illness in the family, seasonal work, calamitous events, peace

and order problem, and the like. This learning mode uses modules which the students study

while on leave of absence.

To qualify to the EASE program, a student should pass the reading and writing ability

tests in English and Filipino and the mathematical ability test. He should also pass the coping

ability assessment. These abilities are needed inasmuch as the program entails self-directed

study, with the teacher acting as facilitator of learning. In case the student fails to pass these

requirements, the school may still consider him in the program by considering the development

level of the student. The learners’ development level is indicated by their ability to solve

problems. (Lev Vygotsky, 1938) The greater their dependency on other people for help, the

lower is their development level; the lesser their dependence on external help, the higher is

their development level.

Teachers should give more and direct assistance to students on the lower development

level, collaborative assistance to those on the middle, and nondirective assistance to those on

the high level. Teachers should locate the actual learners’ development level and help them

move up to their proximal potential development level.

In monitoring learner’s progress and assessing performance, the teacher ensures that

quality standards are being observed. Result of the assessment shall be used to determine if

the learner is ready to go back to the regular class program. This strategic component requires

that the student signs an agreement that details his responsibilities. The agreement is

concurred by a parent or a guardian.

3. School Initiated Interventions (SII). These are innovative and homegrown

interventions developed by schools to prevent the SARDO from dropping out and to increase

their achievement rate. The SII is based on the SARDO ‘s felt needs, hence, they participate

with the school head, DORP Council, SII Coordinator, teachers, parents and other key

stakeholders in planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating the program.

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

or a group of students. In other instances, SII may be combined with EASE or with OHSP.

The following are lists of SII that may be implemented as drawn from the significant

findings of this study:

Table 1 Successful interventions for improving engagement and reducing early school leaving

Supportive

School Culture

School Commitment

Continuous improvement

Commitment to success for all

Flexibility and responsiveness to individual need

High expectation

Encouraging student responsibility and autonomy

Shared vision

School-Wide

Strategies

School-Level

Approaches

Broad curriculum provision in the senior years

Offering quality Vocational Educational training (VET)

Programs that are challenging and stimulating

Early interventions to support literacy and numeracy skill growth

Programs to counter low achievement

Pathways Planning and quality career guidance counselling

Strategic use of teachers and teaching resources

Smaller class size

Mini-school or school-within- a school organization

Team-based approaches to teaching, learning and pastoral care

Priority professional development

Community service

Cross-sectoral initiatives

Student-Focused

Strategies

Addressing

Individual Student

Needs

Student case management

Mentoring

Attendance policies and programs

Welfare support

Targeted assistance for skill development among low achievers

Tutoring and peer tutoring

Supplementary or out of school time program

Pathways planning for at-risk students

Targeted financial support

Project-based learning for disengaged students

Creative arts-based programs for at-risk students

Student-focused strategies

To address the prevalence of personality problems among SARDOs it is important to

address not only the reform of school programs and curricula but also not to take aside the

needs of at-risk students who often struggle with a variety of social and personal issues that affect

engagement and the quality of learning. Individual-level strategies seek to address these problems. The

provision of strategic, targeted welfare and skill programs can have a substantial impact on the capacity

of at-risk students to remain in education.

Student case management is one of the most effective strategies for directly assessing individual

student need, targeting appropriate assistance and monitoring progress. Case management can be

organised in different ways. In schools, career teachers often work as case managers. The most

successful schools implemented the program from Year 7 in order to identify and assess individual

student needs as early as possible, particularly for students at risk, and providing intensive and on-going

intervention through case management. Welfare staff played this role in some schools. Evaluations of

various programs that use case management as a key feature often report positive gains (see, for

example, Gandara, Larson, Mehan & Rumberger, 1998; Strategic Partners, 2001). Effectively targeting

greater resources to case management for at-risk students is likely to have a positive impact on student

retention.

Developing Internal and External locus of Control

To strengthen the internal and external locus of control among SARDOs the following

activities were suggested:

Foster connectedness. Many of the initiatives, such as mini-schools, are ways of reducing

students’ social isolation and strengthening relationships between students, parents, staff and the

broader community. Participants commented that some of the most at-risk students have poor social

skills and limited connections beyond their immediate family, and effective programs enabled students to

increase both the number and quality of the connections they had with the school and the local

community. In both this and other studies, schools with high retention had also worked hard to increase

parents’ involvement and connectedness with the school. Relevant strategies include mini-schools,

smaller class sizes, mentoring, student case management, peer tutoring, community service and

supplementary or out-of-school-time programs.

Increase the trust placed in students. Because of low achievement or poor behaviour, many at-

risk students have experienced verbal or non-verbal messages from adults communicating low

expectations and low trust. Having high expectations of students sends a powerful message that staff

believe students are not limited by past behaviour or achievement, and can do more. Strategies and

school cultures that give students real power and responsibility also tell students that the school believes

they can do the right thing. Strategies such as community service or cross-age tutoring can allow

students who have usually been on the receiving end of help to see themselves as capable of offering

help. Relevant strategies include community service, peer tutoring, and some project-based learning.

