Chapter I

INTRODUCTION

A. Statement of the Problem

A Student Council serves as the vanguard of the rights and interests of the

students. A Student Council is geared towards the pursuit and advancement of the

aspirations of the University for a free, nationalistic, scientific, mass-oriented, and

gender-fair education and to contribute towards making the University a national

resource for progressive societal change.1

It is a challenge, therefore, for the UPVTC Student Council to live up to its

purpose despite the changes in composition that it undergoes every year and the various

problems and issues it encounters.

Knowing that the students are the most fitting evaluators of the performance of

the UPVTC Student Council, the researchers would like to determine answers to the

following questions: How do UPVTC students rate the performance of the UPVTC

Student Council, S. Y. 2007-2008? Is the UPVTC Student Council responsive to the

needs of the studentry? Are the actions, projects and activities of the Student Council

satisfactory? In what way can the current Student Council improve?

B. Research Objectives

1. To gather the opinion of selected UPVTC students regarding the performance of

the UPVTC Student Council (S.Y. 2007-2008);

2. To solicit suggestions for ways by which the UPVTC Student Council can

improve upon.
1
Constitution of the UPV College Student Body, Preamble.
 2

C. Rationale

In previous years, many student-researchers have taken interest in evaluating the

UPVTC Student Council. This may be attributed to the fact that the Student Council’s

main purpose is to advance students’ welfare and interests. Since the composition of the

Student Council changes every school year, the researchers realized the need to

periodically evaluate the performance of this student-organization. The researchers

believe that the students’ assessment of the performance of the student council is

significant in developing a more dynamic, responsive, and effective Student Council.

The results of the study may likewise prove useful for the incoming officers of the

UPVTC Student Council in determining the appropriate measures, strategies, and courses

of action that would meet the needs of the studentry.

Finally, the study, itself, serves as a contribution to the limited accounts and

documentation on student-organization at UPVTC.

D. Scope and Limitations

This study limits itself to the performance of the UPVTC Student Council for the

school year 2007-2008 alone. This means that the performance of other Student Councils

in other UP campuses will not be delved into.

In this study, the performance of the UPVTC Student Council will solely be based

on the perspective of selected UPVTC students. The point of view of the officials, faculty

and administration of the college will not be looked into.

Despite this limitation, the researchers hope that the results of this inquiry will

contribute much to what is known about the UPVTC Student Council.

 3

E. Definition of Terms

Performance pertains to the degree by which the UPVTC Student Council has

been able to accomplish its goals and objectives as a student organization. The

performance of the UPVTC Student Council will be determined by using a 75-item self-

administered questionnaire accomplished by randomly selected UPVTC students.

UPVTC students refer to all bonafide students enrolled at the University of the

Philippines Visayas Tacloban College for the School Year 2007-2008.

UPVTC Student Council refers to the student body organization of the University

of the Philippines Visayas Tacloban College.

 4

Chapter II

REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE

The Student Council Defined

The simplest definition of the term Student Council is taken from the Merriam-

Webster’s Student Dictionary which states that a Student Council is “a group elected

from a body of students to serve as representatives in student government.” This

definition, however, is very basic and if further understanding of Student Councils is

required, other definitions of the term should be taken into consideration.

A more comprehensive definition of a Student Council is provided by the Student

Council of Ireland. Accordingly, “a Student Council is a representative structure for

students only, through which they can become involved in the affairs of the school,

working in partnership with school management, staff and parents for the benefit of the

school and its students.”2

Similarly, Random House Unabridged Dictionary defines a student council as “a

representative body composed chiefly of students chosen by their classmates to organize

social and extracurricular activities and to participate in the government of a school or

college.”

However, the term Student Council, especially in Western countries, is usually

associated with the student body organization in the grade school or high school levels.

