L E A R N I N G A N D D E V E L O P M E N T

MONITORING & EVALUATION REPORT

Program Title : Division Training on the Installation of Quality

Management system (QMS)
Program Proponent/s, : Noli Mar M. Navarro, Ed.D (SEPS)
Designation Julius C. Calangan (EPS)
School Mgmt., Monitoring and Evaluation
School/District : SDO Nueva Vizcaya
Date and Venue : May 31 – June 2, 2017, SDO Conference Hall
Facilitators/Speakers : Helen S. Liban
Edward M. Santiago
Marivic C. Bacud

Monitoring and Evaluation (M & E) Analysis

Rapid Competency Assessment (RCA) – Pre and Post “F3”

Pre-Assessment (Pre - F3)

The “Pre-F3” of the Rapid Competency Assessment (RCA) showed that

participants has an inadequate understanding of the QMS concept and can’t
apply it immediately as evidenced by its overall weighted average of 2.052.
This is attributed by participants’ inadequate on Quality Assurance and
Accountability Framework (QAAF) and Management of QMS with weighted
scores of 1.842 and 2.061, respectively; and no understanding of the QMS
concept at all with a weighted score of 1.700. This further states that
participants could not apply immediately the concept of QMS in their
respective key result areas (KRAs) and workplaces.

Post – Assessment (Post – F3)

Post – assessment conducted after the 3 - day training revealed that

participants gained full understanding of the QMS concept as evidenced by its
overall weighted average of 3.392. There was a full understanding of the
indicators of Quality Management System (QMS) as a mechanism, its
objectives, design considerations and core areas for quality assurance
surfaced to have the highest weighted score of 3.794, followed by the
indicators on QAAF then management of QMS with weighted scores of 3.573
and 3.556, respectively. This further noted that participants could apply the
concepts of QMS with commitment.
“Pre – F3” vs “Post – F3”

The graph showed the result of the Pre and Post Rapid Competency
Assessments on Quality Management System. It clearly described that after
the 3 – day training on the installation of QMS, there was clear and full
understanding of the concepts and practices of Quality Management System.
Moreover, participants – the Public School District Supervisors and District In-
charge including the ICT and EBEIS Coordinators could now apply with
commitment all the concepts of Quality Management System (QMS).

Results of the facilitator/session review of the program (QAME Form D - to

be administered every after each session)

The graph revealed the evaluation of the participants to the session

conducted and the facilitator or resource speaker. Overall, it yielded an
average of 3.974 or qualitatively described as “Outstanding”. Participants
rated the session as 3.974. This is attributed to the following: the topic
was relevant, objectives were well-planned, time allotment is adequate,
appropriate for adult learners, and demonstrated learning. Moreover, the
facilitator was evaluated by the participants to 3.975. This is attributed to the
facilitator’s ability to exhibit full grasp of the topic, sensitive to participants’
mood, ask stimulating questions and maintain positive learning environment.
Results from the program manager review of the program (QAME Form D.1
- to be administered after the last session, daily)
The graph showed how the management and operation of the program
was conducted. The evaluation showed an average of 3.375 qualitatively
described as “Very Satisfactory”. Program management team and
accommodation was rated to be of “Outstanding” with a weighted mean
score of 4.000 and 3.750, respectively; followed by meals with a rating of
3.250. On the other hand, training venue was rated to be “Satisfactory”.
Results of the participants’ evaluation of the program (QAME Form F - to
be administered at the end of the program)
The overall evaluation of the program was 3.607 qualitatively described
as “Outstanding”. Of the six indicators along program evaluation, delivery of
content, provision of support materials, venue and accommodation and
program management team surfaced to be of “Outstanding”. However,
attainment of objectives was rated 2.500. Meaning, there was a satisfactory
evaluation on the attainment of objectives for the session and the program.

Strengths : They are approachable and they cater the needs

of the participants.
Facilitators were very ready with their topics as
evidently shown on their delivery. Participants were
engaged with activities due to incorporated
strategies and approaches in teaching the different
learning areas. Program Management Team is
very approachable. They cater the needs of the
participants.
Area/s for : The facilitators must provide additional workshop.
Improvement Each M and E tool must be simulated for better
understanding and thorough analysis.
Monit ored and Eval uat ed by:
School Mgmt., Monitoring and Evaluation (SMME) Section
Professional Development Committee (PDC)

JULIUS C. CALANGAN
Educ. Program Specialist/Member, PDC

NOLI MAR M. NAVARRO , Ed.D.

Sr. Educ. Program Specialist/Member, PDC

Reviewed by:

ROGER S. SEBASTIAN, Ed.D.

Education Program Supervisor - SGOD/Member, PDC

ROMULO S. ANCHETA, Ph.D

Chief, Schools Governance and Operations Division/Co-Chairman, PDC

Recommendi ng A pproval :

EDUARDO C. ESCORPISO JR., Ed.D., CESE

OIC – Asst. Schools Division Superintendent/Chairman, PDC

Approved:

FLORDELIZA C. GECOBE, Ph.D., CESO VI

OIC – Schools Division Superintendent