Provide tasks with immediate, tangible benefits. Some at-risk students, particularly those from

abusive backgrounds, can find it very difficult to trust adults, and given their past experiences this may

be a wise response. Yet the traditional abstract secondary school curriculum and examination structure

requires students to place a lot of trust in teachers and schools – to believe that apparently irrelevant

learning will have some application later, and that learning abstract skills and knowledge now will have a

payoff years hence. Offering project-based learning and vocationally-oriented coursework allows students

to participate in learning that is immediately relevant and provides students with concrete evidence of

achievement. Relevant strategies include project-based learning, offering quality VET programs and

creative arts-based programs.

Make spaces within schools and curricula for diverse student needs. Many strategies, such as off-

campus provision or programs for teen parents, recognize the diversity of student needs and interests.

Schools that had achieved significant increases in retention also spoke about flexibility as a key aspect of

school culture – a willingness to alter school practices to meet student needs. Relevant strategies include

offering quality VET options, broad curriculum provision in the senior years, and cross-sectoral initiatives.

Address poor achievement. There are strong links between students’ levels of achievement and

the likelihood they will remain in school. Substantial remediation programs, professional development to

improve the quality of teaching, placing strong teachers with low achievers and student attendance

programs work to improve student achievement. This in turn has an impact on retention. Relevant

strategies include targeted assistance for skill development among low achievers, strategic teacher

placement, programs to counter low achievement, tutoring and peer tutoring, priority professional

development, and attendance policies and programs.

Address practical personal obstacles to staying at school. Many at-risk students face practical

barriers to remaining in education, ranging from the problems of living independently to lack of funds for

textbooks or activities. Strategies such as case management, welfare support and financial scholarships

enable students to deal with some of these issues. Relevant strategies include welfare support, case

management, attendance programs and financial sponsorships.

Making interventions work

The international literature review conducted for the study highlighted that schools which

successfully address engagement and completion issues often share certain characteristics, and these

were also apparent in the most successful schools that participated in the survey of schools undertaken

for this study.

Early intervention is best .The most effective schools in the study were proactive in their

approach to students, identifying problems at an early stage in their secondary school careers and

working to address them before students had become disengaged. This could be seen in practices such

as conducting standardized test to determine potential SARDO, providing substantial remedial programs

from Year 7, forging strong links to feeder primary schools, and starting MIPs planning with at-risk

students at Year 7 or 8, rather than waiting until Year 10. Again, this is in keeping with research

suggesting that earlier intervention with at-risk students has more impact and is more effective than late

intervention (Cunha and Heckman, 2006).

Schools need to ensure interventions are sustained. Schools visited as part of this project

reported that program continuity and long-term support for students were vital. A number of principals

commented that they allowed time and funding for initiatives to be embedded in the school culture and

then modified to maximize their impact. Principals also stressed the importance of funding stability and

staffing stability in creating the necessary environment for change. One principal of a school with

unusually high student retention commented, “One-year programs are a waste of time – it has to be

longer term.” Another commented, “The belief system behind all of this is that for whatever reason, our

children do not have the social capital to manage this movement from Year 7 to Year 12 in an

independent manner. They need props, supports, models at every step.”

This is in keeping with research on some overseas interventions indicating that, while the

programs have positive effects, these effects are often not sustained over time if the intervention is

abandoned (Gandara, 1998, cited in Belfield and Levin, 2007; Cunha and Heckman, 2006).

Schools need to adopt multifaceted approaches. It is important to approach different needs

associated with engagement and retention using a combination of strategies, using a multi-faceted rather

than singular approach. While individual mentoring may be one program that keeps at-risk students

connected to school, professional development to improve the quality of teaching is also important, as

are many other strategies. Schools need to consider using an integrated, multi-strand approach to

addressing the needs of at-risk students. This could mean, for example, addressing social issues and

practical problems, using strategies such as individual case management, while also putting in place

strategies that improve the school’s program provision, such as broadening the curriculum and

strengthening teachers’ teaching and class management skills.

Context sensitivity is essential. Although many of the strategies identified in the paper were seen

in a range of school settings, staff interviewed for the project commented frequently on how important it

was to adjust strategies according to the needs of the local students and parents. So, while virtually all

the identified schools had worked to improve connections with parents, in the case of one school with a

large number of parents from non-English speaking backgrounds, this had taken the form of developing a

very visual newsletter with many photos, which allowed students to translate for their parents, explaining

events and identifying people at the school. Schools that had increased engagement and retention

adjusted strategies to fit with students and parents.

Supportive school culture greatly improves effectiveness .While the paper has discussed specific

intervention strategies, principals in schools achieving high retention rates here and overseas (Socias et

al., 2007) were clear that these should not be implemented ad hoc. Those schools which were most

successful in raising student retention had an integrated approach, underpinned first, by a wellarticulated

philosophy that drove all aspects of provision and second, by a culture of continuous improvement.