MSN Encarta, for example, defines a Student Council as “an elected group of students

with consultative powers in school administration, especially in a high school.” 3 In like

2
Student Council of Ireland http://www.studentcouncil.ie/about_student_councils
3
“Student Council” MSN Encarta http://encarta.msn.com
 5

manner, Wikipedia.org’s definition of the term is “a curricular or extra-curricular activity

for students within grade schools around the world…alternatively entitled student

council, student government, Associated Student Body, Student Activity Council.”4

School Councils UK concurs with its definition of Student or School Councils as

“democratically elected groups of students who represent their peers and enable pupils to

become partners in their own education, making a positive contribution to the school

environment and ethos.”5

Although often used interchangeably, the terms Student Council and Student

Union are not quite the same. According to Cambridge Dictionaries Online, a Student

Union is “an organization of students in a college or university which arranges social

events and sometimes helps to provide health services and places to live.”6

A Brief History of the Student Council in the UP System

The University of the Philippines traditionally encourages the right of students to

organize themselves for self-government. This tradition gave birth to the establishment of

the Student Council.7

The inception of the Student Council in the University took place in 1924 during

the presidency of Rafael Palma. On September 24 th of the same year, the University

student Council held its first meeting.8

4
“Student Council” Wikipedia, the Free Encyclopedia, http://en.wiki.org/wiki/Student_council
5
School Councils UK, http://www.schoolcouncils.org
6
Cambridge Dictionaries Online http://dictionary.cambridge.org/define.asp?
key=79116&dict=CALD
7
University of the Philippines System, University of the Philippines Diliman General Catalogue
(1990-1991) (Quezon City, 1991) 48.
8
Oscar M. Alfonso and Raul Ingles, ed., University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years (1908-
1983) (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press, 1985) 169.
 6

Palma’s main intention for establishing the Student Council was his “earnest

desire to invest (the students) with the rare privilege of controlling (their) own affairs and

interests,” and “to place within (their) reach all the instrumentalities that may be

necessary in order to carry out the purposes of this organization.”9

Furthermore, Palma stressed that involvement of students in the Student Council

is important for the reason that it provides an avenue “for practical training in the

discharge of the duties and responsibilities of active citizenship.”10

A few decades later, in 1972, the country was placed by President Ferdinand

Marcos under Martial Law. Along with this was the suspension of all student

organizations and student publications in the Philippines.

In a book entitled The University of the Philippines: The First 75 Years, during

UP President Salvador Lopez’s administration, the Student Council together with the

Woman’s Club and other student groups were banned. It was, however, through the

initiative of the Office of the Student Affairs that talks for the reinstatement of the said

organizations were started.11

Yet, according to the book At the Helm of UP: Presidential Accents, it was

actually UP President Onofre Corpuz who began the negotiations for the revival of the

Student Council.12

Indeed, to address the clamor of the students to be represented and to be able

participate in University affairs, in May 1977, Corpuz proposed the re-establishment of

the Student Council as a university-wide student government to be called UP Metro

9
Alfonso.
10
Alfonso.
11
Alfonso, 465.
12
At the Helm of UP: Presidential Accents (Quezon City: University of the Philippines Press,
1999), 158.
 7

Manila Student Welfare Board (UPMMSWB).13 The said welfare board, under Memo

No. 22 which created it, was supposed to undertake activities of common interest to the

students.14

On December 14, 1979, UP President Emmanuel Soriano announced the

restoration of the Student Council in Diliman and Manila which had been inactive for the

last seven years and for the Student Council to be officially known as the “Sanggunian

ng mga Mag-aaral sa Pamantasan ng Pilipinas.”15 The said Student Council was

composed of representatives from UP’s various colleges, schools, and units, twelve

University councilors, and a set of officers that included a chairman, vice-chairman,

secretary, and treasurer, all elected by the students.16

A year later, the first UP Student Council elections since 1972 was held.

