Bces 2022 LRP Book Form Final Deadline 2 For Printing

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 1
FOREWORD
The Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School Learning Recovery Plan is

fashioned primarily to support the uncompromising efforts of the Tarlac City Schools
Division in addressing the learning gaps and losses brought about by the closure of schools
due to the pandemic. Specifically, this School Learning Recovery Plan is designed to mend
and address the identified key challenges of the school and improve the poor learning
outcome of the learners in the core learning subjects by the end of school year 2024-2025.
Similarly, the plan aims to deal with the learning gaps in numeracy, literacy and
scientific proficiency by providing the learners with child-friendly, gender-sensitive, safe,
and motivating environment; reskilling and upskilling the teachers’ competencies; and
engaging the stakeholders in the implementation of this learning recovery plan.
To ensure the achievement of the abovementioned goal, this plan is aligned with
KITE Framework, the four Key Reform Areas of Sulong Edukalidad: (1) K to 12
Curriculum review and update; (2) Improvement of learning environment (3) Teachers’
upskilling and reskilling; and (4) Engagement of stakeholders for support and
collaboration.
This plan is comprised of the situational analysis on the identified key challenges of
the school. The goals, strategies, intervention activities, programs and projects are defined
and specified in the Strategic Directions in Four quadrants of
Sulong Edukalidad. Moreover, Implementation Plan,
Performance Targets, Timeline and Monitoring and
Evaluation Plan are presented and highlighted in this School
Learning Recovery Plan.
We are optimistic that through shared responsibility
and accountability coupled with absolute commitment of the
internal and external stakeholders, we can win the battle
against learning poverty.

III. TABLE OF CONTENTS
Title Page...........................................................................................................................................i
Foreword...........................................................................................................................................ii
Table of Contents.............................................................................................................................iii
I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT...............................................................................1
II. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORKS OF THE LEARNING RECOVERY PLAN.....3

a. The RAPID Learning Recovery Framework..........................................................3
b. The KITE Framework............................................................................................3
c. Operational Framework: Shared Responsibility....................................................4
d. Regional Framework.............................................................................................4
e. TCSD Framework..................................................................................................5
III. DASHBOARD.................................................................................................................6
a. Pillar 1: K to 12 Curriculum: Quality of Learning Outcomes and
Learning Delivery Modalities................................................................................
b. Pillar 2: Support to the Learning Environment: Access, Equity,
and Inclusion in Education..................................................................................
c. Pillar 3: Upskilling and Reskilling of Personnel: Quality of
Teachers, School Heads and Supervisors............................................................
d. Pillar 4: Engagement of Stakeholders for Support and
Collaboration: Responsive Engagement for Education.......................................
IV. SWOT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................80
V. KEY CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS.......................................84

a. Key Challenges and Strategic Directions: Pillar 1.............................................84
b. Key Challenges and Strategic Directions: Pillar 2.............................................88
c. Key Challenges and Strategic Directions: Pillar 3.............................................90
d. Key Challenges and Strategic Directions: Pillar 4.............................................92
VI. PERFORMANCE TARGETS...................................................................................94
VII. IMPLEMENTATION PHASES...............................................................................104

a. Implementation Plan.........................................................................................104
b. Analysis and Management of Risk....................................................................108
c. Indicative Timelines..........................................................................................109
VIII. RESEARCH SUPPORT.................................................................................................110
IX. SDO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART........................................................................111

I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT
In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education (DepEd)

implemented distance learning modalities to ensure learning continuity. DepEd, however,
recognizes the challenges in delivering alternative learning modalities to 27.7 million basic
education students. Given the challenges of distance learning and unequal access to
resources, poor-performing and marginalized students may fall further behind. Before the
pandemic, issues of quality of basic education have been raised as the Philippines ranked
lowest in recent regional and international learning assessments. DepEd is seeking
innovative strategies to address problems in education during the pandemic and in
achieving learning outcomes as students transition to in-person classes.
The current global pandemic situation has no doubt disrupted school life and
operations in both basic and tertiary education levels. As various efforts are being done to
solve the crisis, issues and questions pertinent to school recovery and readiness of
operations for next school year (2021-2022) abound and remain paramount in the minds of
school administrators. In particular, the Tarlac City Schools Division Officials and school
heads are challenged to formulate and implement strategic plans that effectively respond to
different problems that render their schools vulnerable and threaten their stability and
viability.
With a view to obtaining data on how schools are affected by the public health
crisis, the Tarlac City Schools Division Office conducted Assessment on School Recovery
and Readiness of School Operations for SY 2021-2022 from October 2021-January 2022
among different school heads focusing on their efforts for school recovery and readiness.
The results of the survey was utilized to inform policy recommendation to the Regional
Office and to plan capacity building and quality assurance initiatives of the Division.
Following the conduct of the survey, the TCSD Office released the School Safety
Assessment Tool (SSAT) to all public and private schools in order to help them
systematically asses their readiness for SY 2021-2022. Logically following the assessment,
a school needs to plan interventions that address the schools’ concerns with respect to
school recovery and readiness. Towards this end, the TCSD Office endeavors to assist
public and private schools to creatively navigate this COVID19 pandemic transition
underscoring school recovery and readiness planning for school year 2021-2022.
The Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School, after complying all the
requirements stated in the School Safety Assessment Tool and receiving the Compliance
Certificate from the Regional Office, opened the school for Face to Face classes last March
1, 2022. The implementation of the face to face classes in our school was convoyed by
various setbacks and predicaments. The most prevalent issue and concern that was raised
during the first month of face to face classes is the learners’ low proficiency level in
Mathematics, English, Filipino and Science. Based on the results of the Academic
Profiling that we conducted last April 2022, many learners in Stage 1 could not read and
write numbers in words and figures. Moreover, a large number of learners in Stage 2 could
not perform some basic operations in Mathematics and most of the learners in Stage 1 and
2 are having difficulties in solving word problems.
Similarly, a large number of learners in Stage 1 and 2 are found non-decoder in
both
English and Filipino. An alarming number of learners are found non-readers and a
significant percentage of learners are still under Frustration level. Many of the learners are
having difficulties in oral passage reading, comprehension, listening comprehension and
dictation.
Another factors that contributed to the poor learning outcome of our learners are
the insufficient number of textbooks in Grades 2 and 6; and lack of available ancillary
facilities such as library, store room, and computer laboratory; and the fact that there are a
lot of learners with wasted and severely wasted nutritional status.
The situation in our school is only a portion of the big problem on poor learning
outcome in our Division. If this deplorable situation will continue to happen and left
unaddressed. or to compound over time and become more severe and pronounced. It can
increase the chances that a learner will struggle academically and socially or drop out of
school. In addition, if foundational academic skills—such as reading, writing, and math, as
well as social and interpersonal skills—are not acquired by learners early on in their
education, it may be more difficult for them to learn these foundational skills later on. As
learners advance through their education, remediating learning gaps tends can become
more difficult because students may have fallen well behind their peers, or because middle
school or high school teachers may not have specialized training or expertise in teaching
foundational academic skills. For these and other reasons, the TCSD Office presented the
Learning Recovery Plan which leads schools to identify interventions and concrete action
steps based on their current level of recovery and readiness.
To address the identified challenges stated above, the Balingcanaway Centro
Elementary School crafted this Learning Recovery Plan which is aligned with KITE
Framework, the four Key Reform Areas of Sulong Edukalidad: (1) K to 12 Curriculum
review and update; (2) Improvement of learning environment (3) Teachers’ upskilling and
reskilling; and (4) Engagement of stakeholders for support and collaboration.

II. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORKS OF THE LEARNING
RECOVERY PLAN
The RAPID Learning Recovery Framework
The KITE Framework

Operational Framework
National Learning Recovery Framework

III. DASHBOARD:
Pillar 1: K-12 Curriculum Review and Update: Quality of
Learning Outcomes and Learning Delivery Modalities
Even before the pandemic, the review of the K-12 Basic Education Curriculum
has been on-going, however, the process has been fast track, which identified the 5,689
Most Essential Learning Competencies from the original 14,171 or 60% reduction.
This is done through retaining, merging, clustering, removing, rephrasing existing
competencies to address congestion and overlaps (DEPED MELCS, 2020).
K-12 Curriculum Review and Update is the first core component of Sulong
EduKalidad, our rallying call for a national effort for quality basic education. The first
pillar aims to produce a new breed of learners – learners who think critically. Critical
thinking is not about teaching our children to criticize. It is about breaking apart a
problem or an issue or a challenge, and using foundational and specialized knowledge
and skills, especially in Science, Technology, Engineering and Math (STEM), to find
solutions and innovations (Magtolis 2019). Likewise, it stresses on finding better ways
in adapting our curriculum in the future.
The data under this core component are the results of the assessment in
numeracy and literacy in English and Filipino, achievement rate of the school, learning
delivery modalities implemented and results of teachers’ IPCRF and other pertinent
data under Quality of Learning Outcomes.
DATA ON LITERACY IN ENGLISH
90
80 77
70
60
50
42
40
29
30
20
13
10 6 4
3
0
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary
0
School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 9
NOR-READER FRUSTRATION INSTRUCTIONAL INDEPENDENT
PRE-TEST POST TEST

Figure 1: Pre-test and Post Test Results of Philippine Informal Reading Inventory
(Phil-IRI) in Grade 4 SY 2019-2020
50
45
45
40
40
35
35
30 27
25
20 19
15
10 9
6
5 3
0
PRE-TEST POST TEST
(Phil-IRI) in Grade 5 SY 2019-2020
60
51
50
40
34
30 26
22
20 19
10 8
2
0
0
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning

PRE-TEST Recovery Plan
POST TEST 10
(Phil-IRI) in Grade 6, SY 2019-2020
176
180
160
140 116
120
100
74
80 59 61
60
40 23
11 3
20
0
PRE-TEST POST TEST
Figure 4: Summary of Pre-test and Post Test Results of Philippine Informal Reading
Inventory (Phil-IRI) in Key Stage 2, SY 2019-2020
Figure 4 shows the summary of pre-test and posttest results of Philippine Informal
Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) in Key Stage 2, for the SY 2019-2020. It can be gleaned from
the figure that from a total of 11 non-readers, it went down to only 3 or 72.72% decrease.
This result is attributable to the provision of some reading interventions activities and
remedial reading activities conducted by the teachers. The practice of remedial reading has
been in the limelight for a long time in the Philippine education sector. In fact, the study of
Genero (1976) presents how elementary schools and high schools in the country devised
their own remedial reading programs to assist struggling readers. He explains that the
principals of the schools encourage their teachers to assess their students reading level so
that they can provide the proper interventions for them. Although, remediation for
struggling readers has been practiced in the Philippines for decades, its optimization has
reached its prime only through the Department Order (DO) 45, series of 2002 – Reading
Literacy Program in the Elementary Schools and DO 27, s. 2005- Remedial Instruction
Programs in High School of the Philippine Department of Education (DepEd).
Similarly, the number of learners in the frustration level was decreased by 36 or
61.02% after the post test. However, the number of learners in the instructional level was
reduced from 116 to 61 or 47.41% decrease. This result is attributed to the intense rise of
the number of learners in the independent level as indicated by 104 or 57.95% significant
increase. It can be noted from the figure that there are still 3 or 1.15% non-readers at the
end of SY 2019-2020..
160 Stage 1
138 140
140
120
100
83
80 73
60 51
46
40
20
4 0
0
PRE-TEST POST TEST
Figure 5: Pretest and Posttest Results of Reading Assessment in Key Stage 1,

SY 2020-2021
160 Stage 2
138 140
140
120 112
100
83
80 73
60
46
40
20
4 0
0
PRE-TEST POST TEST

Figure 6: Pretest and Posttest Results of Reading Assessment in Key Stage 2,
SY 2020-2021

300
279 277
250
208
200
150 127 128
100
58
50
9 0
0
PRE-TEST POST TEST
Figure 7: Summary of Pretest and Posttest Results of Reading Assessment in Key

Stages 1 and 2, SY 2020-2021
In response to the Division Reading Program, GOALS (Gaining Outstanding

Achievements in Learning through Socially-distanced Reading Activities). in Reading
1.0, the school conducted the pretest and posttest reading assessment. The summary of
pretest and posttest results of the reading assessment conducted by the school during
the SY 2020-2021 is shown in Figure 7
.
The data show that the number of non-readers was reduced from 9 to 0 or
100% decrease. Similarly, the number of learners in the Frustration Level was also
decreased by 69 or 54.33%. Equally, a decrease of 2 learners or 0.72% occurred in
Instructional Level. On the other hand, the number of learners in the Independent
Level was increased by 80 or 62.50%.
The results of the data show that 38.31% of the learners in SY 2020-2021
could read independently and 51.01% out of the assessed learners are still in the
Instructional Level. However, there are still 58 or 10.68% learners fall under
Frustration Level.