Principals and staff at these schools stressed that all students were able to achieve, that if students were

not engaged then the school needed to change what it did, and that while successes were celebrated,

every initiative was there to be built upon. In the most successful schools there was schoolwide

ownership of student engagement and achievement.

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

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

For example, the provincial LGU of Leyte, initiated ICOT-P (Income-Creating Opportunities thru

Technology Projects) which generated income for the third and fourth year high school students

at risk of dropping out due to lack of financial support.

The project enabled the students to convert an idle lot in their school into a profitable

vegetable farm. The provincial LGU provided the production inputs and the municipal LGU, the

technical inputs. The income derived from the farm was used to subsidize the financial needs of

the at-risk students.

In the Division of Romblon, the municipal LGU of Ferrol, Romblon came up with

“Miscellaneous Nyo, Sagot ng LGU”, which appropriated municipal budget to pay the

miscellaneous school expenses of the SARDO.

What critical factors contribute to the successful implementation of the DORP?

1. Committed Leadership. This refers to the leadership of the school head, the school

DORP Council, the teachers and the Division DORP Council involved in managing the

program. The willingness to devote extra time and effort to help the SARDO, the

dropout returnees and the would-be enrollees ensures the successful implementation of

the DORP.

2. Trained DORP Council and Implementers. The competence to manage is a

prerequisite of the DORP. The division and school DORP Councils and all DORP

implementors should be provided with capability-building activities to enhance their

knowledge, skills and attitudes to implement the DORP successfully.

3. Availability of Materials. Materials, print and non-print should be available as needed

to ensure that learning objectives are achieved.

4. Participation and Support of Stakeholders. The active and direct involvement of

the students and their parents/guardians is a must in all the DORP activities. Likewise,

the support of the other stakeholders – local government, PTCA, community officials,

non- government organizations and others, is necessary inasmuch as, several risk

factors are community related.

Who are the beneficiaries of DORP?

1. Students at risk of dropping out.

2. Out-of-school youths of school age who decide to complete basic education through

the Alternative Delivery Mode.

Section Two

THE SCHOOL DORP IN ACTION

The previous section explained that DORP is primarily a school-based program to reduce

if not eliminate school dropouts so that every learner would be sufficiently schooled and

become functionally literate. This section discusses how the DORP cycle is operationalized in a

school and how the School DORP and Division DORP plans are prepared and put into action.

What is a DORP Cycle?

It is a recurring process of three major activities: (1) planning the division and school

DORP (2) implementing the DORP plans and (3) evaluating the effect of the program. These

cyclical processes are presented in Figure 3 in graphic form. The “D” form of the cycle and the

upward direction of the arrows in the evaluation phase symbolize the determination of DORP to

address the dropout problem.

Figure 3: The DORP Cycle

Formulation of the DORP PLAN

Situation Analysis Appraisal of the DORP Plan

Impact Evaluation DORP Plan Start-up

DORP Plan Implementation

Results/Monitoring/Evaluation

Planning Phase

Implementation

Phase

Evaluation

Phase

Progress Monitoring & Evaluation

The following is an explanation of the three (3) major phases.

Phase 1: Planning

This phase has three main stages: (1) conducting situational analysis, (2) designing the

proposed solution, and (3) appraising the proposed solution.

Step 1. Conducting the situational analysis.

This step intends to answer the following questions. • What is the current dropout rate

of the school? retention rate? completion rate? achievement rate?

• Are there serious gaps between the desired and actual retention, completion and

achievement rates?

• What are the causes and effects of the gaps? To answer the questions data have to be

gathered by reviewing school records, conducting interviews, observing administrative and

instructional practices, and holding focus group conversations. The outputs of Step 1 are

clear statements of the dropout problems, their causes and corresponding issues.

Step 2. Designing the Solutions to the Problem.

Based on the results of Step 1, the goal and objectives are defined; and alternative

solutions are identified, analyzed for effectiveness and efficiency, and the most promising

solutions are selected. The outputs of the Design Stage is a School DORP plan which has the

following elements:

o Situationer

• Problem statement

• Background/context of the problem

• General and specific objectives

• Intervention strategies

• Implementation and M & E Plans

• Management Plan

• Sustainability Plan

Step 3. Appraising the School DORP Plan

The School DORP Plan shall be presented to the key stakeholders for validation and

improvement. Please see (Appendix B) for an example of the criteria to evaluate a DORP Plan.

Phase II: Implementing the School DORP Plan

The implementation phase has these stages, namely: start-up, plan execution, and

progress monitoring and evaluation.

1. Start-up. The DORP Council and the school head review the plan once more to

ensure that the strategies, activities and schedule are practical and responsive to the existing

situations and acceptable to the implementors. This is also the time to review the roles and

responsibilities of the DORP implementors and to design the management procedures.