According to the Philippines Daily Express, Ma. Lourdes Mangahas, a freshman in

Philippine Studies, and her running-mate Jessie John Gimenez, a junior in Economics,

won the top positions unopposed.17

As what Noel R. Reynado, the then Acting Chairman of the National Youth

Council, Philippines, commented in the January 11, 1980 issue of the Philippines Daily

Express:

The recent announcement… on the reactivation of the Student Council in

that university (UP) was warmly received and welcomed not only by UP students
but also by other students throughout the country. For years, the Filipino students
have been deprived of and denied the right to collectively voice out their
sentiments and grievances, much more the right to participate in the
administration and planning of education, and in the execution of educational

13
University of the Philippines System.
14
Alfonso, 534.
15
Alfonso.
16
Jun Bandayrel, “Restore UP student body,” Bulletin Today, 15 December 1979, 7.
17
“UP students hold elections,” Philippines Daily Express, 1980, 1.
 8

policies. For years, the Filipino students have been struggling to secure their
inalienable rights.18

Presently, the University Student Council of UP Diliman consists of a chairman,

vice-chairman, twelve councilors, and several college representatives from the various

degree-granting units in Diliman and the regional units. These council members are

elected annually by the student body, except for the college representatives who are

elected by their respective college/unit constituency.19

Aside from providing dynamic leadership to their constituents, the Student

Council also articulates the views of students not only on University concerns but on

issues affecting the nation, as well.20

Similarly, in its aim to enhance student participation, the Student Council

conducts activities such as cultural shows, sports fests, symposia, group discussions, and

other assemblies. Furthermore, the Student Council has maintained its progressive stance

and consistently puts emphasis on educating and organizing students towards pro-student

and pro-people actions.21

The UPVTC Student Council at Present

As enshrined in their Constitution, the UPVTC Student Council must serve and

promote the interests of the UPV Tacloban College students as well as the Filipino

people. The Student Council should unify the students into a mass-oriented and

18
Noel R. Reynado “Small victory for student cause,” Philippines Daily Express, 11 January 1980,
5.
19
University of the Philippines System, 49.
20
University of the Philippines System, 48.
21
University of the Philippines System, 49.
 9

nationalist body and encourage critical inquiry and establish a firm stand on societal

issues.22

According to the University of the Philippines Diliman General Catalogue,

democratic representation is a principle strictly adhered to in the selection of Student

Council members.23 Hence, students select their leaders in the annual Student Council

elections.

The Student Council of the College is composed of a chairperson, a vice-

chairperson, nine councilors, one representative from each of the four Divisions, and five

year-level presidents as ex-officio members.24

In the March 2, 2007 Student Council elections, several students with a common

desire for change, who organized themselves as the United Independent Candidates, all

won their aspired seats in the Council.25

According to the Official Election Results from the Office of the Student Affairs,

among those who won under the banner of the United Independents were: Romil Andres,

Chairperson; Rafael Usa, Jr., Vice-chairperson; Jovito Magoncia, UP Visayas- University

Student Council Representative; Joan Balaga, Division of Management Representative;

Neil Orven Tan, Division of Humanities Representative; Julius Cebreros, Division of

Natural Sciences and Mathematics Representative; and Dexie Jean Gacutno, Emmanuel

Hizon, Loury Mae Luzadio, Josha Osias, Marco Paulo Pajares, Aimalyne Rodores, and

Erwin Esparagosa as Councilors.26

22
Constitution of the UPV College Student Body, art. 2, sec. 1.
23
University of the Philippines System, 48.
24
Constitution of the UPV College Student Body, art. 6, sec. 2.
25
Joan Cyril M. Abello, “SC Election ’07 in favor of CHANGE,” UP Vista, January-March 2007,
3.
26
2007 UPVTC Student Council Election Final Election Result.
 10

On the other hand, the Pulso Han Mag-aaram Party which consistently dominated

the polls in the previous Student Council Elections was only able to fill in four

positions.27 Among those who won from the Pulso Party were Nina Arlyn Briones UPV-

USC Representative; Catherine Amen, Division of Social Sciences Representative; as

well as Karl Mark Labagala and Jebri Gil Sida as Councilors.28

Andres, the leader of the United Independents, explained the rationale behind the

name of their group:

United kami in the sense na we share the same plans and aspirations pero
independent kami kay we can still function individually.29

We are united in the sense that we share the same plans and aspirations,
but we are independent because we can still function individually.

