Slcrp-Lfes-2022-2025-Updated Bosy

ii
TABLE OF CONTENTS
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

Introduction and Profile of Luis Francisco Elementary School .............................. 2
Rationale................................................................................................................... 3
LITERACY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 4

Grade 1 Literacy Proficiency Level in Tagalog ...................................................... 5
Grade 2 Literacy Profiency in Filipino .................................................................... 5
Grade 3 Literacy Proficiency in Filipino ................................................................ 5
Grade 4 Literacy Proficiency in Filipino ................................................................ 6
Grade 3 Literacy Proficiency in English ................................................................. 6
Grade 4 Literacy Proficiency in English ................................................................. 6
Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Literacy Level in Tagalog/Filipino
Language from Grade 1 to Grade 4 for SY 2022-202 ............................... 7
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Literacy Level in English
Language of Grade 3 and Grade 4 for SY 2022-2023................................ 7
NUMERACY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 8

Grade 1 Learners Numeracy Skill Levels ................................................................ 8
KS1 Learners Based on the Numeracy Skill Levels ................................................ 9
Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Numeracy Skills
of Learners in KS1 ....................................................................... 10
LOCALIZED ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 11

Literacy Assessment................................................................................................. 11
Table 4: Phil-IRI Group Screening Test (GST) Result............................................. 11
Numeracy Assessment.............................................................................................. 12
Learners Numeracy Performance Based on Quarterly Assessment Report.............. 12
Quarterly Assessment Results in other Learning Areas........................................... 12
Mean Percentage Score in Science ..................................................................... 12
Mean Percentage Score in Araling Panlipunan ................................................ 13
Mean Percentage Score in EPP/TLE .................................................................. 13
Curriculum Exit Report ..................................................................................................... 14
Table 5: Currciculum Audit Report of Quarters I - IV, SY 2021-2022 .................... 14
Learners' Baseline Nutritional Status .............................................................................. 15
TARGET LEARNERS WITH LEARNING GAPS AND LOSSES ................................. 15

Table 6: Summary of the Target Learners with Learning Gaps
and Losses in Numeracy for SY 2022-2023 ..................................... 16
Table 7: Summary of the Target Learners with Learning Gaps
and Losses in Literacy for SY 2022-2023 ...................................... 16
LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 17

RPMS-PPST Indicators/Objectives for Teachers’ Professional Development ......... 17
Table 8: Summary of the L & D and Curriculum Implementation ............................. 18
--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

iii
WHY DO WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THE RECOVERY PLAN? ........................... 18
IMPLICATIONS OF DATA FOR LRP .................................................................................. 19
SHARED VISION ......................................................................................................................... 20
SMART GOAL .............................................................................................................................. 20
SDO-Valenzuela Learning Framework ................................................................................... 21
Luis Francisco Elementary School Learning Framework .................................................. 22
SCHOOL FUNDING/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MECHANISM ......................... 23

Implementation Plans ........................................................................................................ 24
Area 1: Instruction and Learners' Performance ........................................................... 24
Table 9: Implementation Plan for Instruction
and Learners' Performance ................................................................. 24
Area 2: Learning and Development ............................................................................... 25
Table 10: Implementation Plan for Learning and Development ................................. 25
Area 3: Budget for Accelerating Instruction ................................................................. 27
Table 11: Implementation Plan for Budget for Accelerating Instruction .................. 27
MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................... 29

Table 12: M & E for the LCRP Priority 1 ...................................................................... 29
M & E for Project: DIG.............................................................................. 29
M & E for Project: UNA............................................................................. 30
Table 13. M & E for the LCRP Priority 2 ...................................................................... 32
M & E for Project: SISTEMA.................................................................... 32
M & E for Project: SMILE......................................................................... 33
M & E for Project: 3Ts............................................................................... 34
Table 14: M & E for the LCRP Priority 3 ...................................................................... 35
APPENDICES
Appendix A: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: DIG................................................................. 36

Appendix B: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: UNA ............................................................... 40
Appendix C: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: SISTEMA......................................................44
Appendix D: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: SMILE (ENGLISH)................................... 48
Appendix E: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: SMILE (FILIPINO) ................................... 52
Appendix F: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: 3Ts ................................................................ 56
Appendix G: FEEDBACK REPORT TEMPLATE .................................................................. 59
Appendix H: PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING AND COACHING FORM ............. 62
LFES LCRP PLANNING TEAM ........................................................................................... 63

1
Executive Summary
The COVID-19 pandemic has a huge impact to all key stakeholders in the education
sector – program developers, school leaders, teachers, parents and learners. The paradigm shift
in the education landscape has forced stakeholders to jump-start change. A sudden shift in the
delivery of learning is undoubtedly evident in all schools throughout the country and across the
region.
Great challenges were encountered to thrive the delivery of learning amidst the
pandemic. First, the paradigm shift of learning modality from face-to-face to distance learning
(Modular Distance Learning (MDL) using self-learning modules, and Blended Learning - a
combination of Online Distance Learning (ODL) and MDL) in which education leaders and
teachers are compelled to act on it. Second, limited technical knowledge of teachers in utilizing
the different digital tools and applications for learning delivery, and so with the learners. Third,
the gadget constraints and disrupted internet connections. Fourth, learning environment -
unstructured learning space at home. Fifth, Unmotivated/Unfocused learners. Lastly, Parental
Disengagement due to work pressure and time constraint.
According to the UNESCO (2020), COVID-19 has not only disrupted essential school-
based services but has also been a source of stress and anxiety to learners due to loss of peer
interaction and disrupted routines, such as the disrupted internet connection and the budget for
internet subscriptions for the payment of monthly bills.
In response to the immense challenges of the pandemic, the school designed the Basic
Education Learning Continuity Plan (BE-LCP) to mollify the great impact of the COVID19.
As we commenced the SY 2021-2022, the school has undertaken great preparations,
implementation, adjustment and re-adjustment of the school programs, project, and activities
which includes the implementation of limited face-to-face classes during the last quarter of the
school year.
And now, school year 2022-2023 sets off the implementation of the recovery programs,
projects, and activities focusing on the languished mobility of learning delivery which directly
tormented the literacy and numeracy skills of the learners across grade levels. The claim of
having destitute learning gaps and losses were corroborated through the assessements given by
the region and division together with the results of the localized assessments conducted by the
school.
The school ardently congregated the qualitative and quantitative ways and means to
combat the provisions relative to the efficient utilization of school resources, ensured higher

2
learning outcome, upskilled and reskilled teachers vis-à-vis their professional development,
mental health and socio-emotional well-being; and building strong stakeholders' and parents’
partnership.
As a learner-centered and a child-friendly institution, we continuously provide quality
education to our learners, and offers meaningful services to every individual...and advocate the
"No child left behind policy" and the DepEd's tag line "In any situation, education must
continue". We uphold the Department of Education’s Vision, Mission, and Core Values.
Here in Luis Francisco Elementary School, we Live by faith, Foster nurturing
learning, Engage stakeholders to contribute meaningful services, and Soar high for
excellence....until we hit the mark. LFES, the BEST!
Introduction
Luis Francisco Elementary School (LFES), formerly named as Tugatog Elementary
School, was founded in 1970 and renamed after its lot donor Don Luis Francisco, a native of
Valenzuela City in 2016. The school is sited on a 3,236 square meter lot located along St. Peter
Avenue, Luis Francisco
Subdivision, Veinte
Reales, Valenzuela
City. It is a few steps
away from the
boundary of Valenzuela
City and Tugatog,
Meycauayan City.
Luis Francisco
Elementary School has
been offering the
elementary basic
education since 1970
with Mrs. Ludivina
Figure 1: Entance Gate of Luis Francisco Elementary School Baltazar acted as the
Officer-in-Charge from 1970-1973 and succeeded by Mrs. Catalina Y. Narido, from 1973-
1981. It has been the annex of Malanday Elementary school, now Andres Fernando
Elementary School. It became an independent complete elementary school in 1981 with Miss

3
Erlinda P. Lucas (1981-1990) being the school head, followed by Mrs. Victorina L.
Buencamino (1990-1996), Mrs. Editha P. Cabrera (1996-2003), Mrs. Carmelita S. Bobes
(2003-2004), Mrs. Cristeta G. Vicente (2004-2009), Mr. Eduardo B. Materum (2009-2012),
Mr. Eduardo Q. Lita (2012-2014), Mrs. Edna S. Madrid (2014-2018), Dr. Francita B. Agustin
(2018-2021), and Mrs. Remedios L. Santos (OIC, 2021-2022). At present, Luis Francisco
Elementary School is a KS1 & KS2 educational institution headed by Dr. Roderick D. de Leon
with 64 teachers, 10 non-teaching personnel, and 2,122 learners from Special Education
(SPED), Kindergarten, and Elementary curriculum. The school has four buildings at present:
(a) Old 2-storey building with 6 classrooms, (b) new 2-storey building with 6 classrooms, (c)
3-storey building with 12 classrooms, and (d) BEEF 2018 building with 8 classrooms. There
are 32 classrooms in all, however, three of the rooms were converted to ancillary rooms: for
school office, guidance/library, and computer room. Also, it has 2 mutipurpose halls inclusive
of individual stage, enough comfort rooms, stock rooms, canteen, 3 service gates, HE room,
washing facilities, and Materials Recovery Facilility (MRF).
With the unprecedented emergence of the COVID19 pandemic, a new normal
education landscape was abruptly assumed by the education practitioners from the top
management of the Department of Education down to the school as implementers and
frontliners of education. The school head together with the teaching and non-teaching
personnel work together to provide effective, innovative, safe, and secured delivery of learning
instructions and meaningful services to our learners and to other stakeholders. We are
committed to ensuring the safety, welfare, health and psychosocial well-being of the learners.
Likewise, we provide motivating and conducive learning spaces inside the school premises. It
is our pledged duty to develop every learner holistically to be well-rounded and competitive
individuals, and pave their paths to better opportunities ahead. We make sure to reach these
goals through good governance and leadership, continuous learners and staff development, safe
and motivating environment, and supportive community.
Rationale
The Learning Continuity and Recovery Plan (LCRP) is a framework collaboratively
designed by the school personnel, parents and other stakeholders to identify the learning gaps
and losses, challenges, and realities that everyone is facing as we gradually transition back to
holding physical classes in the school. Likewise, it is created for the institution, especially for
the teachers and school administration to curate and to formulate the most concrete ways

4
forward through learning remediation and intervention, professional development, and

providing healthy and safe learning environment for the learners. Through this framework, the
school is able to identify the challenges and status of the learners in terms of numeracy, and
literacy:
The Regional Office through the SDO-Valenzuela City directed the schools to conduct
the Comprehensive Rapid Numeracy and Literacy Assessments for learners from the key stage
1 (KS1), consists of the the Grade 1, Grade 2, and Grade 3 levels. It was administered in the
school as tool for determining the significant learning gaps and losses among the KS1 learners
towards literacy and numeracy. The results would be the basis of learning recovery from the
dismal aftermath of COVID19 pandemic's peak that sluggishly delivered quality education.
These gaps were attributed to reduced learning opportunities at home and decrease social
interactions between and among learners and with their teachers.
On the other hand, the learners from key stage 2 (KS2) - Grades 4 to 6, were
academically appraised using the available localized assessments of learning. Such analyzed
assessments results are the Phil-IRI and Quarterly Assessments, to capture the baseline data on
the literacy and numeracy skills of KS2 learners.
The learning gaps of the KS1 learners particularly in the disconsolate literacy skills of
the identified refreshers were initially addressed using the project interventions championed by
the Curriculum Implementation Division such as Brigada Pagbasa: OPLAN BASA and
Project SAGIP (Sama-samang Aksyon at Gabay – Interbensyon sa Pagbasa). Likewise,
the school designed and implemented programs and projects as interventions to fortify the
learning gaps and losses among the KS2 learners vis-a-vis literacy and numeracy.