2. Plan execution. It is the responsibility of a DORP Team to implement the activities

as planned and to make adjustments to correct plan deficiencies. The implementors should see

to it that the at-risk students are properly identified and provided the needed assistance. One of

the objectives of DORP is to keep enrolled learners in school and improve their achievement. To

help achieve this objective, the Learning Management Program (LMP) shall be integrated into

the various DORP interventions at the school level when appropriate.

The S-DORP implementation spiral process presents how DORP is put into action. DORP

implementation at the school level which caters to the enrolled learners follows the processes

as shown in the DORP Spiral. Re-planning follows after completing each cycle. The re-planning

stage follows the same processes but at a different level or plane, hence the spiral flow. The

spiral flow enables the planners to profit from the lessons learned and avoid repetition of the

flaws in the previous cycle.

The process consists of nine major activities which are the following:

1. Profile the learner

During enrollment the student shall accomplish the Student Profile Form (Appendix C) in

addition to the usual enrollment forms. The Student Profile Form captures information on the

risk factors for dropping out.

2. Gather and Update Supporting Data

As the school year progresses, the subject teachers and class adviser continuously

gather documentary data from DepEd Forms 1 and 2 (class register and monthly report of

enrollment, respectively) and observation data which show tendencies of the student to drop

out, such as the following:

• Absences and tardiness

• Declining academic achievement based on periodical exams, etc.

• Frequent violation of school rules and regulations

• Non-participation in class activities

• Non-submission of class requirements

The subject teachers shall furnish the supporting data to the class adviser and decide

whether the student is at risk of dropping out. If the student is not a SARDO, he will continue

with the usual class reinforcement and enhancement activities.

3. Analyze the Problem

The class adviser, subject teachers, guidance counselor and the identified at-risk student

come together to analyze the problem, particularly its causes and effects.

4. Conduct the Problem -Solving Conference

If the problem is serious and are beyond the capability of the classroom stakeholders to

resolve, the class adviser may call for a case conference with the school head, parents, subject

teachers, PTCA representative, student organization and the SARDO himself.

5. Identify and design the appropriate solution

Based on the results of the problem- solving conference, the S-DORP Team shall identify

and design the appropriate DORP intervention.

6. Implement the Solution

In support to the regular class program activities, the S-DORP Team Implements the

intervention according to the designed implementation plan. The class adviser monitors or

tracks the progress of the at-risk student.

7. Assess the Implementation and Results of the Intervention

The S-DORP Team shall assess the implementation and results of the intervention.

Results of the assessment shall determine whether the problem of the SARDO was solved or

not. If the problem was solved, the SARDO shall undergo the regular class program.

8. Replan

If the problem of the SARDO is not solved, the S-DORP Team shall re-plan and conduct

another cycle until the problem is solved.

Un-enrolled Learners

A school dropout is a student who quits schooling during the school year (simple

dropout) or a student who completed a year level but failed to enroll for the succeeding level.

The prevention of simple dropout is addressed by the DORP Spiral implementation processes.

For the un-enrolled learners the school shall design and implement interventions that encourage

those learners to go back and complete secondary schooling. Learners who no longer want to

return to the formal system shall be referred to the Alternative Learning System. The following

strategies may be used to get un-enrolled students go back to the formal or non-formal school:

• Enrollment Advocacy Campaign

In collaboration with the PTCA, LGU and other stakeholders, the school undertakes this

intervention prior to the enrollment period.

• House-to-House Enrollment Campaign

The LGU shall spearhead this campaign just after enrolment when the unenrolled

learners are already known. The S-DORP Team prepares a master list of probable enrollees per

year level prior to the enrollment period. Comparison of this master list with the actual list of

enrollment will determine the un-enrolled students. The S-DORP team can also make use of the

LGU spot map to validate and locate the un-enrolled students.

• Referral to ALS

The school in collaboration with the LGU shall refer to the ALS the un-enrolled learners who

no longer desire to go back to the formal learning.

3.Monitor and Evaluate Progress of Implementation.

Progress Monitoring and Evaluation (PME) is a sub-stage of the Implementation Phase. PME

is a parallel activity with the actual plan implementation. The purpose of PME is to track the

progress of implementation to determine if the:

o DORP activities are undertaken as scheduled;

o learning contracts are fulfilled;

o implementation cost is according to budget;

o implementation processes and procedures are consistent with policies set by the

o DORP Council;

o expected participation of stakeholders is rendered;

o emergent problems and issues are properly addressed; and

o feedback is immediately utilized to improve performance.

The results of the PME are management decisionmaking inputs to correct and/or

improve ongoing DORP implementation.

Phase III: Evaluation

Results monitoring. The following questions shall help the implementers determine if

DORP is producing the desired results:

• Are the EASE, OHSP, School Initiated Interventions and Other Interventions

able to keep the SARDO in school? Is there improvement in their attendance,

class participation, problem-solving competencies and learning outcomes?

• Is the School DORP Council functioning as expected? How can it improve its

performance?

• Are the SARDO using the SLP to gain mastery of the basic learning

competencies?

• Is the SARDO tracking system at the school and classroom levels producing

the expected outputs?