The United Independents ran with a general program of action called CHANGE.

This, according to Andres, stands for: Community Involvement, Harmonious Relations,

Advancement of Students’ Interest, Naked-Truth, Good Governance, and

Empowerment.30

In line with this vision of change, the Student Council, according to Rafael Usa

Jr., Student Council Vice-Chairperson, has conducted programs and activities such as the

yearly sports fest, a forum with the Student Regent, a leadership training seminar for the

Sangguniang Kabataan Officials in selected barangays in Tacloban City, and provided

meal allowances for some students of the College.31

27
Abello.
28
2007 UPVTC Student Council Election Final Election Result.
29
Romil Andres, interview with authors, 19 January 2008.
30
Andres.
31
Rafael Usa Jr., interview with authors, 19 January 2008.
 11

Aside from the aforementioned programs, Andres added that the present Student

Council adopted three barangays, conducted tutorials for an Accountancy class,

formulated seven resolutions, organized a symposium on the Human Security Act, and

sponsored a gift-giving campaign for less-fortunate children.32

Andres boasts of the accomplishments of the Student Council despite the

constraints it faces. However, he lamented that the funds allocated for the Student

Council is insufficient in addressing the various demands of the students.33

According to Usa, of the P46.50 Student Fund collected per student for every

semester, P40 goes to the Student Publication, P.50 to the community chest, P3 to the

UPV-USC, leaving only P3 for the Student Council.34

Andres, who is also the Interim President of the Tacloban City Confederation of

Student Councils (TCCSC), expressed his frustration over the fact that Student Councils

of other colleges in Tacloban are allotted with a relatively higher fund compared to the

UPVTC Student Council.35

Aside from the financial constraints, Andres admits that there exists a “growing

trend of indifference” among the students of the College which manifests on the low

attendance during General Assemblies and meetings.36

As their term ends, the Student Council plans to pursue a Constitutional

Convention which has been long overdue. The Constitution they are presently using was

last amended in 2001 and previous efforts to improve the Constitutions have been

32
Andres.
33
Andres.
34
Usa.
35
Andres.
36
Andres.
 12

unsuccessful.37 In addition, the Student Council plans to conduct a medical mission and

stage the first Organization Days in the College.38

Implications of Studying Organizational Performance

According to Concepcion Martires, performance evaluation is “the assessment of

the achievement of objectives.”39 This definition applies to both individual and

organizational performance as well as profit and non-profit organizations.

Traditionally, performance was associated with individual motivation and

individual performance. However, W. Edwards Deming insinuated that the focus has now

shifted to emphasize performance of the organization as a whole.40

In support of Deming’s claim, Dr. Carter McNamara asserts that “performance

management (evaluation) applies to organizations, too, and includes recurring activities

to establish organizational goals, monitor progress toward the goals and make

adjustments to achieve those goals more effectively and efficiently.”41

It is therefore important for all organizations to periodically assess their

performance not just of the individuals or members but of the organization as a single,

cohesive unit; whether the organization was able to meet its goals or not.

In business organizations, performance evaluation serves a number of purposes.