Asessed Learners=84
NON-READER; 19; 23%

INDEPENDENT; 22; 26%
INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION; 10; 12% FRUSTRATION
NON-READER
INSTRUCTIONAL; 33; 39%
Figure 8: Pretest Results of Early Grades Reading Assessment in Grade 1,

SY 2021-2022
Assessed Learners=81
NON-READER; 18; 22%

INDEPENDENT; 22; 27%
INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION
FRUSTRATION; 15; 18% NON-READER

SY 2021-2022

NON-READER; 33; 29% INDEPENDENT; 29; 26%

INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION
NON-READER
FRUSTRATION; 20; 18%

SY 2021-2022
The table on the preceding page presents the summary of the pretest results of
the Early Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA) for Key Stage 1, SY 2021-2022. The
data show that out of the 285 assessed learners, 70 or 24.56% were found non-readers
and 45 or 15.79% of the learners fell under the Frustration Reading Level. Based on
the frequent classroom observations and close monitoring of the school head in the
conduct of the reading assessment, the results of having non-readers and the presence
of learners with frustration reading levels are attributable to the lack of ability in basic
reading and comprehension.
As stated by Tomas et al. (2021), the Philippines shared a significant rate of

low performers among all PISA-participating countries and economies. That is, 80%
of the Filipino students did not reach the minimum level of proficiency in reading.
Their poor scores in English, Mathematics and Science is attributable to the students’
lack of ability in the basic reading and comprehension. Being this case, the
Department of Education (DepEd) has launched the Hamon: Bawat Bata
Bumabasa (3Bs Initiatives), to intensify the advocacy for reading and by pledging
commitment to make every learner a reader at his/her grade level.
However, it could be seen in the table that 91 or 31.93% of the assessed

learners have an instructional reading level that has the highest obtained data while 73
or25.61% are found independent. These data imply that there are still more learners
who can read independently and those who profit the most from teacher-directed
instruction in reading.

.Table 1: Summary of Early Grades Reading Assessment
(EGRA) for Key Stage 1, SY 2021-2022
SY 2021-2022
GRADE M F T %
ENROLMENT
1 50 34 84
2 43 38 81
3 61 59 120
TOTAL 154 131 285
NON-READER
1 12 7 19
2 10 8 18
3 17 16 33
TOTAL 39 31 70 24.56
FRUSTRATION
1 4 6 10
2 10 4 14
3 15 12 20
TOTAL 30 15 45 15.79
INSTRUCTIONAL
1 21 12 33
2 14 13 27
3 15 16 31
TOTAL 50 41 91 31.93
INDEPENDENT
1 13 9 22
2 9 13 22
3 14 15 29
TOTAL 36 37 73 25.61
FRUSTRATION; 35; INDEPENDENT; 29;

34% 28%
INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION
NON-READER

SY 2021-2022
INDEPENDENT; 11;
20%
FRUSTRATION; 22;
39%
INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION
NON-READER
INSTRUCTIONAL; 23;
41%

SY 2021-2022
NON-READER; 1; 1% INDEPENDENT; 13;

14%
FRUSTRATION; 34;
37%
INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION
INSTRUCTIONAL; 45; NON-READER
48%

SY 2021-2022
Table 2: Summary of Early Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA) for Key Stage 2,
SY 2021-2022
SY 2021-2022
GRADE M F T %
ENROLMENT
4 51 38 89
5 31 25 56
6 56 37 93
TOTAL 138 100 238
NON-READER
4 0 0 0
5 0 0 0
6 1 0 1
TOTAL 1 0 1 0.42
FRUSTRATION
4 23 12 35
5 15 7 22
6 24 10 34
TOTAL 62 29 91 38.24
INSTRUCTIONAL
4 23 16 39
5 12 11 23
6 24 21 45
TOTAL 59 48 107 44.96
INDEPENDENT
4 5 10 15
5 4 7 11
6 7 6 13
TOTAL 16 23 39 16.39
Table 2 presents the summary of the pretest results of the Early Grades Reading
Assessment (EGRA) for Key Stage 2, SY 2021-2022. The data show that out of the 238
assessed learners, 1 or 0.42% was found non-reader and 91 or 38.24% of the learners fell
under the Frustration Reading Level.
Moreover, it could be gleaned in the table that 107 or 44.96% of the assessed
learners have an instructional reading level that has the highest obtained data while 39 or
16.39% are found independent.

The number of learners in the Frustration Reading level is very alarming that is
why the school created various reading intervention activities and project to address this
key challenge.
Table 3: Results of the Face-to-face Academic Profiling in Stage 1 using Early Grades
Reading Assessment (EGRA) Tool, SY 2021-2022
232
CAN PERFORM CANNOT PERFORM

216
194
191
153
145
142
141
141
129
128
116
116
115
112
104
66
63
41
25
n
e
e
ng
g
g
t
un
on
n
in
sio
dg
in
in
dg
io
di
Pr
ad
ad
So
ati
le
le
en
ns
co
ow
to
ow
Re
Re
ct
he
er
eh
De
Di
on
ett
Kn
Kn
re
d
pr
rd
or
ag
C8
p
ati
m
tL
nd
e
m
W
ss
Co
m
W
nt
rs
Co
ou
Pa
ar
a
ie
Fi
ed
g
rN
rS
-b
ili
Or
in
al
or
nt
m
en
C6
tte
Or
tte
C1
ve
g
Fa
st
in
Le
Le
-a
In
Li
nn
C4
C6
-a
C2
C5
gi
C7
C3
Figure 14: Summary of Performance of Key Stage 1 Learners in Early Grades Reading
Be
-b
Assessment (EGRA), SY 2021-2022

C3
Figure 14 shows the summary of performance of Key Stage 1 learners in Early

Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA) conducted during the Face-to-face Academic Profiling
in SY 2021-2022.
Based on the results, out of 257 assessed learners, 25 or 9.73% still could not
identify the correct way of reading (Component 1-Orientation to Print), 41or 15.95% could
not even name letters (Component 2-Letter Name Knowledge), 63 or 24.51% could not
identify letter sounds (Component 3a- Letter sounds Knowledge), and 66 or 25.68% could
not identify the beginning letter sounds (Component 3b- Beginning Letter Sound).