5
Literacy Assessment
The school captures the baseline data of the learners' profiency in literacy by analyzing
the administered Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) for Grades 1 to 4, which
will be the basis for designing literacy program and projects for interventions and remediations.
There are 297 Grade 1 learners, 281 Grade 2 learners, 267 Grade 3 learners, and 333 Grade 4
learners, assessed their literacy skills at the beginning of school year. The assessment aims to
identify the gaps and losses vis-a-vis the literacy skills of the learners.
Grade 1 Literacy Proficiency Level in Tagalog

Figure 2 shows the literacy proficiency
level of Grade 1 learners in Tagalog, in which 72
Grade
Figure 5: Percentage of Grade 1 learners
Ready, 72, out of 297 or 24% of the learners are grade ready
24%
based on literacy proficiency level
Full in Mother Tongue (Tagalog). They are already
Refresher, Light
173, 58% Refresher,
51, 17%
literate in their own language and can
communicate comprehensively with others.
Moderate Refresher
1, 1%
However, the remaining 76% are considered
Figure 2: Percentage of Grade 1 learners based refreshers. Specifically, 51 or 17% are light
on literacy proficiency levels
refreshers, 1 or 1% are moderate refreshers,
and 173 or 58% are full refreshers.
Grade 2 Literacy Proficiency in Filipino
Figure 3 presents the literacy proficiency

level of Grade 2 learners in Filipino. Based on the
Full
Refresher Grade graph 145 out of 281 or 51% of the Grade 2 learners
, 103, Ready,
145, 51%
37% are grade ready in Filipino. The remaining 49%
Moderate
needs more remediation to improve their skills in
Refresher
, 13, 5%
Light
Refresher
Filipino language. Succinctly, 20 or 7% are light
, 20, 7%
refreshers, 13 or 5% are moderate refreshers, and
based on literacy proficiency 103 or 37% are full refreshers.
levels

6

As presented in Figure 4, among the Grade 3 test
takers, 164 out 267 or 61% were grade ready.
They are already doing well in their Filipino Full
Refresher,
subject. The remaining 39%, that is, equivalent to 70, 26%
103 learners are still needing extra support to Moderate

Refresher,
Grade
Ready, 164,
7, 3% 61%
enhance their literacy skills. Specifically, 26 or
Light
10% are light refreshers, 7 or 3% are moderate Refresher,
26, 10%
refreshers, and 70 or 26% are full refreshers.

based on literacy proficiency levels in
Filipino
Moderate
Figure 5 shows the literacy proficiency
Refresher, Full
Light 2, 1% Refresher,
11, 3%
level of Grade 4 learners in Filipino. Based on
Refresher,
34, 10% the graph 286 out of 333 or 86% of the Grade 4
learners are grade ready in Filipino. The
remaining 14% needs more remediation to
Grade
Ready, improve their skills in Filipino language.
286, 86%
Briefly, 34 or 10% are light refreshers, 2 or 1%
Figure 5: Percentage of Grade 3 learners are moderate refreshers, and 11 or 3% are full
based on literacy proficiency levels in
refreshers.
Filipino
Grade 3 Literacy Proficiency in English

Figure 6 depicts the literacy
proficiency levels of Grade 3 learners in Full
Refresher,
62, 23% Grade
English, wherein 141 out of 267 or 53% are Ready, 141,
53%
grade ready while 47% needs extra support Moderate
Refresher,
38, 14%
in reading. The remaining 53% of learners
needs more remediation to improve their skills Light
Refresher,
in English language. In a nutshell, there are 26 26, 10%
or 10% light refreshers, 38 or 14% moderate Figure 6: Percentage of Grade 3 learners based
on literacy proficiency level in English
refreshers, and 62 or 23% full refreshers.

7
Grade 4 Literacy Proficiency in English

Moderate Full As presented in Figure 7, among the
Refresher, Refresher,
24, 6% 3, 1% Grade 4 learners, 260 out 377 or 69% are
already grade ready. This depicts that most of
Light
Refreseher
the Grade 4 learners are doing well in English.
, 46, 12% The remaining 31%, that is, equivalent to 117
learners are still needing extra support to
Grade enhance their literacy skills. Specifically, 46 or
Ready,
260, 69%
12% are light refreshers, 24 or 6% are moderate
refreshers, and 3 or 1% are full refreshers.
Figure 7: Percentage of Grade 4 learners based
on literacy proficiency level in English
Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Literacy Level in Tagalog/Filipino Language from

Grade 1 to Grade 4 for SY 2022-2023
Full Refresher Moderate Refresher Light Refresher Grade Ready

Grade Level Language
f % f % f % f %
Grade 1
Tagalog 173 58% 1 0% 51 17% 72 24%
N=297
Grade 2
Filipino 103 37% 13 5% 20 7% 145 52%
N=281
Grade 3
Filipino 70 26% 7 3% 26 10% 164 61%
N=267
Grade 4
Filipino 11 3% 2 1% 34 10% 286 86%
N=333
Total 357 30% 23 2% 131 11% 667 57%
Table 1 displays the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) – Mother

Tongue (Tagalog) for Grade 1, Filipino for Grades 2, 3 & 4. Majority of the learners in Grade
4 are grade ready and more than half of learners in Grade 2 and Grade 3 are also gauged as
grade ready. However, in Grade1, there are more than half of the learners assessed as full
refreshers. In fact, 173 out of 297 or 58% are full refreshers and the remaining 17% light
refreshers, only 72 or 24% are assessed to be grade ready.
The identified refreshers in Grades 1 to 4 have shown learning gaps and losses in
literacy which could affect other learning areas that utilize Filipino Language as medium of
instruction.

8
Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Literacy Level in English Language of Grade 3 and

Grade 4 for SY 2022-2023
Full Refresher Moderate Refresher Light Refresher Grade Ready

Grade Level Language
f % f % f % f %
Grade 3
English 62 23% 38 14% 26 10% 141 53%
N=267
Grade 4
English 3 1% 24 6% 46 12% 260 69%
N=377
Total 65 10% 62 10% 72 11% 401 62%
Table 2 presents the result of the literacy levels of Grade 3 and Grade 4 learners in
English. Both in the aforesaid grade levels have more than half of the learners gauged as grade
ready. Specifically, there are 141 or 53% Grade 3 learners and 260 or 69% of Grade 4 learners
assessed as grade ready. However, there are 65 or 10% full refreshers, 62 or 10% moderate
refreshers, and 72 or 11% light refreshers, a total of 199 or 38% refreshers are needing
interventions for remediation in English.
The school will design program and project to help the learners inprove their literacy
skills. Further, their literacy gaps and losses could affect other learning areas whose
instructional medium is English Language.
Numeracy Assessment
The school administered the Albay Numeracy Assessment (ANA) for KS1 Learners
(Grades 1 to 3) during the end of school year 2021-2022 as baseline data for numeracy-
competence. There are 283 Grade 1 learners, 252 Grade 2 learners, and 300 Grade 3 learners,
a total of 835 KS1 learners assessed their numeracy skills using the said tool. The assessment
aims to identify the gaps and losses vis-a-vis numeracy skills of the defined learners.
The presentation of the data concerning numeracy is carried out using the graphs and
tables followed by the discussion of the pertinent information relative to the empirical data.
Grade 1 Learners Numeracy Skill Levels Figure 8 shows the result of the
53 or
Needs Major 18.79% numeracy assessment administered to the
Support
Anchoring
63 or Grade 1 learners. It shows that 53 out of 283
22.34%
25 or
8.87% or 18.79% needs major support, and 25 or
Developing 91 or
51 or
18.09%
32.27% 8.87% learners are anchoring. A total of 78 or
Emerging 27.58% has learning loss and competency
Figure 8: Number of Grade 1 Learners per gaps in Grade 1.
Numeracy Skill

9
Grade 2 Learners Numeracy Skill Levels

Figure 9 reveals the result of the
Needs Major numeracy assessment administered to the
Support
44 or Grade 2 learners per numeracy skills. Data
Anchoring 17.46% 84 or
33.33% shows that 84 out of 252 or 33.33% of the
Developing 40 or
15.87% learners need major support and 22 or 8.73%
Emerging has an anchoring numeracy level. Hence, 106
62 or 22 or
Transforming 24.60% 8.73% or 42.06% learners in Grade 2 are gauged to
have learning loss and competency gaps in
Figure 9: Number of Grade 2 Learners per
Numeracy Skill numeracy.
Grade 3 Learners Numeracy Skill Levels
Figure 10 shows the result of the

Needs Major
numeracy assessment administered to the Support
grade 3 learners. It shows that the biggest Anchoring
16 or
5.33%
chunk of the graph represents the number of Developing
108 or
16 or
learners that needs major support with 108 out 32.33%
36%
Emerging 41 or
13.67%
of 300 or 36% learners. Likewise, 41 or
Transforming 38 or
13.67% are under anchoring level of 12.67%
proficiency. Hence, a total of 149 or 49.67%