Stephen P. Robbins enumerates these purposes as follows: (1) compensation, (2)

37
Usa.
38
Andres.
39
Concepcion R. Martires, Human Resource Management: Principles and Practices (Quezon City:
Kalayaan Press Mktg. Ent., Inc. 1988) 164.
40
W. Edwards Deming as cited in Laura Hall and Derek Torrington, Human Resource Management
4th ed. (USA: Prentice Hall, 1998), 298.
41
Dr. Carter McNamara, “Organizational Performance Management” in Free Management Library
http://www.managementhelp.org/org_perf/org_perf.htm#anchor1396141
 13

performance feedback (3) training, (4) promotion, (5) Human Resource Planning, (6)

retention/discharge, and (7) research.42

Terry L. Leap and Michael D. Crino concur that “most employees are very

interested in how well they are doing at present, as well as how they can do better in the

future.”43

As what Hampton, Summer, and Webber contend, “the very act of measuring

influences the behavior of the people being measured.”44 This is much similar to Edward

Lee Thorndike’s Law of Effect which states that “behaviors that are followed by pleasant

consequences will be strengthened and more likely to be repeated.” 45 Therefore, after an

individual receives good feedback from the performance evaluation, the person tends to

maintain or improve on his or her job.

In the same manner, Perfecto Sison affirms that “…a sound performance rating is

a big boost to employee morale.”46

Lawrence Kleiman pointed out another significance of performance evaluation.

Accordingly, performance appraisal is linked to competitive advantage in the sense that it

improves job performance in two ways: “by directing employee behavior toward

organizational goals” and “by monitoring that behavior to ensure that goals are met.”47

Performance evaluation is directly related to the efficiency of an organization.

The concepts of efficiency and competitive advantage do not only apply to business
42
Stephen P. Robbins, Organizational Behavior: Concepts, Controversies, Application 7th ed.
(USA: Prentice Hall, Inc. 1996), 649.
43
Michael D. Crino and Terry L. Leap, Personnel/Human Resource Management (USA: MacMillan
Publishing Company, 1989), 317.
44
David R. Hampton et al., Organizational Behavior and the Practice of Management, Revised
(USA: Scott, Foresman and Company, 1973), 531.
45
“Learning,” Microsoft Encarta Premium 2007.
46
Perfecto S. Sison, Personnel Management: Principles and Practices 3rd ed. (Manila: Personnel
Management Association of the Philippines 1973), 251.
47
Lawrence S. Kleiman, Human Resource Management: A Tool for Competitive Advantage (USA:
West Publishing Company 1997), 220.
 14

organizations alone. Non-profit organizations, likewise, strive for efficiency in order to

survive, this according to Daniel Katz and Robert Kahn. Katz and Kahn also add that “the

organization which increases its efficiency also increases its effectiveness as a viable

system.” 48

According to McNamara, there are numerous methods and movements to

regularly increase the performance of organizations. The performance evaluation

methods applicable to nonprofit organizations are: (1) United Way Management

Indicators List, (2) Drucker Five-Question Self-Assessment Tool, (3) McKinsey Capacity

Assessment Grid, (4) Minnesota Council of Nonprofits “Principles and Practices”, (5)

Maryland Association of Nonprofit Organizations “Standards of Excellence”, (6)

Understanding Organizational Success: Self-Assessment Tool for Nonprofit

Organizations, (7) Assessment for Start-Up Organizations, and (8) Fieldstone’s Nonprofit

Life-Stage Assessment.49

For both profit and nonprofit organizations, Vida Scarpello and James Ledvinka

noted that performance evaluation can lead to “improved decision making and efficient

use of human resources.”50 However, McLaughlin commented that performance

evaluation must be “tied directly to the organization’s strategic and operational plans.”51

There is, however, a common error committed by performance evaluators.

According to John Ivancevich, “performance evaluation… requires supervisors to make

48
Robert Kahn and Daniel Katz, The Social Psychology of Organizations (USA: John Wiley and
Sons, Inc. 1966), 161.
49
McNamara.
50
James Ledvinka and Vida Gulbinas Scarpello, Personnel/Human Resources Management:
Environment and Functions (Boston: PWS-Kent Publishing Company, 1988), 648-649.
51
McLaughlin as cited in Ledvinka and Scarpello.
 15

person evaluations rather than performance evaluations.” Furthermore, he adds that

performance evaluation must be based on “actual performance.”52

Leap and Crino suggest that feedback from performance evaluation should be

“specific, timely, accurate, understandable, and presented in an atmosphere of

cooperation and support” which in turn results to “improved quality of subsequent

employee performance.”53

Chapter III

METHODOLOGY

52
John M. Ivancevich, Huamn Resource Management 6th ed. (USA: Richard D. Irwin, Inc. 1995),
262.
53
Crino and Leap.
 16

A. Research Locale

This study will be conducted within the UPV Tacloban College campus, Tacloban

City.