Moreover, 112 or 43.58% of learners could not even read familiar words
(Component 4-Familiar Word Reading), 115 or 44.75% could not decode invented
words (Component 5- Invented Word Decoding), 116 or 45.14% could not even read
a short passage (Component 6a-Oral Passage Reading), 116 or 45.14% failed to
answer the reading comprehension questions (Component 6b- Comprehension), 128 or
49.81% failed to answer listening comprehension, and 153 or 59.53% failed
Component 8, dictation.
These results clearly show that learners possess low reading skill in six
elements of reading oral language, phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension which are embedded in the Early Grades Reading
Assessment tool.
Assessed Learners 253

50
45
45
40 39
35 34
35
30
25 22 23
20 18
14 15
15
10
5 4 3
1
0
GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GRADE 6
NON READER FRUSTRATION INSTRUCTIONAL INDEPENDENT

Figure 15: Results of the Face-to-face Academic Profiling in Stage 2 using Phil-IRI Tool,
SY 2021-2022
The figure shows the results of the academic profiling for the face-to- face classes
using the Phil-IRI tool conducted in SY 2021-2022. Data show that out of 253 assessed
learners in the academic profiling, 8 or 3.16% of the learners are still Non-Readers while 91
or 35.97% of the assessed learners fell under the Frustration Level.
Conversely, 107 or 42.29% belong to instructional level while 47 which covers
18.58% are already independent readers.

61.94%
70.00%
59.53%
52.23%
60.00%
49.81%
47.77%
46.56%
46.56%
45.75%
45.14%
45.14%
44.75%
43.58%
50.00%
30.77%
40.00%
25.68%
25.10%
24.51%
30.00%
16.19%
15.95%
20.00%
10.03%
9.73%
10.00%
0.00%
2021-2022 DISTANCED ASSESSMENT 2021-2022 ACADEMIC PROFILING FACE
247 Learners Assessed TO FACE 257 Learners Assessed
C1 C2 C3A C3B C4 C5 C6A C6B C7 C8

Figure 16: Comparative Analysis of Early Grades Reading Assessment Results (EGRA)
for the Distance and Face-to-Face Reading Assessment, SY 2021-2022
The figure shows the results of the Comparative Analysis of Early Grades Reading
Assessment (EGRA) results for the Distance and Face-to- Face Modalities both conducted in
SY 2021-2022.
The results in assessing the reading status of Key Stage 1 learners uncover an
increasing pattern of “cannot perform” from the first component up to the last component.
Comparatively, for the decoding part of the assessment (Component 1- Orientation

to Print; Component 2-Letter Name Knowledge; Component 3a- Letter sounds Knowledge;
Component 3b- Beginning Letter Sound) both data display a common pattern of an
increasing number of learners that could not perform basic reading skills with 19.75%
combined.
Likewise, for the reading sight words, (Component 4-Familiar Word Reading;
Component 5- Invented Word Decoding; and Component 6a-Oral Passage Reading), both
data demonstrate that learners could not perform the said reading skills with 46.29% in
Distance Modality and 44.49% in Face-to-face.
Consistently for the comprehension parts (Component 6B-Reading Comprehension,
Component 7-Listening Comprehension, and Component 8- Dictation), a comparable pattern
of increase of the “could not perform learners” was also observed, almost 52% of learners
combined failed to answer comprehensions tests.
These results obviously display that there are really learning losses on literacy
particularly in the six elements of reading that were set in the Early Grades Reading
Assessment tool namely oral language, phonological awareness, phonics, vocabulary,
fluency, and comprehension.

44.96%
42.29%
38.24%
35.97%
50.00%
40.00%
18.58%
16.39%
30.00%
20.00%
3.15%
0.42%
10.00%
0.00%
d
d
se
se
es
es
s
ss
As
A
rs
rs
ne
ne
ar
ar
Le
Le
3
8
25
23
CE
T
FA
EN
TO
SM
CE
ES
FA
S
AS
NG
D
CE
NONREADERS FRUSTRATION ISTRUCTIONAL INDEPENDENT

ILI
AN
OF
ST
PR
DI
IC
Figure 17: Comparative Analysis of Early Grades Reading Assessment Results (EGRA)
2
EM
02
AD
for the Distance and Face-to-Face Reading Assessment, SY 2021-2022

-2
21
AC
20
2
02
-2
21
The figure shows the results of the Comparative Analysis of Early Grades Reading
20
Assessment (EGRA) results for the Distance and Face-to- Face Modalities both conducted in
SY 2021-2022.
Relatively, the data reflect a common pattern. Both have 0.42% and 3.15%
Nonreaders or 1 and 8 respectively and a noticeable close range of percentage, 38.24% and
35.97% under Frustration Level.
Likewise, a close range of percentage under Instructional Level was also observed
with 44.96% and 42.29% respectively which is almost similar with the Independent Level
with 16.39% and 18.58%.
These figures affirm that majority of the learners during the current school year
belong to the reading level wherein they found the reading material so hard to handle that
they could not even successfully respond to them. The same is true with the learners in the
Instructional Level, they could not respond correctly without the direction and supervision of
the teachers.

DATA ON LITERACY IN FILIPINO
SY 2019-2020 GRADE 1
SY 2019-2020 GRADE 2
60 40 38
56 55 36 35
52
49 35
50 32
30
40
25
30 20 18
25
15
20 17 12
10
10
4 5
2 2 1
0 0
INDEPENDENT INSTRUCTIONAL FRUSTRATION NON-READER INDEPENDENT INSTRUCTIONAL FRUSTRATION NON-READER
PRETEST POSTEST PRETEST POSTTEST
SY 2019-2020 GRADE 3 SY 2019-2020 GRADE 4

30 28
50
24 45 43
25 22 40 38
21 40 36
20 35
30
15 25
20
10 8 15 13
9
5 4 10
2 1 5 1 0
0 0
PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POST TEST
SY 2019-2020 GRADE 5 SY 2019-2020 GRADE 6

60 50
56
45 43
50
45 40 38 37 36
41 35
40 37
30
30 25
20
20
15 15
10
8 10
10 6
5
0 0 0 0
0 0
PRETEST POSTTEST PRETEST POSTTEST
Figures 18: Results of Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI) in Key Stage 1 &
2, SY 2019-2020
The figures above show the Phil-IRI results in terms of the Comprehension
Level of the assessed learners per grade level. (Grades 1 to 6). The results show
whether learners fall under Frustration, Instructional or Independent Levels.
This serves as the basis for the interventions that will be given to learners for
each reading level.

Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI)
Results in Key Stage 2, SY 2020 2021
PRETEST POSTTEST
120
110
102
100 97 96
80
60
44
40 37
20
2 1
0
INDEPENDENT INSTRUCTIONAL FRUSTRATION NON-READER
Figure 19: Pretest and Posttest Results of Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-
IRI) SY-2020-2021 in Filipino
The data in Figure 17 show the summary of reading level in Filipino. There was an
increase in the number of learners assessed in the Independent Level from 97 to 110 or
equivalent to 11.81%. Meanwhile, the Instructional level from 102 down to 96 or equivalent
to 5.88%, also it has been observed that there was a decrease in the Frustration Level from
44 to 37 equivalent to 15.91%. Lastly, the number of non-reader was decreased from 2 to 1
equivalent to 50%..
The results show that the interventions and remediation activities conducted by the
teachers were effective for there is an improvement in the essential skills in reading.

EARLY GRADES READING ASSESSMENT SY 2021-2022
Table 4: Early Grades Reading Assessment Results in Key Stage 1, SY 2021- 2022

246
227
201
198
193
176
174
157
155
144
104
102
85
83
76
66
61
58
32
13
n
e
e
t
ng
on
n
in
un
sio
in
in
dg
dg
io
di
Pr
ati
ad
ad
So
le
le
ns
en
co
to
ct
w
ow
Re
Re
he
eh
De
er
o
Di
on
Kn
Kn
e
ett
pr
pr
d
or
ag
C8
ati
m
or
tL
nd
e
m
W
ss
Co
am
nt
Co
rs
u
Pa
ar
ie
So
Fi
ed
ng
rN
-b
ili
Or
al
or
er
nt
ni
m
C6
Or
tte
C1
te
ett
ve
Fa
g
in
Le
Lis
-a
In
L
nn
C4
C6
C2
-a
C5
C7
gi
C3
Be
-b
C3
Figure 20: Results in EGRA SY 2021-2022 for Key Stage 1 Filipino

Figure 20 shows the summary of performance of Key Stage 1 learners in Early
Grades Reading Assessment (EGRA) conducted in SY 2021-2022. This assessment is
anchored to the Division reading program, GOALS in Reading 2.0 (Gaining Outstanding
Achievements in Learning through Socially-distanced Reading activities) and aligned to the
implementation guidelines stipulated in Regional Memorandum No. 289, s. 2021,
Implementation Guidelines of Hamon: Bawat Bata Bumabasa.

Data reveal that there are 13 learners or 5.02% who cannot perform component 1
(Orientation to Print) while there are still 32 or 12.36% who cannot perform the competency
in component 2 (Letter Name Knowledge). For component C3-a (Letter Sound Knowledge),
there are 61 learners or 23.55% who cannot perform the task. Likewise, 58 learners or
22.39% cannot perform beginning or first letter sound task.
Out of 259, there are still 83 learners or 32.05% who cannot perform Component 4
(Familiar Word Reading), for component 5 (Invented Word Decoding), there are still 102 or
39.38% who cannot perform the task and a total of 85 learners or 32.82% cannot also
perform component C6-a (Oral Passage Reading).
The data also show that there are 104 learners or 40.15% who cannot perform
component 6-b (Comprehension) and 66 learners or 25.43% cannot also perform component
7 (Listening Comprehension) while 76 or 29.34% cannot perform dictation (C8).
Summary Results of Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil IRI) in

Key Stage 2, SY 2021-2022
GRADE 4
FRUSTRATION;
12; 12%
NON-READER; 2; 2%
INDEPENDENT
INSTRUCTIONAL
FRUSTRATION
INSTRUCTIONAL; INDEPENDENT; NON-READER
29; 30% 55; 56%
Figure 21: Pre-test Results in Phi-IRI Grades 4 to 6, SY 2021-2022

The data in Figure 21 display the results in the pre-test of the Phil-IRI for
Stage 2, SY 2021-2022. Out of the 254 assessed learners, 144 or 56.69.% are
Independent Readers, 76 or 29.92.% are Instructional Readers, 30 or equivalent to
15% are in Frustration level and 4 or 1% are Non-readers. The data affirm that
majority of the learners in Stage are independent readers.
Majority of the assessed learners in Grade 4 fall under Independent and Instructional
Levels respectively comprising 86% (56% for Independent and 30% for the Instructional
Level). Out of the 98 assessed learners in Grade 4, 12% are in Frustration Level and the
remaining 2% are Non-readers.

GRADE 5
FRUSTRATION; 7; INDEPENDENT
11% NON-READER; 1; 2%
INSTRUCTIONAL; 18; INSTRUCTIONAL
29% FRUSTRATION
INDEPENDENT; 37; NON-READER
59%
GRADE 6
FRUSTRATION; 11; INDEPENDENT

12% NON-READER; 1; 1%
INSTRUCTIONAL
INDEPENDENT; 52;
56% FRUSTRATION
INSTRUCTIONAL; 29; NON-READER
31%
The data presented in the pie charts in the preceding page and above show the results
in the pre-test of the Phil-IRI for the School Year 2021-2022. The same trend is ascertained
among the assessed learners in Grades 5 and 6.
Out of the 156 assessed learners in grades 5 and 6, 89 or 57.05% of learners are
Independent Readers, 47 or 30.13% are Instructional Readers, 18 or 11.54% are in
Frustration level and 2 or 1.28% are Non-readers.