Figure 10: Number of Grade 3 Learners per Numeracy Skill
engendered learners in Grade 3 with learning
losses and gaps vis-a-vis numeracy.
KS1 Learners Based on the Numeracy Skill Levels
120 108
97
100 91
84
80
62 63
60 53 51
41 40 44
38
40 25 22
16
20
0
Needs Major Anchoring Developing Emerging Transforming
Support
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3
Figure 11: Summary of KS1 learners based on the numeracy skill levels

10
Figure 11 displays the summary of the number of learners from Grade 1 to Grade 3
with the corresponding levels of the numeracy skills. Data shows that greater percentage of
learners assessed to be in needs major support for numeracy across the defined grade levels -
KS1. A total of 245 out of 835 or 29.34% KS1 learners are in need of major support. On the
oher hand, those with anchoring skills in numeracy constituted 88 out of 835 or 10.54% learners
in KS1.
Table 3: Comparative Analysis of Numeracy Skills of Learners in KS1
GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3

Skill Skill Skill
Numeracy Skill Rating Rating Rating
Level Level Level
Knowing and understanding 89.00 D 74.60 NMS 77.92 A
Computing and solving 99.00 T 97.75 T 65.11 NMS
Estimating 81.00 E 62.00 NMS 89.00 D
Visualizing and Modeling 67.86 NMS 35.00 NMS 72.75 NMS
Representing and communicating 89.60 D 66.50 NMS 61.00 NMS
Conjecturing and Reasoning 58.50 NMS 85.00 D 76.00 A
Proving and Decision Making 74.50 NMS 86.50 D 30.00 NMS
Applying and connecting 95.67 T 73.00 NMS 74.43 NMS
Over-All 81.87 E 75.17 A 71.98 NMS
Legend: NMS – Needs Major Support, A – Anchoring, E – Emerging, D – Developing, T-Transforming
Table 3 presents the comparative analysis of numeracy skills vis-a-vis rating per
numeracy skill and its corresponding skill level. It shows that in Grade 1, the numeracy skills
that need major support are visualizing and modelling; conjecturing and reasoning; and
proving and decision making. However, Grade 1 learners are treated with emerging skill level
because of having an over-all rating of 81.87%.
The Grade 2 learners display need major support in the following skills: knowing and
understanding; estimating; visualizing and modelling; representing and communicating; and
applying and connecting. They exhibit an over-all skill level of anchoring with the
corresponding 75.17% rating.
Grade 3 shows need major support in five numeracy skills: computing and solving;
visualizing and modeling; representing and communicating; proving and decision making; and
applying and connecting. Likewise, they show anchoring skills on knowing and
understanding, and conjecturing and reasoning. With this, they obtain an over-all skill level
of need major support, an equivalent rating of 71.98%.
It is therefore concluded that based on the data presented in the Numeracy assessment,
the Grade 2 and Grade 3 learners showed significant learning gaps that need immediate action
to meet the required essential learning competencies. On the other hand, selected numeracy

11
skills for Grade 1 posed learning losses. These learning gaps and losses may be attributed to
the reduced reading opportunities at home and social interactions with peers and direct
engagement with the teachers .
This school year 2022-2023, the Math coordinator together with the taskforce track the
identified learners with anchoring and needing major support. Currently, they are now in
Grade 2, Grade 3, and in Grade 4. The school designed project for the numeracy improvement
of the identified learners anchoring and need major support. Intervention activities and
remedial classes are inclusive in the project to rectify numeracy gaps and losses among
learners.
Localized Assessment
The previous discussion focuses on the literacy of Grades 1 to 4 learners as revealed by
the beginning of school year (BoSY) CRL assessment and the numeracy of KSI learners from
the end of school year (EoSY) Amplified Numercay Assessment (ANA), now, currently in the
Grade 2, Grade 3, and Grade 4 levels.
The school utilizes its localized assessment results such as the Quarterly asessments
and Phil-IRI to capture the baseline data vis-a-vis literacy and numeracy skills of the learners
in other grade levels. The school administered the Phil-IRI Filipino in Grades 3 to 6, and Phil-
IRI English in Grades 4 to 6, while the result of quarterly assessments last school year were
used to gauge the KS2 learners, now currently in Grade 5 and Grade 6 levels. Likewise, to
capture the teachers competence particularly on learning and development, the school
capitalizes the classroom observation tools (COTs), SAT, and individual development plans.
Literacy Assessment
Table 4: Phil-IRI Group Screening Test (GST) Result
Phil-IRI Group Screening Test Result
Grade Filipino English
levels Above 13 and Above 13 and
Enrollment % Enrollment %
13 below 13 below
Grade 3 267 196 71 27%
Grade 4 333 281 52 17% 333 259 74 22%
Grade 5 290 241 49 17% 290 207 83 29%
Grade 6 264 223 41 16% 264 206 58 22%

12
Table 4 shows the result of Phil-IRI Group Screening Test (GST) for Grades 3 to 6 in
Filipino language and Grades 4 to 6 in English. Those learners scored 13 and below are
included in the intervention project, the Project: DIG for remediation.
In Filipino language, there are 71 out of 267 or 27% Grade 3 learners are included in
the project, 52 out of 333 or 17% Grade 4 learners, 49 out of 290 or 17% Grade 5 learners, and
41 out of 264 or 16% Grade 6 learners.
In English language, 74 out 333 or 22% Grade 4 learners are target-participants of the
project, 83 out of 290 or 29% Grade 5 learners, and 58 out of 206 or 22% Grade 6 learners.
The identified target-learners are included in the project for intensive reading
remediation. Further, the learners who scored above 13 are likewise inclusive in the project for
sustaining their literacy skills.
Numeracy Assessment
Learners Numeracy Performance Based on Quarterly Assessment Report
Number of Learners Scores Below 50%

400
212 225 178 173 136
200 149 124 143 130 141 123 144
0
Quarter I Quarter II Quarter III Quarter IV
Figure 12: Qaurterly Assessments Report on Numeracy for Learners who Scored Below 50%
Figure 12 shows the quarterly assessments report in numeracy. The data presents the
number of learners in KS2 who scored below 50% every quarter assessment.
There is a gradual improvement of scores among KS2 learners from Quarter I to Quarter
IV. However, at the end of the fourth quarter, there are still learners scored below 50%. In
details, there are 141 Grade 4 learners, 123 Grade 5 learners, and 144 Grade 6 learners, a total
of 408 learners in KS2 have numeracy gaps and losses at the end of school year 2021-2022.
Quarterly Assessment Results in other Learning Areas

Mean Percentage Score (MPS) In Science
80.00 65.26 61.33
60.00 53.88
44.22
40.00
20.00
0.00
Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Figure 13: Quarterly Assessment Mean Percentage Score of the learners in Science
13
Figure 13 shows the mean percentage in Science. It is evident from the table that the
Grade 3 to Grade 6 academic performance in Science were on the average mastery level which
is below the national target of 75. The school particularly the teachers should design
interventions in order to improve their academic performance in Science.
Mean Percentage Score (MPS) In Araling Panlipunan
100.00 92.40
81.53
80.00 76.43
70.29 66.75
58.21
60.00
40.00
20.00
0.00
Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Figure 14: Quarterly Assessment Mean Percentage Score of the learners in Araling Panlipunan
Figure 14 shows the learners’ performance in Araling Panlipunan. Apparently, grade

1 learners show a closely approximinating mastery, grade 2 to grade 5 learners were moving
towards mastery while the grade 6 learners show an average mastery. It can be gleaned from
the KS2 that the MPS are below 75. Generally, the graph shows better academic performance
towards Araling Panlipunan subject in KS1 than in KS2. The result of the quarterly assessment
corroborates a satisfactory learning outcome in Araling Panlipunan particularly on key stage 1.
Mean Percentage Score (MPS) In EPP/TLE
80.00 72.10
70.00
60.30 58.52
60.00
50.00

40.00
30.00
20.00
10.00
0.00
Figure 15: Quarterly Assessment Mean Percentage Score of the learners in EPP/ TLE

14
Based on the result presented, the achievement level of grade 5 learners are moving
towards mastery with 72.10 while both grade 4 and grade 6 obtain an average mastery with
60.30 and 58.52, respectively. The latter did not also attain the national target of 75 .
Generally, the data on the mean percentage scores of the different learning areas can
be gleaned that KS2 learners demonstrate a significant learning losses and gaps towards their
academic performances. These learning gaps may be attributed to low literacy competence of
learners particularly on learning areas using language as medium of instructions, reduced
academic opportunities at home and substantial losses of in-person engagement with the
teachers and with their peers (compromised social learning). Apparently, there are learning
gaps and losses in numeracy among KS2 learners since the average quarterly results in
Mathematics is low.
Teachers, therefore need to identify other underlying factors and conduct a root cause
analysis on these hindering factors. Then, collaborate with their colleagues, co-teachers, and
school head to mull possible ways in addressing the learning losses and filling the gaps for the
improvement of learning outcomes.
Curriculum Exit Report
Table 5: Currciculum Audit Report of Quarters I - IV, SY 2021-2022
Percentage of Not
Percentage of Implemented
Implemented Learning
Learning Competencies
Learning Areas Competencies
Q1-Q4
Q1-Q4
FILIPINO 100% 0%
ENGLISH 100% 0%
SCIENCE 100% 0%
MATHEMATICS 100% 0%
ARALING PANLIPUNAN 100% 0%
EPP 100% 0%
MAPEH 100% 0%
ESP 100% 0%

15
Table 5 presents the summary of the audited and reviewed intended learning
competencies conducted by the master teachers, and subject area coordinators together with
their respective task force. The results reveal that 100% of the learning competencies were
successfully implemented by the teachers. Hence, there is no problem in terms of implementing
the intended learning competencies. The school assumed that there is a predicament on the
ways and means of learning delivery (pedagogy and content knowledge) of the teachers.
Learners' Baseline Nutritional Status
Learners' Nutritional Status

SY 2022-2023
30 26
25 22 23
19 20
20 17 16 16
14
15 11 12 10 10
12
10 6 7
4 5
5 3 2
1
0
Kinder Grade 1 Grade 2 Grade 3 Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6
Severely Wasted Wasted Malnourised
Figure 16: Baseline Nutritional Status of Learners Based on Weights
Figure 16 presents the nutritional status of the learners this school year 2022-2023. The
gathered data will be used as baseline for school feeding program (DepEd CO fund and School
Canteen fund) to improve the nutritional status of the gauged learners from wasted and severely
wasted to normal. The school believes that the nutritional status has direct impact in the
learners' academic performance.
As shown in the graph, there are identified wasted and severely wasted across grade
levels. In a way, regardless of the grade levels, there is a presence of malnourished learner.
Ergo, it appears that sustenance on learner's nutrition is imperative. Hence, a total of 134
learners are recorded recipients of the school feeding program for the current school year.
Target Learners with Learning Gaps and Losses

After gathering all the baseline data apropos of the learning assessments spectrum,
instituted by the Regional Office (RO) and Schools Divion Offfice (SDO), and the localized
assessments LOGGED-IN by the school, the target learners with the learning gaps and losses
vis-a-vis literacy and numeracy are presented as follows.