B. Research Respondents

The respondents of this study are the selected bonafide students of UPVTC for the

Second Semester, SY 2007-2008.

C. Sampling Scheme

Using the stratified sampling technique, the researchers will utilize the following

sampling procedures:

1. A list of officially enrolled students from the Office of the College Secretary for

the Second Semester, SY 2007-2008 will be requested. This list will serve as the

researchers’ sampling frame.

2. The population will then be divided into different strata such as year level and

degree program to ensure equal representation. A sampling weight of 5% of the

student population for every degree program per year level will be applied.

3. After which, simple random sampling procedures (SRS) using the fish bowl

method will be utilized in determining individual respondents.

D. Research Instrument

The researchers will use a 75-item questionnaire in gathering the needed data. The

questionnaire will consist of the following parts:

1. Demographic Characteristics
 17

2. Opinions Regarding the Performance of the UPVTC Student Council, SY 2007-

2008

E. Units of Analysis

The actual responses that the respondents will give in the aforementioned

questionnaire will serve as the units of analysis in this study.

F. Statistical Treatment

Research data will be presented in textual and tabular form. Simple frequencies

and percentages will likewise be utilized in presenting, analyzing and interpreting the

research data.

Chapter IV
 18

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

This chapter presents the data gathered by the researchers as well as the

interpretation of the responses given by the respondents.

A. Demographic Profile

Table 1. Sex and Year Level

========================================================================

Male Female TOTAL

F % F % F %
____________________________________________________________________

First Year 5 4.76% 23 21.90% 28 26.67%

Second Year 9 8.57% 19 18.10% 28 26.67%

Third Year 5 4.76% 22 20.95% 27 25.71%

Fourth Year 7 6.67% 13 12.38% 20 19.05%

Fifth Year - - 2 1.90% 2 1.90%

____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 26 24.76% 79 75.24% 105 100%

=========================================================================

Table 1 shows that majority of the respondents from all year levels (75.24%) are

females. A significant number of these female respondents (21.90%) are freshmen students.

It can also be gleaned that in terms of year level, a little over half of the respondents

(53.34%) are in their first and second year.

 19

Table 2. Sex and Degree Program

========================================================================

Male Female TOTAL

F % F % F %
____________________________________________________________________

BACA 1 0.95% 10 9.52% 11 10.48%

BASS 2 1.90% 5 4.76% 7 6.67%

ECON

BASS _ _ 11 10.48% 11 10.48%

POL. SCI.

BASS 1 0.95% 9 8.57% 10 9.52%

PSYCH

BSA 6 5.71% 10 9.52% 16 15.24%

BSBIO 3 2.86% 6 5.71% 10 9.52%

BSCS 4 3.81% 8 7.62% 12 11.43%

BSM 9 8.57% 20 19.05% 29 27.62%

____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 26 24.76% 79 75.24% 105 100%

=========================================================================

Table 2 reveals that the BS Management program has the most number of

respondents (27.62%); 19.05% of which are females while 8.57% are males. On the other

hand, the BASS Economics program has the least number of respondents comprising

only 6.67% of the total number of respondents.