The results show that the interventions given to learners were effective for there is a
significant improvement in the essential skills in reading
Face-to-face Academic Profiling in Key Stage 1, SY 2021-2022
Table 5: Academic Profiling Results in Key Stage 1, SY 2021-2022

Results of the Face-to-face Academic Profiling using Early Grades Reading
Assessment (EGRA) Tool in Filipino, SY 2021-2022

226
215
190
184
162
145
141
138
138
130
129
121
121
118
114
97
75
69
44
33
n
e
e
ng
g
g
t
on
n
in
un
in
sio
in
dg
dg
s io
di
Pr
ati
ad
ad
So
le
le
en
co
en
to
ct
ow
Re
Re
ow
eh
De
er
eh
Di
on
Kn
Kn
ett
pr
pr
d
or
ag
C8
ati
m
or
tL
nd
m
e
ss
Co
am
nt
Co
rs
ou
Pa
ar
ie
Fi
ed
ng
rN
-b
rS
ili
Or
al
or
nt
ni
m
C6
tte
Or
tte
C1
te
ve
Fa
g
in
Le
Le
-a
Lis
In
nn
C4
C6
-a
C2
C5
C7
gi
C3
Be
-b
C3
Figure 22: Results of the Academic Profiling for the Face-to-Face Learners in Key Stage
1, SY 2021-2022
The data show the Academic Profiling results for the Key Stage 1 (EGRA). A
total of 259 learners were assessed.
The figures clearly show the number of learners who can perform the different
components from C1 to C8 of the Reading Assessment Out of 259 assessed learners,
33 or 12.74% cannot perform the component 1 (Orientation to Print). In terms of
component 2 (Letter Name knowledge), 44 or 16.99% are unable to perform.
Figures on Components 4, 5, 6a, 6b, 7, and 8 show a large percentage of

assessed learners who cannot perform with an average record of 49.23%. These
components are the Familiar Word Reading, Invented Word Decoding, Oral Passage
Reading, Comprehension, Listening Comprehension, and Dictation.
These facts indicate that the learners in grades 1 to 3 have not mastered the
critical skills in reading. This condition is attributable to the effect of pandemic, where
learners perform their school works at home with no one could supervise them in their
studies. In cases where there available learning facilitators, most of these facilitators do not
have formal education on how to facilitate the learning process. The previous statement
was supported by F. Kintanar et al. in their research findings. They disclosed that , it may
be constructed that learning at home offers a very serious problem to the children and
as well as the parents. It is very clear that parents are highly unfavorable in the new
mode of learning as they have seen that their children lack focus and motivation in
answering and completing their modules. Parents stated that their children's learning
motives had diminished.
On the other hand, the data in Figure 22 also indicate that the assessed learners
in grades 1 to 3 can perform better in components 1, 2, 3, and 3b.
Results of the Face-to-face Academic Profiling in Key Stage 2, using
Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI), SY 2021-2022
Academic Profiling ResultsKey Stage 2

60
55
52
50
40 37
29 29
30
20 18
12 11
10 7
2
0 0
0
GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GRADE 6
Figure 21: Academic Profiling Results in Key Stage 2, SY 2021-2022

The data above display the Academic Profiling for the Face-to-Face Learners
in Phil-IRI (Key Stage 2). It also shows that out of 238 assessed learners, 144 or
60.50% belong to Independent level which has the highest recorded percentage.
Followed by Instructional Level with 76 or 31.93% learners and Frustration level with
a total learners of 30 or 12.61%. Lastly, only 2 or 0.84% are assessed non-readers.

Comparative Analysis of Early Grades Reading Assessment Results
(EGRA) for the Distance and Face-to-Face Reading Assessment,
SY 2021-2022
120
102 104
100
83 85
80 76
66
61 58
60
40 32
20 13
0
KEY STAGE 1 Assessed Learners:259
C1 C2 C3-A C3-B C4 C5 C6-A C6-B C7 C8
Academic Profiling (Face-to-Face)
180
162
160
140 129
118 121 121
120 114
100
80 75
69
60
44
40 33
20
0
KEY STAGE 1 Assessed Learners:259
C1 C2 C3-A C3-B C4 C5 C6-A C6-B C7 C8
Figure 22: Comparative Analysis of the Two Results using EGRA Tool (Distance and
Face-to- Face Reading Assessment)
The data above show a similar pattern among the results in the Key Stage 1 in
reading in Filipino using EGRA Tool. It can be noticed that there is an increasing
pattern on the number of learners who cannot perform the components from 1 to 8.
Particularly, for the decoding part of the EGRA Tool ( C1-Orientation to Print, C2-
Letter Name Knowledge, C3A-Letter Sounds, C3B-Beginning Letter Sound, the

recorded average percentage that cannot perform the components, both for distance
and face to face learners is 18.58%. Under the Reading Sight Words (C4- Familiar
Word Reading, C5-Invented Word Decoding, C6A-Oral Passage Reading), the
recorded average percentage that cannot perform the components is 40.09%.
Moreover, under the Comprehension Parts (C6B-Reading Comprehension, C7-

Listening Comprehension, C8-Dictation), the recorded average percentage that cannot
perform the components is 42.34% both for distance and face to face learners.
Comparative Analysis of Philippine Informal Reading Inventory (Phil-IRI)

Results for the Distance and Face-to-Face Reading Assessment,
SY 2021-2022
DISTANCED ASSESSMENT
160 148
140
120
100
84
80
60
40
20
20
1
0
Figure 23: Phil-IRI Results in Key Stage 2 through Distance Reading Assessment,
SY 2021 - 2022

FACE TO FACE READING ASSESSMENT
140 132
120
100
80 73
60
40 31
20
1
0
Figure 24: Phil-IRI Results in Key Stage 2 through Distance Reading Assessment,
SY 2021 - 2022
The two graphs above show the same trend in the results of the reading
assessment among Grades 4-6 both in the distance and face-to-face learning. Both
graphs show that almost 80% of the assessed learners are categorized as instructional
and independent learners respectively.
For the Independent Level, both learning modalities show an average of 43%
while 38% fell under the Instructional Level.
Moreover, an average of 16.83% of the assessed learners in both distance and

face-to-face learning modalities fell under the Frustration Level and an average of
1.58% are under the Non-Reader Level for both modalities.
These imply that learning gaps in reading should be addressed in order to

improve the performance of the learners.