16
Table 6: Summary of the Target Learners with Learning Gaps and Losses
in Numeracy for SY 2022-2023
Grade Level With Numeracy Gaps and Losses
Grade 2 78
Grade 3 106
Grade 4 149
Grade 5 141
Grade 6 123
Total 597
Table 6 presents the summary of the target learners with learning gaps and losses in
numeracy. The reference of the data is based on the previous school year, hence, the school
follows the present grade levels of the identified learners with learning gaps and losses in the
current school year. Henceforward, there are 78 Grade2 learners, 106 Grade3 learners, 149
Grade4 learners, 141 Grade5 learners, 123 Grade6 learners. Ergo, a total of 597 learners will
undergo remediation intervention in numeracy for school year 2022-2023.
Table 7: Summary of the Target Learners with Learning Gaps and Losses
in Literacy for SY 2022-2023
With Literacy Gaps and Losses With Literacy Gaps and Losses
Grade Level in Filipino Language in English Language
CRLA Phil-IRI CRLA Phil-IRI
Grade 1 225
Grade 2 136
Grade 3 103 71 126
Grade 4 47 52 117 74
Grade 5 49 83
Grade 6 41 58
Total 511 213 243 215
Table 7 presents the summary of the target learners with learning gaps and losses in
literacy. The reference of the data is based on the captured assessments: CRLA and ANA, and
the localized assessments: Phil-IRI and Quarterly assessments.

17
For CRLA-Filipino, there are 225 Grade 1 learners, 136 Grade 2 learners, 103 Grade 3
learners, and 47 Grade 4 learners. For CRLA-English, there are 126 Grade 3 learners and 117
Grade 4 learners. These target learners are the subject of the Project: DIG for remediation and
interventions.
For Phil-IRI in Filipino, there are 71 Grade 3 learners, 52 Grade 4 learners, 49 Grade
5 learners, and 41 Grade 6 learners. For Phil-IRI in English, there are 74 Grade 4 learners, 83
Grade 5 learners and 58 Grade 6 learners. Here, the target learners are also participants oin the
project.
Learning and Development
RPMS-PPST Indicators/Objectives for Teachers’ Professional Development
14
12
12
10
8 8
8 7
6 6
6
4
4
0
Objective 1 Objective 2 Objective 4 Objective 5 Objective 6 Objective 7 Objective 8
Figure 17: Objectives/Indicators derived from the RPMS-PPST
The graph presents the professional needs of teachers based on the year end
development plan. Apparently, seven out of the nine classroom observable objectives in the
IPCRF seems to be not consistently demonstrated. These are also the objectives where teachers
themselves believed they need technical assistance. Moreover, objective 1 has the highest
number of teachers who claimed further assistance when it comes to application of knowledge
of content within and across curriculum teaching areas. However, only four teachers declare
need further support in objective 6 maintaining learning environment that promote fairness,
respect and care to encourage learning.
The appropriate use of languages: Filipino, English and Tagalog is imperative in the
curriculum instructions within and across learning areas. Hence, inclusive in the designed
program and projects relative to learning and development is the enhancement of pedagogical
and content knowledge of teachers for effective learning to happen.

18
Table 8: Summary of the L & D and Curriculum Implementation
Individual
Teachers
Numb Professional
Percentage of and Partner
er of Data on the Trained Development
the Leaders Organizations
COT Teachers’ needs Teacher Plan of
Implemented Performan in Reading
Report (LDNA Report) s Teachers
Curriculum ce Report Program
s Report Per
(IPCRF)
Subject Area
LGU-
Valenzuela
City with
Synergia
Foundation
Objective 1 = 12
Objective 2 = 8
LGU-Veinte
Objective 4=8
Reales
100% 126 100% Objective 5=6 100% 100%
Objective 6=4
Ateneo
Objective 7=7
Center for
Objective 8=6
Educational
Development
(ACED)
School PTA
Table 8 presents the summary of the learning and delivery encapsulating the
implemented curriculum based on the regular quarterly curriculum exit review and audit, the
number of classroom observation reports, accomplishment of the Individual Performance
Review, data on the teachers' need on learning and development, the teachers' training,
submitted Individual Professional Development and submitted subject area accomplisment
reports, and the support system from the partner organizations in the school reading program.
Why do we need to respond to the Recovery Plan?

COVID-19 significantly affects the school, particularly on the delivery of learning.
According to Secretary L. Briones (2020), this pandemic had brought educational institutions
a dilemma, especially when the government announced and ordered not to open face-to-face
classes for Academic Year 2020 - 2021 until the Covid- 19 vaccine is available. In response to
this order, the Department of Education (DepEd) released department order nos. 007, 12, 13,
and 14 series of 2020 instructing all basic education institutions to come up with their learning

19
continuity plan (LCP) and health and safety protocols in the new normal in education during
the pandemic.
Two school years, our learners were confined to their respective houses to continually
attend the virtual schooling. Indeed, it was very challenging for the education implementers to
abrupt change of education landscape. The distance learning through online and modular
approach were adopted by the school to thrive the two school years. The exigent situation in
which mobility is limited would lead the majority of learners to be deprived with the 100%
learning engagement, ergo, the quality of teaching and learning process was compromised.
As we open the school for physical learning, a school learning continuity and recovery
plan is set to ensure that the designed intervention programs, projects and activities based from
the pre-captured data vis-a-vis assessment of learners' academic performance and skills in
literacy and numeracy. Likewise, teacher's learning and development needs were captured to
triangulate them with the data analyzed concerning learners' academic performances and skills.
The plan will give more attention to the literacy and numeracy skills of the learners who
were highly affected by school closure and distance learning approach employed during the
pandemic. A corresponding fund allotment to mobilize the designed interventions in rectifying
the learning gaps and losses was accelerated where plan adjustment to the existing school
annual implementation plan including the PPMP-APP and monthly cash program will be
realigned and updated.
Implications of Data for LRP

For effective instruction to take place, clear understanding of the learners' contexts by
determining their needs; identifying their strengths, weaknesses, and schema; grinding their
learning styles; and promoting positive discipline to establish the culture of child friendly
learning spaces. The teachers' development needs particularly on pedagogies and content
knowledge should be upskilled and reskilled to effectively deliver quality instructions.
Continuous and regular feedbacking based on the class observations through mentoring and
coaching should be undertaken up to the cognizance of improved instructions as quantified by
the assessment of learning.

20
Shared Vision
In the next three (3) years, we envision Luis Francisco Elementary school to be a high
performing school with 21st century skills and value-laden K to 12 learners with resiliency and
well-being contributing to the national goals by being productive and participative through a
responsive and data-based learning recovery plan of shared governance that addresses gaps and
losses. The school implements interactive and experiential instruction using progressive and
pragmatic approaches. Well equipped personnel with knowledge and skills through a need-
based growth and development programs upholding and engaging active stakeholder’s
participation.
SMART Goal
By the end of the school year 2024-2025, all the literacy reading skills in key stage 1
will be grade level ready and can read sentences with reading comprehension. Also, key stage
1 learners who Needs Major Support and Anchoring levels transformed into developing,
emerging and/or transforming and proficient with necessary numeracy skill level. Furthermore,
learners who exhibit low mastery in each learning area should improve to closely
approximating mastery. The same as frustration readers and non-readers should improve their
reading level to independent level. Futhermore, all teachers will be upskilled and reskilled and
establish the culture of practice for effective learning delivery.

21
SDO-Valenzuela Learning Framework
Figure 18: The SDO-Valenzuela Learning Framework

22
Luis Francisco Elementary SLCRP Framework
Figure 19: The Luis Francisco Elementary School Learning Framework

23
School Funding/Resource
Management Mechanism
SCHOOL IMPLEMENTATION PLAN
Instruction and
Learners'Performance
Learning and
Development
Budget for Accelerating

Instruction

24
IMPLEMENTATION PLANS
Table 9: Implementation Plan for Instruction and Learners' Performance
Objectives PPAs KPI 2022 KPI 2023 KPI 2024

Program: ONBOARD - Outstand the Numeracy and literacy through
Blueprint projects and activities where Opportunities
are limitless Across learning areas to Recover from
the Derailed learning gaps and losses
Equip the Project: DIG 100 % of the 100 % of the 100 % of the
learners with Develop identified full, identified full, identified full,
necessary and Improve and moderate, and moderate, and moderate, and
expected Grow in reading. light refreshers light refreshers in light refreshers
literacy skills. in Grades 1 to 4 Grades 1 to 4 in Grades 1 to 4
Activities: should improve should improve to should improve
Strengthen the - I CARE (Integrate to be grade be grade ready. to be grade
literacy skills of in the Content ready. ready.
the learners Areas the Reading
Enhancement
activities)
100 % of the 100 % of the 100 % of the
- Pamilya Ko, Tutor
Ko Grades 3 to 6 Grades 3 to 6 Grades 3 to 6
- Drop Everything learners with learners with learners with
and Read (DEAR) frustration and frustration and frustration and
- 9:00 AM and 3:00 instructional instructional instructional
PM Reading Habit levels should levels should levels should
- Remedial Reading improve to be improve to be improve to be
session independent independent independent
- Summer Reading readers and readers and can readers and can
Camp can read stories read stories with read stories with
- Brigada Pagbasa with reading reading reading
- Project SAGIP
comprehension. comprehension. comprehension.
- Project
Implementation
Review (PIR)