The school keeps track of the monthly attendance and dropout rates through the

Monthly Attendance Report (DepEd Form 2). It is the practice of successful schools to display in

a wall chart the monthly status of attendance and holding power of each class. The school shall

be free to devise a tracking form agreed to by the stakeholders to meet its information needs

and those of the higher authorities.

For detailed discussion on DORP evaluation please see Section 4 of this Handbook.

Section Three: THE MANAGEMENT OF THE SCHOOL DORP

Section 3 describes how DORP shall be managed at the school level and the

corresponding roles and responsibilities of those who are involved in the program.

What is the DORP’s management structure?

The DORP management structure consists of the essential management positions, their

assigned roles and responsibilities and relationships to one another. DORP management

structure varies according to school needs and population size. These are the two essential

factors to consider in designing a DORP organizational structure.

When DORP is at its inception stage, the centralized structure may be preferred. Then,

as the school gains experience and competence, the structure may be gradually transformed

into a decentralized one as shown by Figure 5. A school should adopt a management structure

suited to its needs and competence.

At the center of the chart are the students, the beneficiaries of the DORP. Directly

managing them are the class advisers who in turn are under the direct supervision of the school

head.

Providing support to the students are the subject teachers, guidance counselor, DORP

Council, DORP Coordinator and the parents. Below are the responsibilities of the people who

are directly managing the DORP.

Students

• Participate in selecting the appropriate DORP intervention with the guidance

of the class adviser;

• Enter into a DORP agreement or contract;

• Prepare, implement and assess self-directed learning plans;

• Fulfill the requirements of the selected intervention; and

• Report to the class adviser and subject teachers according to agreement.

Class Advisers/Teachers

• Identify SARDO by subject area and year level;

• Prepare SARDO monitoring list;

• Diagnose students’ strengths, weaknesses, interests and learning difficulties;

• Design appropriate interventions with colleagues and the SARDO;

• Implement the interventions;

• Track / evaluate progress of SARDO;

• Assist the School Head in formulating DORP Plan;

• Conduct advocacy to the following stakeholders: parents , students,

community and LGUs;

• Submit a regular progress report on SARDO to the school head;

• Attend training – workshop on DORP ;

• Assist in the conduct of in-service trainings for DORP implementors;

• Plan with the other stakeholders especially students the DORP classroom

action

• plan; and

• Update information about the SARDO.

Figure 4: The S-DORP Organizational Structure

School Head

• Leads in designing DORP management structure and in making it functional;

• Leads in managing the school DORP plan;

• Generates financial and material resources to support DORP;

• Leads the planning and conduct of DORP advocacy;

• Participates in DORP trainings;

• Conducts school level training/enhancement;

• Leads in benchmarking best DORP practices in his school as well those from

the other

• schools;

• Submits DORP reports to the Division DORP Coordinator;

Students

School Head

Parents

S-

DORP

Coordi

nator

Class

Advise

rs

S-DORP

Council

• Reports DORP’s progress to the community through the State of the School

address (SOSA);

• Provides incentives to accelerate DORP.

Guidance Counselor

• Upgrades continuously the guidance program on DORP;

• Prepares DORP guidance tools and forms;

• Conducts counseling sessions;

• Maintains a centralized DORP records; and

• Assists the Class Advisers/Teachers in:

o profiling of students

o preparing and updating SARDO Monitoring list

o conducting home visits

o conducting individualized interview

o facilitating homeroom and PTCA meetings

o updating of individual records of students

o diagnosing and solving problems of students

School DORP Coordinator

• Gathers and synthesizes data for the S-DORP plan;

• Assists the school head and the DORP team in preparing the S-DORP plan;

• Synchronizes the DORP activities;

• Monitors the implementation of the plan and provides feedback to implementors;

• Synthesizes progress reports of class advisers; and

• Prepares and submits school DORP reports to the school head and the DORP

Council

S-DORP Council

• Sets policies and standards on school DORP management;

• Resolves sensitive DORP-related issues and concerns;

• Advises the School Head on DORP related matters; and

• Provides oversight information to decisionmakers in the school

• The members of the council are the representative of the PTCA, LGU,

department heads, teachers, student government and non-government

organizations.

Parent / Guardian

• Signs the agreement as one of the principal parties if necessary;

• Helps the SARDO implement the agreement;

• Assists the teachers in managing and evaluating the DORP intervention;

• Participates in DORP related activities; and

• Works as partners of the class adviser/teachers in monitoring the SARDO.

Section Four: THE EVALUATION OF THE DORP

Why evaluate the DORP?

The evaluation can tell us if DORP is effective and efficient in reducing school dropout

rate and in increasing retention, completion and achievement rates. If it is not, then we can

improve it. Somehow, we have to find a good solution to the dropout problem.

Who should be responsible for the evaluation of the School DORP?

The reduction of school dropout rate is a major responsibility of the school head.

Therefore, he should see to it that:

• the program is regularly and properly evaluated;

• the evaluation is well-planned and data gatherers and processors are properly

trained;

• financial, material, and manpower resources are adequate; and

• evaluation results are used to improve the DORP.