B. Opinions Regarding the Performance of the UPVTC Student Council, SY 2007-

2008
 20

Table 3. Whether or Not the Respondents Voted During the March 2, 2007 Student
Council Elections and Their Bases for Choosing Among Particular Candidates

========================================================================

F %
____________________________________________________________________

YES 41 39.05%

Leadership traits possessed by the candidate 13 12.38%

Candidate’s popularity 8 7.70%

Platform of the candidate 5 4.76%

Candidate’s academic performance 3 2.86%

Combination of two or more factors 3 2.86%

For a change in leadership 2 1.90%

Relationship to the candidate 1 0.95%

Because the candidate is approachable 1 0.95%

Peer influence 1 0.95%

No answer 4 3.81%

NO 63 60%

NO ANSWER 1 0.95%

____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

=========================================================================

As shown in Table 3, a large majority of the respondents (60%) did not vote

during the Student Council elections held last March 2, 2007. On the other hand, 39.05%
 21

of the respondents voted during the said elections, majority of which (12.38%) stated that

their main basis for choosing a candidate is the leadership traits possessed by the

candidate while the respondent’s relationship to the candidate, peer influence, and the

approachability of the candidate garnered 0.95% respectively.

Given that the first year students (21.90%) did not vote during the 2007 Student

Council elections since they were not yet enrolled at UPVTC during that time, there is

still a significant number of respondents (33.33%) who did not vote. This could imply

that those who did not vote during the 2007 SC elections are apathetic towards the

Student Council and its program and that they do not find voting in the elections

important. In addition, it could also imply that those who did not vote were busy during

the day of the election.

 22

Table 4. Respondents' Expectations of the Student Council

=========================================================================

F %
_____________________________________________________________________

That the Student Council should advance

the interest of the students 27 25.71%

That the officers should perform their duties 21 20%

That the officers should be good leaders 8 7.62%

That the Student Council should improve

its performance 7 6.67%

That the Student Council should be

action-oriented 6 5.71%

That the Student Council should encourage

student involvement 4 3.81%

That the Student Council should be non-partisan 3 2.86%

That the Student Council officers should be

approachable and friendly 3 2.86%

I do not expect anything 3 2.86%

That the Student Council should have a firm

stand on issues 1 0.95%

No answer 22 20.95%
_____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

=========================================================================

Research findings show that majority of the respondents (25.71%) expect the

UPVTC Student Council to advance the interests of the students. In addition, 20% of the
 23

respondents expect the Student Council officers to perform their duties while 3% of the

respondents did not expect anything from the Student Council and 20.95% opted not to

answer the item.

Table 5. Whether or not the UPVTC Student Council was Able to Meet the
Expectations of the Respondents

=============================================================

F %
_____________________________________________________________________

Yes 21 25.30%
No 55 6.27%
No Answer 7 8.43%
_____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 83 100%

Table 5 reveals that 66.27% of the respondents stated that the UPVTC Student

Council failed to meet the expectations of the studentry.

Table 6. Whether or Not the Respondents are Aware of the Objectives of the
UPVTC Student Council

=========================================================================

F %
_____________________________________________________________________

Yes 16 15.24%

No 89 84.76%
_____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

 24

Table 6 reveals that a large majority of the respondents (84.76%) are not aware of

the objectives of the UPVTC Student Council.

Table 7 Whether the UPVTC Student Council is Able to Achieve Its

Objectives

===================================================================

F %
_______________________________________________________________

Yes 15 14.29%
No 36 34.29%
No Answer 54 51.43%
_______________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

===================================================================

As shown on Table 7, 51.43% of the respondents did not give any answer when

asked to indicate whether the Student Council was able to meet its objectives or not.
 25

Table 8. Reasons why the UPVTC Student Council is Not Able to Achieve Its

Objectives

====================================================================

F %
________________________________________________________________

Lack of unity 12 11.43%

Student Council officers lack commitment 11 10.48%

Lack of action 4 3.81%

Financial constraints 2 1.90%

Unawareness of students 2 1.90%

Manipulation by the school administration 1 0.95%

Student Council officers are not approachable 1 0.95%

No Answer 3 2.86%
________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 36 34.29%
=====================================================================