25
Equip learners Project: UNA 100 % of the 100 % of the 100 % of the
with necessary Upskill Grades 2 to 4 Grades 2 to 4 Grades 2 to 4
and expected Numeracy learners in the learners in the learners in the
numeracy skills. Across grade level NMS and NMS and NMS and
Anchoring Anchoring levels Anchoring
Strengthen the Activities levels should should improve to levels should
numeracy skills - MIB improve to be in be in the improve to be in
of the learners. Math In Blocks the developing, developing, the developing,
- Flash MoB emerging and emerging and emerging and
Mastery of Basic
transforming transforming transforming
operations in
Mathematics
numeracy skill numeracy skill numeracy skill
- Anak Ko level. level. level.
maMathtiyagan Ko
- Math Festival
- Project 100% of the 100% of the Grade 100% of the
Implementation Grade 1, Grade 1, Grade 5 and Grade 1, Grade
Review (PIR) 5 and Grade 6 Grade 6 learners 5 and Grade 6
learners should should score at learners should
score at least least 60% in the score at least
60% in the Quarterly 60% in the
Quarterly assessment. Quarterly
assessment. assessment.
Table 10: Implementation Plan for Learning and Development

Strengthen the Program: STEPS - Strengthening Teachers' content knowledge and Enriching
pedagogical and Pedagogical Skills
content Project: 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the
knowledge of SISTEMA teachers were teachers were teachers were
teachers in equipped with equipped with equipped with
Literacy and Strengthening essential essential essential
numeracy. Innovative mathematical mathematical mathematical
Strategies in content content content
Enrich the Teaching knowledge and knowledge and knowledge and
integrative Effective strengthened strengthened strengthened
pedagogical Mathematical their pedagogical their their
approach using Abstractions skills for pedagogical pedagogical
the literacy and effective learning skills for skills for
numeracy skills Activities delivery in effective effective
to other learning - LAC session Mathematics. learning delivery learning delivery
areas. - PLC in Mathematics. in Mathematics.
- INSET

26
- SQATAME-Process
Observation
Analysis (POA)
Project: SMILE 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the

Strengthening teachers were teachers were teachers were
Motivational and equipped with equipped with equipped with
Innovative literacy skills literacy skills literacy skills
Literacy skills for and content and content and content
Effective learning knowledge in knowledge in knowledge in
delivery language for language for language for
effective learning effective effective
Activities delivery across learning delivery learning delivery
- LAC session learning areas. across learning across learning
- INSET
- PLC
areas areas
- SQATAME-Process
Observation
Analysis (POA)
Establish the Project: 3Ts 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the
community of Teacher is a teachers teachers teachers
practice using Teacher through effectively effectively effectively
the constructive other delivered delivered delivered
and engaging Teacher quality teaching quality teaching quality teaching
coaching (Coaching session) and learning. and learning. and learning.
session.
Activities
- Classroom
Observation (Pre,
On, Post)
- FGD Feedbacking
Utilize the Available 100% utilization 100% utilization 100% utilization
available Classroom Based of the action of the action of the action
completed BERF Action and Basic research and research and research and
and Non-BERF Research basic research basic research basic research
classroom action in related to related to related to
research and Mathematics teaching and teaching and teaching and
basic research of English learning that learning that learning that
the school and Filipino improves the improves the improves the
from the division MTB curriculum curriculum curriculum
office focusing instructions. instructions. instructions.
on teaching and
learning.
Activities At least 12 At least 12 At least 12
Craft action - LAC session research proposal research research
research/basic - Submission of submitted in the proposal proposal
research research proposal Division submitted in the submitted in the
- Conduct the
proposals Research and Division Division
approved research
relative to proposal
successfully Research and Research and
teaching ang completed. successfully successfully
learning completed. completed.

27
Capacitate the Activities on SEL 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the
teachers on 63 teaching, 10 63 teaching, 10 63 teaching, 10
Social and - LAC sessions on non-teaching non-teaching non-teaching
Emotional Social and personnel, and personnel, and personnel, and
Emotional
Learning to learners were learners were learners were
Learning (SEL)
insure inclusive - LAC sessions on
capacitated in the capacitated in capacitated in
and learner- Mental Health and social emotional the social the social
centered Psychological First learning. emotional emotional
curriculum Aid learning. learning.
instructions. - LAC sessions on
SHAPE (Sexually
Healthy and
Personally
Empowered)
Adolescents
- LAC sessions on
Anti-bullying and
Child Abuse
Table 11: Implementation Plan for Budget for Accelerating Instruction

Sustain and accelerate Adjust the APP- 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the
the programs, projects, PPMP, MCP and programs and programs and programs and
and activities for WFP/AIP of the projects are projects are projects are
literacy, numeracy, current fiscal year. implemented implemented implemented
and teachers' learning
and development Design the school Area 1 Area 1 Area 1
budgetary plans Program: Program: Program:
(APP-PPMP, ONBOARD ONBOARD Projects:
MCP, WFP/AIP) Projects: Projects: • DIG
for fiscal years • DIG • DIG • UNA
• UNA • UNA
2023 and 2024
Area 1: (50,000 x
3 subjects x 3 Area 2 Area 2 Area 2
years) Program Program Program
Area 2: (50,000 x STEPS STEPS STEPS
3 years) Projects: Projects: Projects:
• SISTEMA • SISTEMA • SISTEMA
= Php 600,000 • SMILE • SMILE • SMILE
• 3Ts (Treaties) • 3Ts (Treaties) • 3Ts (Treaties)

28
Provide localized Development of 40 pages of 40 pages of 40 pages of

instructional materials instructional activity sheets activity sheets activity sheets
for the designed materials for the per learner per per learner per per learner per
programs, projects, designed quarter per quarter per quarter per
and activities programs, subject subject subject
projects, and
activities
0.60 x 40 pages x 0.60 x 40 pages 0.60 x 40 0.60 x 40 pages

555 learners x 4 x 555 learners x pages x 555 x 555 learners x
qtrs. 1.5 qtr. learners x 4 4 qtrs.
=Php 53,280 =Php 19,980 qtrs. =Php 53,280
0.60 x 40 pages x 0.60 x 40 pages =Php 53,280 0.60 x 40 pages
489 learners x 4 x 489 learners x 0.60 x 40 x 489 learners x
qtrs. 1.5 qtr. pages x 489 4 qtrs.
=Php 46,944 =Php 17,604 learners x 4 =Php 46,944
qtrs.
Total = Php =Php 46,944
100,224
Total = Php Total = Php Total = Php
37,584 100,224 100,224
Improve the Feeding Program 100% gauged 100% gauged 100% gauged
nutritional status of (Funded by CO- learners with learners with learners with
the learners identified 80%; Local-20%) wasted and wasted and wasted and
as malnourished severely wasted severely severely wasted
(wasted and severely READY Meal should improve wasted should should improve
wasted) through School Feeding to normal improve to to normal
school feeding (Canteen fund) nutritional status normal nutritional
nutritional status
status
134 learners 134 learners 134 learners

Provide SEL, mental SEL 100% of the 100% of the 100% of the
health and School Mental learners learners learners
psychosocial activities Health and participated and participated participated and
for the learners from Psychosocial attended the and attended attended the
Kinder to Grade 6 Activities activities related the activities activities
to SEL and related to SEL related to SEL
mental well- and mental and mental
being and well-being well-being and
psychosocial and psychosocial
psychosocial
Give recognition to School-based 100% improved 100% 100% improved
the teachers or Merit and Award learners literacy improved learners literacy
advisers who made a System and numeracy learners and numeracy
significant change performance. literacy and performance.
(improvement) in numeracy
numeracy and literacy performance.
of their learners

29
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
Table 12: M & E for the LCRP Priority 1
Evaluation
LCRP Factors Data that will be gathered
Components
ONBOARD - Outstand the Numeracy and literacy skills thru Blueprint projects and activities
where Opportunities are limitless Across learning areas to Recover from the Derailed learning gaps
and losses.
Project: DIG - Develop, Improve and Grow in Reading
Intervention Describe the PPA: Satisfaction Rating on the
DIG - Develop, Improve and Grow Delivery of the program and
for strengthening the in Reading the encompassing projects and
literacy skills of activities using the M & E tool
learners identified This is a school literacy project provided by the School
with learning gaps and under Program: ONBOARD that aims Monitoring Team:
losses to develop reading and comprehension - Profiling of Learners
skills in Filipino and in English through - Project Implementation
varied guided-activities appropriate to Management
the grade level and set with the learners - Analysis of Data
convenient platforms and time. - Innovations and Interventions
This project focuses on the Grades 1 - Project Interventions
to 4 learners who are assessed as full, Materials
moderates and light refreshers in the - Project Sustainability
literacy assessment (CRLA) result.
Further, Grades 3 to 6 learners gauged Result of learning assessments
with frustration and instructional
levels using the Phil-IRI assessment.
It is designed to help the struggling
readers improve their reading skills:
print concepts, fluency, vocabulary, and
comprehension.
Activities:
- I CARE (Integrate in the Content Areas
the Reading Enhancement activities)
- Pamilya Ko, Tutor Ko
- DEAR
- 9:00 AM and 3:00 PM Reading Habit
- Remedial Reading session
- Summer Reading Camp
- Brigada Pagbasa
- Project SAGIP
- Project Implementation Review (PIR)

30
Determinants Availability of the project team, • Attendance Report

end-users (target learners),
collaborators (parents) as part of the
project implementation.
Availability of the monitoring • M & E Result
team: SQATAME, supervising master
teacher, CI asst, and school head to
observe the implementation of the
project and provide Technical • Feedback result
Assistance and constructive feedback.
Ability of the monitoring team to
monitor and provide feedback to the
implementation of the program.
Outcomes 100 % of the identified full, moderate, • Results of the learning
and light refreshers in Grades 1 to 4 assessments: CRLA and
should improve to be grade ready Phil-IRI assessments
100 % of the Grades 3 to 6 learners with • Academic reflections from

frustration and instructional levels learner-participants, their
should improve to be independent parents, and Teacher-
readers and can read stories with implementers
reading comprehension.
Project: UNA - Upskill the Numeracy Across grade levels
Interventions Describe the PPA: Satisfaction Rating on the
Delivery of the program and
for strengthening the UNA the encompassing projects and
numeracy skills of Upskill the activities using the M & E tool
learners identified Numeracy provided by the School
with learning gaps and Across grade level Monitoring Team:
losses - Profiling of Learners
This project is carried out to - Project Implementation
strengthen the numeracy skills of the Management
identified learners in Grades 2 to 4 with - Analysis of Data
NMS and Anchoring levels and - Innovations and Interventions
learners from Grades 1, 5 & 6 scored - Project Interventions
below 60% in the quarterly Materials
assessments. - Project Sustainability
It focuses on the use of
manipulatives, the CPA and other Result of learning
heuristics in Mathematics that could assessments: ANA and
enhance the numeracy competencies of quarterly assessments
the learners.
The following are the distinct

activities of the project:
MIB
Math In Blocks.
This activity focuses on the number
sense in which learners should
understand the basic concepts in
mathematics through block model
approach (the CPA)