However, the school head should share the responsibility to evaluate the DORP with

other key stakeholders. These are the following:

The students. What do students think and feel about the DORP? To what extent does

it prevent students-at-risk from dropping out? Corelational studies can only give probable

answers, but dialogues with students, parents and peers can give more insightful answers.

The class or section advisers. They can provide relevant data on student attendance,

absenteeism, class behavior, and academic performance.

The guidance teachers. They can help analyze and interpret evaluation data,

particularly those with emotional and relational elements. They can organize case conferences

and conduct case studies of serious dropout problems.

The department heads. As leaders in particular subject areas, they assist the school

in DORP evaluation and in supervising and coordinating implementation. Are absences and

tardiness in Math classes significantly different from those in other subjects? Is the rate of

failure significantly higher in English than in other subjects? These are examples of evaluation

questions which need answers from department heads.

The DORP Council. The body can set guidelines for the conduct of the evaluation and

can even help prepare the evaluation plan. Note that external evaluation shall also be

conducted to ensure credibility of results. The Central Office evaluates the R-DORP Plan; the

Regional Office the D- DORP Plan and the Division Office the S-DORP Plan.

When should the DORP evaluation be done?

It depends on the purpose of the evaluation. If the purpose is to determine the status of

the school in terms of student retention, completion and achievement at the start of the target

period, then a pre-assessment is needed. If the purpose is to know the effect of the DORP one

school year after it has been implemented, then a post evaluation is needed. A significant

difference in the results of the pre and the post evaluation may be attributed to the DORP. If

the purpose is to fine-tune the DORP process, materials or structure, then evaluation should be

done while DORP is in operation. This is called formative evaluation. If the purpose is to know if

the DORP is being implemented as planned, then the evaluation should be done while DORP is

being implemented. This is often referred to as progress monitoring and evaluation. If the

purpose is to determine if the DORP targets have been achieved, then evaluation is done at the

end of the school year. This evaluation is referred to as summative or outcome evaluation.

What kind of data may be used to evaluate DORP?

It depends on the evaluation question. If the evaluation seeks to know how teachers

and students perceive DORP or feel about it, then qualitative data have to be gathered.

Qualitative data are commonly expressed in words (statements, opinions, attitudes, feelings,

beliefs, preferences, etc.). They are obtained through individual and group interviews and

participant observation. To measure intensity, frequency, latency and direction of attitudes,

opinions, and beliefs, rating scales or rubrics are used. If the evaluation seeks to know the

measurable increase or decrease in dropout, retention, completion and achievement rates, then

quantitative data need to be gathered. Quantitative data are expressed in number: test scores,

percentages, frequencies, averages, ratios, coefficients, ranks, etc. oth quantitative and

qualitative data are needed to evaluate DORP.

What steps are suggested to evaluate the DORP?

The following steps are generic and may be used at the school or at the classroom level:

1. State clearly the purpose of the evaluation. Who are the users of the results and what

will the results be used for? What will be evaluated depends on the objectives of the

evaluation.

2. State the specific objectives, and the evaluation questions.

3. Decide what data to gather to achieve the objectives and answer the questions.

4. Plan how to analyze and interpret the results.

5. Select or prepare the data -gathering tools.

6. Orient or train the users of the tools.

7. Gather and analyze data and interpret the results.

8. Summarize the findings and discuss them with the interested end users.

9. Formulate the recommendations and assess if they are acceptable and implementable.

10. Disseminate and utilize the findings to improve the DORP.

At the end of the school year when the school head presents his Annual Report to the

stakeholders, the report on the DORP should give answers to four questions:

1. Has the DORP reduced significantly the school dropout rate?

2. Have the saved at-risk students achieved, at least, the minimum competency standards?

3. Has the DORP brought back to school the unenrolled students and/or has referred them

to the Alternative Learning System?

4. Has the DORP contributed to the achievement of SIP objective on improved retention

and achievement rates?

APPENDICES

Appendix A1: Sample of the Student-Learning Plan

Appendix A2: Sample of the Student-Learning Plan (LMP)

Appendix B: DORP Critiquing Criteria

Appendix C: Student Profile

Appendix A1 Sample of the Student-Learning Plan

(Open High School)

Learning Area: ENGLISH Year Level: First

Learner's Name: ____________________________ Date Taken: _________________

Teacher: ___________________

No. of Module/Student

Worksheets

Desired Competencies to

be developed

Allotment

Period (to be

determined by

the learner)

Actual

Accomplishment

Period

Initial

Evaluation

Remarks

Module 6: Being

Responsible Steward of

Nature

*Give the meaning of idiomatic phrases *Arrive at a consensus *Transcode information obtained from a listening text

One week 2 weeks (Result of

Instructional

level activities)

*Write a text on how one might help in the conservation of our natural resources

Appendix A2 Sample Form of the Student-Learning Plan

(LMP)

List of Unmastered

knowledge and Skills

Learning Strategies Learning Materials Indicators of Mastery

of Works

Time Frame

Appendix B Drop Out Reduction Program

DORP Plan Critiquing Criteria (Please check the appropriate column.)