Research findings reveal that majority of the respondents (11.43%) believe that

the lack of unity among the officers of the UPVTC Student Council and other sectors in

the College is the main reason the Student Council is not able to accomplish its

objectives.
 26

Table 9. Whether the Respondents are Aware of and Have Participated in Any
Programs and Activities of the UPVTC Student Council

===================================================================

F %
_______________________________________________________________

YES 54 51.42%

Yes 38 36.19%

No 16 15.24%

NO 51 48.57%
________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

=====================================================================

A little over half (51.42%) of the respondents indicated that they are aware of the

programs and activities of the Student Council. The Annual Sportsfest, the Organization

Days and the Christmas Gift – Giving Program are among the most known by the

respondents. From among of them, 36.19% pointed out that they have participated in SC-

related programs and activities. The reasons why they participate include membership in

school organizations, to unwind, to showcase talents and skills and also because

participation in the activities is required. On the other hand, reasons for non-participation

range from the respondents’ being busy, lack of interest to being unaware of SC-related

activities.

Generally, the respondents were unable to distinguish the needs which are to be

addressed by the SC from the needs which should be attended to by the school

administration. For example, most of the respondents demand for improved facilities,
 27

more competent professors, and greater financial assistance for students which are no

longer the concern of the Student Council. However, the least that the SC can do to

address these demands is to forward them to the proper authorities. This could probably

be the reason why most of the respondents think that the SC is not responsive to their

needs.
 28

As shown in Table 10, all the Student Council Officers were rated as “Good” by

the respondents. Romil Andres, the SC chairperson, received the most number of “Good”

marks.
29
 30

Table 11 reveals that all four division representatives were rated as “Good” by the

respondents from their respective division. Jo Ann Balaga, the Division of Management

Representative, was rated “Good” by 19.42% of the total number of respondents from the

said division. Similarly, Neil Orven Tan was given a “Good” rating by most of the

respondents from the Division of Humanities with 54.55%. Julius Cebreros got 57.14%

from the Divison of Natural Sciences and Mathematics while Catherine Amen of the

Division of Social Sciences was rated Good by “46.43%” of the respondents from the

DSS.
31
 32

Table 12. General Assessment of the Performance of the UPVTC Student

Council, S.Y. 2007-2008

===================================================================

F %
_______________________________________________________________

Excellent 1 0.95%

Very Good 8 7.62%

Good 62 59.05%

Poor 19 18.10%

Very Poor 4 3.81%

No Answer 11 10.48%
_______________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

===================================================================

Research findings show that the majority of the respondents (59.05%) rated the

performance of the UPVTC Student Council, S.Y. 2007-2008 as “Good”. This could

imply that the respondents viewed the SC to have given a mediocre performance and that

there is a need for the SC to improve. However, an error of performance appraisal could

have been committed by the respondents. There is a probability that since the “Good”

rating was found in the middle of the Likert scale, the respondent would tend to select

that choice.
 33

Table 13. Whether there is a Need for the UPVTC Student Council to Improve

========================================================================

F %
____________________________________________________________________

YES 96 91.43%

NO 5 4.76%

The Student Council officers have done their best 3 2.86%

The Student Council is able to address my needs 1 0.95%

It is different from the previous Student Councils 1 0.95%

NO ANSWER 4 3.81%
____________________________________________________________________

TOTAL 105 100%

=========================================================================

Table 12 reveals that a large majority of the respondents (91.43%) believe that

there is a need for the UPVTC Student Council to improve. Only 4.76% of the

respondents are contented with the performance of the Student Council and think that

there is no need for the Student Council to improve.

The respondents believe that there is a need for the Student Council to improve

specifically on the way it responds to the demands of the students. Furthermore, the

respondents think that the Student Council lacks unity among its members as well as

visibility of its projects. In order to address these issues, the respondents suggest for the

Student Council to increase the participation through better information dissemination.