31
Further, utilizes the block models

in solving word problems (teachers use
block model approach in solving every
lesson’s problem opener)
Flash MoB
Master of Basic operations in
Mathematics
This activity aims to strengthen the
learners numeracy skills in using the
basic operations in Math: Addition,
Subtraction, Multiplication, and
Division.
Further, helps learners familiarize
and apply the basic operations in the
complex order of operations using the
GEMDAS (Grouping symbols,
Exponents, Multiplication, Division,
Addition, and Subtraction).
Other activities
- Math Festival
- Anak Ko maMATHyagan Ko
- Project Implementation Review (PIR)
Determinants Availability of the project team, • Attendance Report
end-users (target learners),
collaborators (parents) as part of the
project implementation.
Availability of the SQATAME, • M & E Result
supervising master teacher, CI asst, and
school head to monitor the
implementation of the project and
provide Technical Assistance and
constructive feedback.
Ability of the teachers to monitor
the numeracy instruction by providing
feedback. • Feedback result
Ensures proposed management
of learning at home.
Outcomes 100 % of the Grades 2 to 4 learners in • Results of the learning
the NMS and Anchoring levels should assessments: ANA and
improve to be in the developing, quarterly assessments
emerging and transforming numeracy
skill level. • Academic reflections from
learner-participants, their
parents, and Teacher-
100% of the Grade 1, Grade 5 and implementers
Grade 6 learners should score at least
60% in the Quarterly assessment.

32
Describe the data that will be

Level Tool that will be used
gathered
Program: STEPS (Strengthening Teachers content knowledge and Enhancement of their
Pedagogical Skills)
Project: SISTEMA (Strengthening Innovative Strategies in Teaching Effective Mathematical
Abstractions)
Reactions Quality assure through monitoring SQATAME Tool
and evaluation and provision of - POA
technical assistance for the - FGD
improvement and adjustment of the
Project: SISTEMA implementation
Comments and Feedback on the Feedback Report

project implementation
Over-all Satisfaction M and E Tool
Learning New knowledge, skills and Skills/Competency Test

attitudes on mathematical content (comparative pretest and posttest)
and pedagogies Professional Reflection
Outputs from the LAC session Activity Completion Report

- Activity output (ACR)
- Reports
Behavior Teacher's Instructional Classroom Observation Tool

Performance Improved KPIs
(Improved Math instructional
practice)
Results Desired result which is to COT Analysis

increase the number of Math Project: SISTEMA
teachers moving from one career Implementation Review
stage to another that display
improvement in the curriculum
implementation within career
stage.
100% of the proficient Math Observation by the supervising

teachers are capable to perform master teachers and school head
mentoring task.

33
Project: SMILE (Strengthening Motivational and Innovative Literacy skills for Effective
learning delivery)
Reactions Quality assure through monitoring SQATAME Tool
and evaluation and provision of - POA
technical assistance for the - FGD
improvement and adjustment of the
Project: SMILE implementation
Comments and Feedback on the Feedback Report

project implementation
Over-all Satisfaction M and E Tool
Learning New knowledge, skills and Skills/Competency Test

attitudes on Literacy content and (comparative pretest and posttest)
pedagogies
Professional Reflection
Outputs from the LAC session
- Activity output Activity Completion Report
- Reports (ACR)
Behavior Teacher's Instructional Classroom Observation Tool

Performance Improved KPIs
(Improved Literacy instructional
practice)
Results Desired result which is to COT Analysis

increase the number of Language Project: SMILE Implementation
teachers moving from one career Review
stage to another that display
improvement in the curriculum
implementation within career
stage.
Observation by the supervising

100% of the proficient Language master teachers and school head
teachers are capable to perform
mentoring task.

34
Project: 3Ts - Teacher is a Teacher through other Teacher (Coaching)

Communication Effective communication, provide Feedback Report
constructive feedback with skills
on listening and understanding
Monitoring and Evaluation Tool
Performance Assessing strengths and

Improvement weaknesses
Relationships Establishing rapport and trust to

motivate the coachee
Execution Responding to the

suggested/recommended
approaches.

35

36
Appendix A:
MONITORING AND EVALUATION TOOL
AREA 1: INSTRUCTIONS AND LEARNER'S PERFORMANCE
PROJECT: DIG
Name of School: Luis Francisco Elementary School Date Monitored: _______________

Name of Program: ONBOARD Name of Project: DIG
Name of Proponent: ______________________________
Instructions: This tool is to be used by the school head together with the school QATAME to
check on program/project as they monitor and evaluate the implementation of Project: DIG
for literacy.
Data Privacy Statement: All data that will be generated shall be treated with utmost
confidentiality as governed by Republic Act 10173, otherwise known as the Data Privacy Act
of 2012.
School Literacy Profile
LITERACY INITIAL GAINS (CRLA)
Grade Enrol BOSY MIDSY

Level ment
Grade Light Moderate Full Grade Light Moderate

Full Refresher
Ready Refresher Refresher Refresher Ready Refresher Refresher
G1
G2
G3
G4
GST LITERACY INITIAL GAINS (PHIL-IRI)

Grade Enrol
Level ment BOSY MIDSY EOSY
<14 ³14
Ind Ins Frus NR Ind Ins Frus NR Ind Ins Frus NR
G3
G4
G5
G6

37
Rate the PPA indicated using the following responses:
Completely accomplished the literacy project's activities.

5 Excellent Effectively and efficiently delivered the project to the end-
users. Meet the target KPIs
Completely accomplished the literacy project's activities.
4 Very Satisfactory Effectively and efficiently delivered the project to the end-
users. However, did not meet the target KPIs.
Implemented the project activities, however, not completely
3 Satisfactory
accomplished.
Unstructured project design: lacked resources, processes,
2 Fair
and supporting data (learners profile).
1 Needs Improvement Not operational. The project was not started yet.
Check on the space provided the corresponding numerical value in rating each item.
Very Satis-
Excellent Fair NI Remarks
Indicators/Standards (5)
Satisfactory factory
(2) (1)
(4) (3)
Collects the data that indicates observable
I. Profiling of Learners
effectiveness of the project
1. Checked on the data of learners’
literacy assessment results:
1.1 Pretest (BOSY)
1.2 Mid Assessment
1.3 Post Assessment
2. Determined learners miscues and
difficulties in reading
3. Used valid and reliable tools to
assess the following:
3.1 literacy levels
3.2 learning gaps and losses
3.3 learning gains
4. Used other data collection methods
to gather information on learners’
literacy status.
4.1 Focus-grouped discussion (FGD)
4.2 Informal interview
4.3 Academic performance in
English/Filipino
5. Checked the activities of the project
relative to the enhancement of
literacy levels of learners.
Effectively manage the implementation of
II. Project Implementation
the project related to literacy towards
Management
quality learning delivery.
1. Managed efficiently (budget, time,
key players, end-users)
2. Quality of Delivery as prepared
3. The project was communicated well
to the stakeholders
4. Conducted the DEAR (Drop
Everything and Read) every day.

38
Very Satis-
(2) (1)
(4) (3)
5. Established functional reading
nooks.
6. Engaged parents to collaborate in
advocating reading through "Pamilya
Ko, Tutor Ko"
7. Established partnership and
linkages
8. Conducted monthly PIR presented
by the project team and SQATAME.
9. 100% participation of all concerned
learners
10. Learners demonstrated tangible
manifestation of expected outcomes.
Analyze the gathered data relative to
literacy using triangulation of quantitative
III. Analyses of Data
and qualitative responses from the learners,
teachers, and parents.
1. Summarized the data using the
appropriate statistical instruments:
1.1 Central tendency (mean,
median and mode)
1.2 Frequencies and

percentages
2. Clearly reported the analysis of data
using:
2.1 Tables (figures)
2.2 Graphs (illustrations)
3. Data Analysis relative to gains,
losses, gaps, and impact.
4. Provided the significant finding and
recommendations.
Use the appropriate innovation and
interventions to fortify effective delivery of
IV. Innovations and Interventions
learning vis-a-vis improvement of literacy
levels of learners.
1. Designed appropriate interventions
such as DEAR, reading remediation,
and "Pamilya Ko, Tutor Ko"
2. Included in the lesson plan the
integration of reading/literacy
activity across content areas
3. Had functional school reading nook
4. Available M & E tool to gauge the
efficacy of innovation and
interventions inclusive in the project
Crafted materials to be utilized as
V. Project Interventions
interventions in the implementation of
Materials
project relative to literacy.
1. Provided appropriate materials to
meet the target learners' needs
2. Implemented the reading project
using DAP-ELLN Principle
3. Used the Big 6 related materials to
improve reading skills

39
Very Satis-
(2) (1)
(4) (3)
4. Developed DAP-ELLN materials for
reading intervention.
5. Materials were adequate and
distributed on time to the key
players and end-users.
6. Materials were validated.
VI. Project Sustainability

1. Recommendations were submitted
based on the M & E analysis,
results, findings, and
interpretations.
2. Presented the findings of the data
collected to the stakeholders when
necessary, during:
2.1 LAC sessions
2.2 School Meetings
2.3 Parents-Teachers Conferences
3. Used the findings from the analysis
to recommend the sustainability of
PPAs.
OTHER FINDINGS/SUGGESTIONS:
Indicate below the scores for each of the areas. Add the score provided to each item
and divide it with the total number of items. Write the average for each part below:
Indicators Average Interpretation

II. Project Implementation Management
V. Project Interventions Materials
TOTAL
Interpretation
4.20 – 5.00 Excellent
3.40 – 4.19 Very Satisfactory
2.60 – 3.39 Satisfactory
1.80 - 2.59 Fair
1.00 - 1.79 Unsatisfactory
Monitored by: Conforme:

____________________________ ___________________________
Monitoring Personnel Project Owner
Signature over Printed Name Signature over Printed Name

40
Appendix B:
AREA 1: INSTRUCTIONS AND LEARNER'S PERFORMANCE
PROJECT: UNA

Name of Program: ONBOARD Name of Project: Project: UNA
check on program/project as they monitor and evaluate the implementation of Project: UNA
for numeracy.
of 2012.
School Numeracy Profile
PROJECT: UNA Initial Gains on Numeracy

Grade Enrol Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter
Level ment I II III IV
G1
BOSY (EOSY of SY 2021-2022)1-2022) MIDSY

Amplified Numeracy Assessment (ANA) (Paralleled ANA crafted by SDO-Valenzuela)
Grade Enrol
Level ment Needs Needs
Trans Deve Emer Ancho Trans Deve Emer Ancho
Major Major
forming loping ging ring forming loping ging ring
Support Support
G2
G3
G4
Grade Enrol Quarter Quarter Quarter Quarter

Level ment I II III IV
G5
G6
Completely accomplished the numeracy project's activities.