Yes / No

Situationer

• Is it congruent to the SIP? • Is it backed up by concrete data/information on internal efficiencies (enrolment rate, completion rate, drop-out rate, achievement rate)? • Does it fully describe the problems or conditions existing in the school? • Does the problem jibe with the physical environment of the school as describe in the SIP? • Does it fully describe the profile of the SARDOs/target beneficiaries as affected by the FICS or risk factors? • Will the profile evoke immediate response/reaction to the problem once it is read?

Goal • Is the goal statement supportive or aligned to the purpose level objective of the SIP? • Is it broad and long term and reflective of the medium-term plan? • Does it express future desired results? • Is the goal clear? (it motivates action to solve the described problem) Objectives • Are the objective statements consistent with the goal and the school situationer? • Are they reflected in the AIP? • Do they use absolute number to express target beneficiaries?

• Do they conform with SMART-C? Proposed Interventions • Are the interventions identified consistent with the objectives and school situationer? Is there an immediate and appropriate intervention to address the critical risk factors? • Are all types of learners/beneficiaries addressed by the intervention? • Are they doable and realistic within a given time frame/PIP set? • Are the materials intended for the interventions available (can be purchased, solicited or produced)? • Are the interventions doable with local resources-human, technical and financial?

Implementation Plan/Matrix • Is it congruent with the identified interventions? • Does it contain activities for the proposed intervention, output indicators, time frame, persons responsible and resources needed?

Monitoring and Evaluation Plan • Are the activities geared toward M&E? (e.g. student tracking system) • Does it mention frequency of M&E? • Does it identify person/s responsible for collecting data? • Does it reflect the flow of data collection and submission? • Does it include the appropriate M&E instruments to be filled up/ accomplished for a certain period of time? • Does it reflect process documentation?

Sustainability Plan • Is the plan described workable/doable overtime? • Is the plan workable even with change in school leadership? • Does it include the resources to be utilized: human, financial and technical? • Is it adaptable to users/beneficiaries in any given situation and environment? • Can it be adopted by other institutions with similar concerns? • Are there specific actions to ensure continuity of the plan? Organizational Structure • Does it have an organizational structure?

• Does the organizational structure include internal & external stakeholders? • Is there a clear delineation of roles/functions? • Do the roles/functions contribute to the overall target of the program? Comments/Suggestions: _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________ _______________________________________________________________________

Appendix C Student Profile

Name: ______________________________________Age:____Year Level: ______ Name of Father: ___________________Occupation: __________________ Name of Mother:____________________________Occupation:___________________ Address:_______________________________________________________________ Brother/Sisters Presently Enrolled:________________________________________________________

A. Academic Profile

First Year FG Second Year FG Third Year FG Fourth Year FG English English English English Filipino Filipino Filipino Filipino Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics Science Science Science Science MAKABAYAN MAKABAYAN MAKABAYAN MAKABAYAN TLE TLE TLE TLE MAPEH MAPEH MAPEH MAPEH

AP AP AP AP EP EP EP EP Has failing grades in: ______________ Has back subject in: ______________ Has advance units in: ______________ B.Medical/Health Profile Date/s he/she has been reported absent due to sickness _______________________________________________________________________

Reported Sickness ___________________________ Severe Malnutrition __________________________ Moderate Malnutrition ________________________ Mild Malnutrition ____________________________ C. Assessment/Screening Tests Administered Result: 1.Personality_____________________________________________________________ 2.Behavior ________________________ ______________________________________ 3.Interview________________________ ______________________________________ 4. Survey ________________________ ______________________________________

5. Others ________________________ ______________________________________ D. Analysis E. Findings F. Recommendations

Appendix D QUESTIONNAIRES

Name of School:____________________________

SEATTLE PERSONALITY QUESTIONNAIRE

This assessment measures self-reported psychological symptomatology. Respondents are asked

to indicate the extent to which each statement reflects their current feelings.

QUESTIONS NO YES DON’T KNOW 1. Do you feel afraid a lot of the time? 2. Do you worry about what other kids might be saying?

3. Are you afraid to try new things? 4. Do you worry a lot that other people might not like

you.

5. Would it be hard for you to ask kids you didn’t know to join them in a game?

6. Do you talk in class a lot when you are not supposed to?

7. Do you often take things that aren’t yours? 8. Do you get into a lot of fights?

9. Is it hard for you to listen and follow directions? 10. Do you tell a lot of lies?

11. Do you get a lot of pains in your in your body? 12. Do you have a lot of scary dreams or nightmares? 13. Do you get a lot of headaches?

14. Do you get a lot of tummy aches? 15. Do you feel like throwing up a lot? 16. Do you feel unhappy a lot of the time? 17. Do you feel like crying a lot of the time?