5 Excellent Effectively and efficiently delivered the project to the end-
users. Meet the target KPIs
Completely accomplished the numeracy project's activities.

4 Very Satisfactory Effectively and efficiently delivered the project to the end-
users. However, did not meet the target KPIs.
3 Satisfactory
accomplished.
Unstructured project design: lacked resources, processes, and

2 Fair
supporting data (learners profile).

41
Very
Satis
Excellent Satis Fair NI Remarks
Indicators/Standards (5) factory
factory
(2) (1)
(3)
(4)
Collects the data that indicates
observable effectiveness of the project
1. Checked on the data of learners’
numeracy assessment results:
1.1 Quarterly Assessments
1.2 BOSY - SY 2021-2022 EOSY
1.3 Mid Assessment
1.4 Post Assessment
2. Determined learners difficulties in
numeracy skills.
• Knowing and Understanding
• Estimating
• Visualizing and Modeling
• Representing and Communicating
• Conjecturing and Reasoning
• Proving and Decision Making
• Applying and connecting
3. Used valid and reliable tools to assess
the following:
3.1 numeracy levels
3.2 learning gaps and losses
3.3 learning gains
4. Used other data collection methods to
gather information on learners’
numeracy status.
4.2 Informal interview
4.3 Academic performance in
Mathematics
5. Checked the activities of the project
relative to the enhancement of
numeracy levels of learners.
Effectively manage the implementation

II. Project Implementation Management of the project related to numeracy
towards quality learning delivery.
1. Managed efficiently (budget, time, key
players, end-users)
3. The project was communicated well to
the stakeholders
4. Conducted the inclusive activities

regularly such as Flash MOB, MIB,
and "Anak ko Mathyagan Ko".
5. Established functional numeracy
nooks.
6. Engaged parents to collaborate in
advocating numeracy through "Anak
Ko Mathyagan Ko"

42
Very
Satis
factory
(2) (1)
(3)
(4)
7. Established partnership and linkages
8. Conducted monthly PIR presented by

the project team and SQATAME
9. 100% participation of all concerned
learners
10. Learners demonstrated tangible
manifestation of expected outcomes.
numeracy using triangulation of
quantitative and qualitative responses
from the learners, teachers, and parents.
median and mode)
1.2 Frequencies and percentages
2. Reported clearly the analysis of data
using
3. Data Analysis relative to gains, losses,
gaps, and impact.
recommendations
Use the appropriate innovation and
interventions to fortify effective delivery
of learning vis-a-vis improvement of
numeracy levels of learners.
1. Designed appropriate interventions
such as Flash MOB, MIB and "Anak ko
Mathyagan Ko"
2. Included in the lesson plan the
activities of Flash MOB across content
areas
3. Included in the remedial activities the
MIB
4. Had functional school numeracy nook
5. Available M & E tool to gauge the
efficacy of innovation and interventions
inclusive in the project
Crafted materials to be utilized as
V. Project Interventions
interventions in the implementation of
Materials
the project relative to numeracy.
1. Provided appropriate materials to meet
the target learners' needs
2. Implemented the numeracy project
using DAP-ELLN Principle
3. Developed DAP-ELLN materials for
numeracy intervention
4. Materials were adequate and
distributed on time to the key players
and end-users.
5. Materials were validated.

43
Very
Satis
factory
(2) (1)
(3)
(4)

1. Recommendations were submitted
based on the M & E analysis, results,
findings, and interpretations.
collected to the stakeholders when
necessary, during:
2.1 LAC sessions
2.2 School Meetings
2.3 Parents-Teachers Conferences
3. Used the findings from the analysis to
recommend the sustainability of PPAs.

V. Project Interventions Materials
TOTAL
Interpretation
1.80 - 2.59 Fair
____________________________ ___________________________

44
Appendix C:
AREA 2: LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT
PROJECT: SISTEMA

Name of Program: STEPS Name of Project: SISTEMA
check on program/project as they monitor and evaluate the implementation of Project:
SISTEMA.
of 2012.
School Learning and Development Profile
PROJECT:
SELF ASSESSMENT TOOL (SAT)
SISTEMA
OBJECTIVES
CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES
RANK 1 (LEVEL OF CAPABILITY)
Community
Number Diversity of
Linkages
of Learners,
Grade and Profes
Teachers Content Curriculum Servic
Level Learning Professional Self- sional Result Inn
teaching Knowledge and Planning, Team e
Environ Engagement Manage ism s ova
Math and & work Orient
ment & Personal ment and Focus tion
Pedagogy Assessment ation
Growth and Ethics
and
Professional
Reporting
Dev't
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6
Completely accomplished the project's activities. Effectively

5 Excellent and efficiently delivered the project to the end-users. Meet the
target KPIs

4 Very Satisfactory and efficiently delivered the project to the end-users. However,
did not meet the target KPIs.
3 Satisfactory
accomplished.
Unstructured project design: lacked resources, processes, and

2 Fair
supporting data (learners profile).

45
Very
Satis
factory
(2) (1)
(3)
(4)
I. Profiling of Teachers
1. Checked on the data of teachers’ content
and pedagogical knowledge on
numeracy:
1.1 SAT
1.2 Seminars/Training/Short courses in
Mathematics
gather information on teachers’
numeracy status.
2.2 Quarterly Assessment average MPS of
handled learners of the Math
Teachers
3. Observations Notes/COT results
Effectively manage the implementation
of the project relative to L & D towards
quality learning delivery in
Mathematics.
players, end-users)
3. Conducted the LAC sessions relative to
Mathematical content, pedagogy, and
assessment.
4. Conducted PLC session for teachers
teaching Math (shares experiences and
insights on effective methods/ strategies
of learning delivery)
5. 100% participation in LAC session and
during PLC session
6. Teachers demonstrated tangible
manifestation of expected output and
outcomes.
III. Project's LAC session/ training/ Measure the LAC session, training and
seminar Evaluation using Kirkpatrick other school-based seminar
Model Effectiveness.
1. REACTION
1.1 SMEA Tool
1.2 POA/FGD
1.3 Feedback Report
2. LEARNING
2.1 Skills/Competency Test Result
(Pretest and Posttest)
2.2 Professional Reflection
2.3 Activity Completion Report
3. BEHAVIOR
3.1 Classroom Observation Tool
3.2 Improved KPI (MPS, ANA result -
BoSY vs EoSY)
4. RESULT
4.1 COT Analysis

46
Very
Satis
factory
(2) (1)
(3)
(4)
4.2 PIR of SISTEMA
4.3 Observation - Individual Progress
report of the supervising MT and SH
4.4 All learners have at least 75% MPS in
Quarter IV
Analyze the gathered data relative the
acquired content, pedagogy, and
assessment in Math using triangulation
IV. Analyses of Data
of quantitative and qualitative
responses of teachers, supervising
master teachers, and learners.
median and mode)
1.2 Frequencies and
percentages
2. Reported clearly the analysis of data
using
3. Data Analysis relative to teachers' gains
and impact.
recommendations
V. Project Sustainability
1. Recommendations were submitted based
on the M & E analysis, results, findings,
and interpretations.
collected to the SPT during school
meetings.

47

III. Project LAC session/ training/ seminar Evaluation
using Kirkpatrick Model
TOTAL
Interpretation
1.80 - 2.59 Fair
____________________________ ___________________________

48
Appendix D:
PROJECT: SMILE (ENGLISH)

Name of Program: STEPS Name of Project: SMILE
SMILE.
of 2012.
PROJECT:
SMILE
OBJECTIVES
RANK 1 (LEVEL OF CAPABILITY VS PRIORITY AREAS TO BE CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES
OBSERVED)
Community
Number Diversity of
Linkages
of Learners,
Grade and Profes
English and & work Orient
Growth and Ethics
and
Professional
Reporting
Dev't
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6

target KPIs
4 Very Satisfactory and efficiently delivered the project to the end-users.
However, did not meet the target KPIs.
3 Satisfactory
accomplished.

2 Fair

49
Very
Excelle Satis
Satis Fair NI Remarks
Indicators/Standards nt
factory
factory
(2) (1)
(5) (3)
(4)
and pedagogical knowledge in
English/Reading:
1.1 SAT
English/ Reading
gather information on teachers’ English
literacy status.
handled learners of the English
Teachers
3. Observation Notes/COT result
Effectively manage the

implementation of the project relative
to L & D towards quality learning
delivery in English.
players, end-users)

English content, pedagogy, and reading
assessment.
teaching English (shares experiences and
insights on effective methods/ strategies of
learning delivery)
during PLC session

outcomes.
Measure the LAC session, training and
III. LAC session/ training/ seminar
other school-based seminar
Evaluation using Kirkpatrick Model
Effectiveness.
1. REACTION
1.1 SMEA Tool
1.2 POA/FGD
1.3 Feedback Report
2. LEARNING
2.1 Skills/Competency Test Result (Pretest
and Posttest)
3. BEHAVIOR

50
Very
Excelle Satis
factory
factory
(2) (1)
(5) (3)
(4)
3.2 Improved KPI (MPS, ANA result - BoSY
vs EoSY)
4. RESULT
4.1 COT Analysis
4.2 PIR of SMILE
Quarter IV
assessment in English using
IV. Analyses of Data triangulation of quantitative and
qualitative responses of teachers,
supervising master teachers, and
learners.
median and mode)
1.2 Frequencies and
percentages
2. Reported clearly the analysis of data using
and impact.
recommendations
meetings


51

TOTAL
Interpretation
1.80 - 2.59 Fair
____________________________ ___________________________

52
Appendix E:
PROJECT: SMILE (FILIPINO)

Name of Program: STEPS Name of Project: SMILE
SMILE.
of 2012.
PROJECT:
SMILE
OBJECTIVES
RANK 1 (LEVEL OF CAPABILITY VS PRIORITY AREAS TO BE CORE BEHAVIORAL COMPETENCIES
OBSERVED)
Community
Number Diversity of
Linkages
of Learners,
Grade and Profes
Filipino and & work Orient
Growth and Ethics
and
Professional
Reporting
Dev't
G1
G2
G3
G4
G5
G6

target KPIs
3 Satisfactory
accomplished.

2 Fair

53
Very
Excelle Satis
factory
factory
(2) (1)
(5) (3)
(4)
and pedagogical knowledge in
Filipino/Reading:
1.1 SAT
Filipino/ Reading
gather information on teachers’ Filipino
literacy status.
handled learners of the Filipino
Teachers
3. Observation Notes/COT result

to L & D towards quality learning
delivery in Filipino.
players, end-users)

Filipino content, pedagogy, and reading
assessment.
teaching Filipino (shares experiences and
insights on effective methods/ strategies
of learning delivery)
during PLC session

outcomes.
Measure the LAC session, training and
III. LAC session/ training/ seminar
other school-based seminar
Evaluation using Kirkpatrick Model
Effectiveness.
1. REACTION
1.1 SMEA Tool
1.2 POA/FGD
1.3 Feedback Report
2. LEARNING
2.1 Skills/Competency Test Result (Pretest
and Posttest)

54
Very
Excelle Satis
factory
factory
(2) (1)
(5) (3)
(4)
3. BEHAVIOR
3.2 Improved KPI (MPS, ANA result - BoSY
vs EoSY)
4. RESULT
4.1 COT Analysis
4.2 PIR of SMILE
Quarter IV
assessment in Filipino using
IV. Analyses of Data triangulation of quantitative and
learners.
median and mode)
1.2 Frequencies and
percentages
2. Reported clearly the analysis of data using
and impact.
recommendations
meetings.


55

TOTAL
Interpretation
1.80 - 2.59 Fair
____________________________ ___________________________

56
Appendix F:
PROJECT: 3Ts

Name of Program: STEPS Name of Project: 3Ts
check on program/project as they monitor and evaluate the implementation of Project: 3Ts.
of 2012.
Teachers' Mentoring and Coaching Engagement Profile
PROJECT: 3Ts CLASS PLC PLC

FGD
OBSERVATIONS 1 ON 1
(PER SUBJECT (PER
PROJECTS (PER
Number GRADE AREA LEARNING
Grade PROJECT)
AREA)
Level
of LEVEL)
Teachers COT 1 COT 2
Kinder MATH DIG

G1 SCIENCE I CARE
G2 ENGLISH UNA
G3 FILIPINO SISTEMA
G4 ARALING SMILE
PANLIPUNAN
G5 ESP STRIKE
G6 MAPEH PMA
EPP/TLE FORCES
MTB ATLAS

target KPIs
3 Satisfactory
accomplished.

2 Fair

57
Very
Excelle Satis
factory
factory
(2) (1)
(5) (3)
(4)
I. Profiling of Teachers/Subject Area/ and Collects the data that indicates
other projects observable effectiveness of the project
1. Checked on the data of teachers’
mentoring and coaching engagement.
1.1 Class Observations (COTs)
1.2 One-on-one Interview
2. Checked on the data of teachers'
mentoring and coaching engagement
within subject area and grade level.
2.1 PLC
3. Checked on the data of teachers'
mentoring and coaching engagement
within the project.
3.1 FGD
II. Project Implementation Management to L & D through mentoring and
coaching towards quality learning
delivery.
players, end-users)
2. Quality of Delivery as prepared. Journals
entries for both mentor and mentees.
3. Conducted the mentoring and coaching
sessions relative to learning and
development.
4. 100% participation during mentoring and
coaching sessions
outcomes.
III. Coaching Session Evaluate the coaching session
1. Communication
1.1 Communicating Instructions
1.2 Providing Feedback
1.3 Listening for Understanding
2. Performance Improvement
2.1 Setting Performance Goals
2.2 Rewarding Improvement
2.3 Dealing with failure.
2.4 Assessing strengths and weaknesses.
3. Relationships
3.1 Building rapport and trust
3.2 Motivating the coachee.
3.3 Working with professional issues.
3.4 Confronting difficult issues
4. Execution
4.1 Responding to the queries.
4.2 Following through

58
Very
Excelle Satis
factory
factory
(2) (1)
(5) (3)
(4)
the acquired knowledge using
triangulation of quantitative and
school head.
median and mode)
1.2 Frequencies and percentages
2. Clearly reported the analysis of data using
and impact.
recommendations
collected to the School Planning Team
(SPT) during school meetings
III. Coaching Session
TOTAL
Interpretation

1.80 - 2.59 Fair
____________________________ ___________________________

59
Appendix G:
FEEDBACK REPORT
Name: Position: Date Submitted:
Report submitted to: Grade level: Subject taught:
Noted: RODERICK D. DE LEON Project:
LAC Session Title: Date & Time of the LAC Session:
Venue of the LAC Session: PMT of the LAC Session:
A. RELEVANCE OF THE LAC SESSION TO PRESENT WORK:
• How and in what area of your responsibilities and tasks is the activity most
relevant?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
• Which part/topic of the activity is immediately applicable to your work?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
• Which part/topic of the activity is immediately applicable for you personally as

a teacher?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________
• How can this be transferred or adapted in your school?

______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_____________________________________________________________________

60
• Implication of the LAC Session learning/result to existing school policy

(administrative/program/etc.) and/or recommended policy (new/revision) as
needed.
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
_________________________________________________________
B. COMMENTS AND RECOMMENDATIONS:
• What are your comments on the following:
a. Content of the Activity?

________________________________________________________________________
b. Facilitator/Resource Person(s)/Speaker/Lecturer? Know-how

________________________________________________________________________
c. Methodology?
________________________________________________________________________
d. Food/Meals?
________________________________________________________________________
e. Venue?
________________________________________________________________________
• What are your suggestions for the activity? To whom will you give the
suggestion to?
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________

61
C. PROFESSIONAL REFLECTION:
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
______________________________________________________________________________
___________________
Submitted by:
_________________________________
LAC Participant

62
Appendix H:
PERFORMANCE AND MONITORING AND COACHING FORM

63
LFES LCRP PLANNING TEAM

RODERICK D. DE LEON, PHD
School Principal IV
AGNES D. GARROTE, PHD MA. CELESTE S. JUNIO

Master Teacher II Master Teacher I
Curriculum Implementation Assistant School Governance and Operation Assitant
Program ONBOARD Team Leader Project 3Ts Team Leader
ASTROBAL C. NARIDO JOMEL G. RAMIREZ ANGELITA M. PELAYO

Master Teacher I Master Teacher I Master Teacher II
Program STEPS Team Leader Project SISTEMA Team Leader Program NOOK Team Leader
KIMBERLY A. CARLOS KAREN D. MONTENEGRO SALVACION Y. MONES

Mathematics Coordinator English Coordinator Filipino Coordinator
Project UNA Team Leader
JUDY A. PACAANAS LANI M. SACLET GLORYDEL F. DELA CRUZ

Mother Tongue Coordinator Project SMILE Team Leader Reading Coordinator in Filipino
Project DIG Team Leader
ANA MARRA F. DE VERA CHARIANN NALUMEN

Reading Coordinator in English - KS1 Reading Coordinator in English - KS2
Project DIG Team Leader Project DIG Team Leader
Technical Design
ROBERTO P. PASCUAL
ICT Coordinator/BAC Secretariat
MARICEL S. SINDAYEN
Grade 3 Chairperson/ICT Coordinator
DARWIN C. ROSTRO
ICT Coordinator/Sports Coordinator
MONITORING AND EVALUATION
ELAINE D. ROSTRO
SQATAME

Slcrp-Lfes-2022-2025-Updated Bosy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slcrp-Lfes-2022-2025-Updated Bosy

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Slcrp-Lfes-2022-2025-Updated Bosy

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

ii

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ................................................................................................ 1

LITERACY ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................... 4

NUMERACY ASSESSMENT ........................................................................................... 8

LOCALIZED ASSESSMENT .................................................................................................. 11

TARGET LEARNERS WITH LEARNING GAPS AND LOSSES ................................. 15

LEARNING AND DEVELOPMENT ...................................................................................... 17

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

WHY DO WE NEED TO RESPOND TO THE RECOVERY PLAN? ........................... 18

IMPLICATIONS OF DATA FOR LRP .................................................................................. 19

SHARED VISION ......................................................................................................................... 20

SMART GOAL .............................................................................................................................. 20

SDO-Valenzuela Learning Framework ................................................................................... 21

Luis Francisco Elementary School Learning Framework .................................................. 22

SCHOOL FUNDING/RESOURCE MANAGEMENT MECHANISM ......................... 23

MONITORING AND EVALUATION .................................................................................... 29

Appendix A: M & E TOOL FOR PROJECT: DIG................................................................. 36

LFES LCRP PLANNING TEAM ........................................................................................... 63

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

forward through learning remediation and intervention, professional development, and

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Grade 1 Literacy Proficiency Level in Tagalog

Figure 3 presents the literacy proficiency

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Grade 3 Literacy Proficiency in Filipino

103 learners are still needing extra support to Moderate

refreshers, and 70 or 26% are full refreshers.

Grade 4 Literacy Proficiency in Filipino

Grade 3 Literacy Proficiency in English

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Grade 4 Literacy Proficiency in English

Table 1: Comparative Analysis of Literacy Level in Tagalog/Filipino Language from

Full Refresher Moderate Refresher Light Refresher Grade Ready

Total 357 30% 23 2% 131 11% 667 57%

Table 1 displays the Comprehensive Rapid Literacy Assessment (CRLA) – Mother

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Table 2: Comparative Analysis of Literacy Level in English Language of Grade 3 and

Full Refresher Moderate Refresher Light Refresher Grade Ready

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Grade 2 Learners Numeracy Skill Levels

Grade 3 Learners Numeracy Skill Levels

Figure 10 shows the result of the

proficiency. Hence, a total of 149 or 49.67%

KS1 Learners Based on the Numeracy Skill Levels

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Number of Learners Scores Below 50%

Grade 4 Grade 5 Grade 6

Quarterly Assessment Results in other Learning Areas

Mean Percentage Score (MPS) In Araling Panlipunan

Figure 14 shows the learners’ performance in Araling Panlipunan. Apparently, grade

Mean Percentage Score (MPS) In EPP/TLE

--------------------------------------------------------------------------LFES – LEARNING CONTINUITY AND RECOVERY PLAN 2022-2025 ---------------------------------------

Curriculum Exit Report