18. Do you feel upset about things? 19. Do you have trouble paying attention in class? 20. Do you feel that you do things wrong a lot?

Name of School:____________________________

NOWICKI-STRICKLANDS’ LOCUS OF CONTROL

A.

Have you ever participated in the free and reduced lunch program?

Yes No

Do your parents rent or own your home? rent own Don’t know

Do you live in a single parent home? Yes No

Do you live with someone other than your mother or father?

Yes No

TOTAL

Name of School:_________________________________

QUESTION 1 2 3 4 1. I have access to a computer at home. 2. My father has a college degree. 3. I had opportunities to take vacations.

4. I have Internet access at home. 5. My mother has a college degree. 6. I have a part-time job to help support my household.

7. I was provided opportunities to attend theatre performances with my family.

TOTAL(SES) 8. I have a parent or caregiver encouraging me to do well in

school.

9. I live with both of my biological parents. 10. One of my parents/caregivers has two jobs. 11. My parents/caregivers want me to go to college

12. My parents/ caregivers attend school activities. 13. My parent/ caregiver is involved in the PTCA. 14. My parent or caregiver has helped me with homework.

TOTAL( Parent-Student) 15. My teachers care about me. 16. I look forward to interacting with my teachers in class. 17. I receive feedback from my teachers regarding my progress in

school.

18. Teachers provide after school assistance to me. 19. I work hard to make good grades.

20. My teachers create classroom environment where I am comfortable asking questions.

21. My teachers make classes enjoyable. TOTAL(Teacher-student)

22. My friends make good grades in school.

23. My friends skip school 24. I have friends that participate in gang activities. 25. My friends influence my school choices. 26. I have friends in school organizations. 27. My friends are tardy to class. 28. It is ok with my friends if I make good grades in school.

TOTAL ( Peer-influence)

29. I live with both of my biological parents. 30. I challenge myself in school 31. I work hard to make good grades. 32. I am self-motivated to do well in school.

33. I am tardy to class. 34. I belong to honor section class. 35. I am involved in a school sport or activity.

TOTAL(Motivation)

RESTRAINT – WEINBERGER ADJUSTMENT INVENTORY

QUESTIONS

False

Somewhat

False

Not Sure

Somewhat

true

Suppression of

Aggression

1. Doing things to help other is more important to me than almost anything else.

2. I often go out of my way to do things for other people.

3. I think about other people’s feelings before I do something they might not like.

4. I enjoy doing things for other people, even when I don’t receive anything in return.

5. I make sure that doing what I want will not cause problems for other people.

6. Before I do something, I think about how it will affect the people around me.

7. I try very hard not to hurt other people’s feelings. TOTAL

8. I’m the kind of person who will try anything once, even if it’s not that safe.

9. I should try harder to control myself when I’m having fun.

10. I do things without giving them enough thought. 11. I become wild and crazy and do things other

people might not like.

12. When I’m doing something for fun ( for example, partying, acting silly),I tend to get carried away and to go too far.

13. I like to do new and different things that many people would consider weird or not really safe.

14. I say the first thing that comes into my mind without thinking enough about it.

TOTAL 15. I do things that are against the law more often

than most people.

16. When I have the chance, I take things I want that don’t really belong to me.

17. I do things that are really not fair to people I don’t care about.

18. I will cheat on something if I know no one will find out.

19. I break laws and rules I don’t agree with. 20. People can depend on me to do what I know I

should.

21. I do things that I know really aren’t right. TOTAL

22. People who get me angry better watch out. 23. If someone tries to hurt me, I make sure I get even

with them.

24. If someone does something I really don’t like, I yell at them about it

25. I lose my temper and “let people have it” when I’m angry.

26. I pick on people I don’t like. 27. I say something mean to someone who has upset

me.

28. When someone tries to start a fight with me, I fight back.

TOTAL

Back cover

THE RESEARCHER/AUTHOR

DR. RUBY P. PAN is the Division Guidance Coordinator 3 of Department of Education, Division of

Camarines Sur and a part-time Professor at the Graduate School of Universidad de Sta. Isabel. She is

married to Marcel S. Pan and together they were blessed with two children.

She earned her Ph.D. in Human Development Management , M.A. in Education major in Guidance

and Counselling and finished her Baccalaureate degree in Social Work from the Universidad de Sta.

Isabel in Naga City. She took up methods of Teaching, major in Values Education at Ateneo de Naga

University. She is a licensed Social Worker, Teacher and Guidance Counselor. Her work experience

includes the following:

Social Worker in-charged of Sponsor-Child relationship

Sta. Rafaela Maria Center, Naga City

Assistant School Director

AMA-Computer Learning Center, Naga City

Classroom Teacher/ Guidance Counselor

Pinaglabanan High School, Goa, Camarines Sur

Classroom Teacher/ IT Coordinator

Goa National High School, Goa, Camarines Sur

PRESENT POSITION: Division Guidance Coordinator 3

DepEd,Division of Camarines Sur

Graduate School Professor

Universidad de Sta. Isabel, Naga City