Comparative Data on Achievement Rate
89
87.45
88
88 86.68
86.43
86.37
86.6
87
86.14
86.05
86.05
85.96
85.94
85.83
85.76
85.55
85.54
85.48
85.28
85.27
86
85.01
84.89
84.85
84.61
84.56
84.41
84.16
85
84.4
84.12
84.3
83.28
83.25
84
83
82
81
80
H
E
CE
IS H
O
PE
L
N
P/T
ICS
IEN
IPI
GL
MA
AN
T
EP
FIL
SC
ING
D
EN
MA
SE
UN
AO
AT
BA
HE
LIP
ER
T
KA
UE
MA
PA
AG
PA
NG
PA
ER
ING
TO
AG
AV
AL
ER
AP
AL
TH
AR
FIN
NS
MO
YO
AS
UK
ED
2018-2019 2019-2020 2020-2021
Figure 25: Comparative Data on Achievement Rate for the last three years
The Figure above shows the Comparative Data on Achievement Rate of the
learners in Stages 1 and 2 of Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School. It is noted
that the Final Achievement Rate of the school during the School Year 2020-2021 was
decreased by 1.07% compared with the final achievement rate in School Year 2019-
2020. This result is attributable to the fact that learners become more active, attentive
and diligent in studies if they are taught by real teachers in the face to face classes.
Likewise, the data for the last two school years, SY 2019-2020 and SY 2020-
2021 show a decreasing pattern in all learning areas. It can be gleaned from the figure
that the ratings in the four major learning areas Filipino, English, Mathematics and
Science got the lowest rating in School Year 2020-2021. These results greatly affected
the final achievement rating and the academic performance of the school.
According to Johann Heinrich Pestalozzi, a Swiss educator, in any elementary

curriculum, the success of attaining the objectives is relied on giving emphasis on
reading and writing skills, arithmetic skills, and basic social studies and science. To
address this issue, the school conducted some intervention programs and activities this
school year 2021-2022. Some of the activities we conducted are the following:
1. Conducting In-Service Training/SLAC /Seminars/Trainings for teachers,

2. Production and reproduction of instructional materials such as Strategic
Intervention Materials for Science , MathDOKU puzzles for Mathematics, and
Big Books and Flash Cards for English, and Filipino.
3. Close monitoring and supervision of the school and conducting of classroom
observations.
4. Enhancing the implementation of Reading Program Project and Project
SALAMath’
The Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School is optimistic and hopeful that the Final
Achievement Rate will be increased by at least 1.5% at the end of School Year 2021-2022.
DATA ON NUMERACY
Numeracy is the ability to understand, reason with, and to apply simple

numerical concepts. Basic numeracy skills consist of comprehending fundamental
arithmetical operations like addition, subtraction, multiplication, and
division. Wikipedia
While much of the teaching of concepts and skills to support numeracy happens in the
mathematics learning area, it is strengthened as students take part in activities that connect their
learning in the mathematics classroom within the context of other curriculum areas. While much of the
teaching of concepts and skills to support numeracy happens in the mathematics learning area, it is
strengthened as students take part in activities that connect their learning in the mathematics classroom
within the context of other curriculum areas.
As they move through their years of schooling, students are exposed to

mathematical understanding, fluency, problem solving and reasoning. These
capabilities allow students to respond to familiar and unfamiliar situations by
employing mathematics to make informed decisions and solve problems efficiently
(VCAA, 2017). There is also evidence that other areas of development, such as
resilience and perseverance, support achievement in numeracy.
However, if the learners fail to learn the essential skills in numeracy, they tend
to develop difficulties in learning simple to more complex Math concepts. If this is the
case, they need to be assessed in order to determine their numeracy level and to
develop appropriate intervention/remediation programs.
The Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School utilized the Project All

Numerates tool in assessing and identifying the numeracy level of the learners. The
results and findings of the assessment conducted are presented in the subsequent
pages.

NUMERACY PROFILE OF THE LEARNERS IN STAGES 1 AND 2, SY
2019-2020
TOTAL ENROLMENT=557
NON-NUMERATES; 37
NUMERATES; 181
NEARLY NU-
MERATES; 339
NUMERATES NEARLY NUMERATES NON-NUMERATES
Figure 26: Numeracy Profile of the Grades 1 to 6 Learners, SY 2019-2020
The data above show the 2019-2020 numeracy profile of learners in Stages 1
and 2 using Project All Numerates Tool.
It also shows that out of the 557 learners assessed, 339 or 60.86% were found
nearly numerates while 181 or 32.50% were confirmed numerates. Lastly, 37 or
6.67% of the learners were affirmed non-numerates.
NUMERACY PROFILE OF THE LEARNERS IN STAGES 1 AND 2 SY 2020-

2021
TOTAL ENROLMENT=543
NEARLY
NUMER- NON-NUMERATES; 13
ATES; 58
NUMERATES;
472

Figure 27: Numeracy Profile of the Grades 1 to 6 Learners SY 2020-2021
Figure 27 show the 2020-2021 numeracy profile of learners in Stages 1 and 2

using Project All Numerates Tool.
It also shows that out of the 543 learners assessed, 473 or 87.12% were found
numerates while 58 or 10.68% were affirmed nearly numerates. Moreover, only 13 or
2.39% of the learners were confirmed non-numerates.
NUMERACY PROFILE OF THE LEARNERS IN STAGE 1 AND 2 SY

2021-2022
TOTAL ENROLMENT=540
NON-NUMERATES; 8
NEARLY NU-
MERATES; 130
NUMERATES; 402
Figure 28: Results in Pretest Numeracy Assessment of the Grades 1 to 6

Learners SY 2021 – 2022
The data above present the 2021-2022 results of the Pretest numeracy
assessment of learners in Stages 1 and 2 using the Project All Numerates Tool.
The figures show that out of the 540 learners assessed, 339 or 60.86% were
found nearly numerates while 181 or 32.50% were confirmed numerates. Lastly, 37 or
6.67% of the learners were affirmed non-numerates. This result implies that majority
of the learners exhibit competence in basic numeracy skills, reading and writing
numbers, problem solving and computational skills. However, there are still a
considerable number of learners who are struggling in the three key components.
Accordingly, there is a need for them to undergo intervention to attain mastery and to
strengthen their numeracy skills.

TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSESSED LEARNERS CANNOT PERFORM
300
265 265 265
250
197
200
150
111
98
100
50
0
BASIC NUMERACY READING AND WRITING COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS
AND PROBLEM SOLVING
Figure 29: Results in Numeracy Assessment for Key Stage 1 (Academic Profiling of
Face-to-Face learners)
Figure 29 shows that 197 learners or 74.34% of the total learners assessed in
Grades 1 to 3 need to undergo remediation in problem solving and computational
skills, 111 or 41.89% in Reading and Writing skills, and 98 learners or 36.98% in
counting of numbers in English and Filipino.
The three key components included in the assessment include basic numeracy,
reading and writing, and computational skills and problem-solving skills. The basic
numeracy refers to the ability of the learner to count and perform the four fundamental
operations. Reading and Writing is the ability of the learner to identify numeric
symbols and write them in words and symbols. This is an important skill that a learner
must have because this can help them analyze, interpret, and even communicate
mathematical ideas. Computational skills and problem-solving skills require the
application of the four fundamental operations and the ability of the
learner to identify a problem, determine its cause and figure out all possible solutions to solve
a problem. These are the needed skills that a learner for Key Stage 1 must possess and master
to develop understanding and explain the processes used to arrive at solutions, rather than
remembering and applying a set of procedures.

TOTAL NUMBER OF ASSESSED LEARNERS CANNOT PERFORM
250 231 231 231
200
160
138 146
150
100
50
0
READING AND WRITING COMPUTATIONAL SKILLS PROBLEM SOLVING
Figure 29: Results in Numeracy Assessment for Key Stage 2 (Academic Profiling of
Face-to-Face learners)
Likewise, the second Key Stage has three components. The first key
component of the assessment tool used for Grades 4 to 6 is Reading and Writing or the
ability of the learner to identify numeric symbols and write them in words and
symbols. Second key component is computational skill which is the ability of a learner
to calculate and perform addition, subtraction, multiplication, and division. The third
and last component included in the tool is problem solving which is the ability of the
learner to solve daily life problems by applying their mathematical knowledge and
skill.
Figure 29 shows results in Numeracy Assessment for Key Stage 2. Out of

the 231 assessed learners, there are 146 or 63.20% who do not have mastery in
problem solving and 160 or 69.26% learners scored below 80% in computational
skills and 138 or 59.74% in reading and writing. This implies the need to intensify the
conduct of intervention/ remediation activities to further strengthen the skills in the
three components.

402
472
339
500 58
450
400 130
181
350
37
300
13
250
8
200
150
100
50
0
2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
Figure 30: Comparative Analysis of Data on Early Grades Mathematics Assessment

Results in Stages 1 and 2
The figure shows the Comparative Analysis of Data on Early Grades

Mathematics Assessment Results in Stages 1 and 2 for the last 3 years.
Comparatively, there is no observable pattern on the number of assessed

learners in the two levels of numeracy (numerates and nearly numerates) for the last
three years. It is either increasing or decreasing. However, it can be gleaned from the
graph that there is a decreasing trend in the number of non-numerates for the last three
years. From 37 learners in 2019-2020, it was decreased to 13 which is equivalent to
64.86% decrease in 2020-2021. Similarly, from 13 non-numerates in 2020-2021, it
was decreased to 8 non-numerates in SY 2021-2022 or equivalent to 38.46% decrease.
The decreasing pattern of non-numerates in the last three years confirms the
significant results of the different intervention activities and projects conducted by the
school.

DATA ON PROCESS SKILLS IN SCIENCE
KEY STAGE 1- GRADE 3 SCIENCE
Table 6: Number and Percentage of Unmastered Competencies for Grade 3

Science
Total No. of Number of

School Year Competencies Unmastered Percentage
Competencies
2020 - 2021 20 9 45%

2021 - 2022 16 9 56.25%
25
20
20
16
15
10 9 9
0
2020-2021 2021-2022
TOTAL NUMBER OF COMPETENCIES LEARNERS

NUMBER OF UNMASTERED COMPETENCIES
Figure 31: Number of Unmastered competencies in Science Grade 3
The data above show the number and percentage of unmastered competencies
in Grade 3 Science from SY 2020 -2021 to SY 2021- 2022. The Most Essential
Learning Competencies (MELCs) were adopted beginning in SY 2020-2021 with 20
competencies.
For SY 2020-2021 Q1 to Q4, there were 9 out of 20 or 45% competencies not

learned and 9 unmastered competencies out of 16 or 35% from Q1 to Q3 of SY 2021-
2022. The science process skills that are embedded in the unmastered competencies
include observing, classifying and comparing and contrasting.

Table 7: Number and Percentage of Unmastered Competencies in Grade 4

Science

Competencies
2020 - 2021 23 11 47.83%

2021 - 2022 16 8 50%
25
23
20
16
15
11
10 9
0
2020-2021 2021-2022

Figure 32 Number of Unmastered competencies in Science Grade 4
Table 7 and Figure 32 are on the number and percentage of unmastered

competencies in Grade 4 Science from SY 2020-2021 to SY 2021-2022. The Most
Essential Learning Competencies (MELCs) were adopted beginning in SY 2020-2021
with 23 competencies. The data reveal that there were 11 unmastered competencies
out of 23 from Q1 to Q4 for SY 2020 – 2021 that accounts for 47.83% and 8
unmastered competencies out of 16 or 50% from Q1 to Q3 of SY 2021-2022. The
science process skills that are embedded in the unmastered competencies from Q1 to
Q3 for SY 2021-2022.include observing, classifying, comparing and contrasting,

inferring and communicating.

Science

Competencies
2020 - 2021 20 10 50%

2021 - 2022 16 9 56.25%
25
20
20
16
15
10
10 9
0
2020-2021 2021-2022

Table 8 and Figure 33 present the number and percentage of unmastered competencies
in Grade 5 Science from SY 2020-2021 to SY 2021-2022. The Most Essential Learning
Competencies (MELCs) were adopted beginning in SY 2020-2021 with 20 competencies. The
data reveal that there were 10 unmastered competencies out of 20 from Q1 to Q4 for SY 2020
– 2021 that accounts for 50% and 9 unmastered competencies out of 16 or 56.25% from Q1
to Q3 of SY 2021-2022. The science process skills that are embedded in the unmastered

competencies from Q1 to Q3 for SY 2021-2022.include classifying, comparing, and
contrasting, inferring and predicting, and communicating.

Science

Competencies
2020 - 2021 15 7 46.67%

2021 - 2022 10 5 50%
16 15
14
12
10
10
8 7
6 5
4
0
2020-2021 2021-2022

The data above show the number and percentage of unmastered competencies
in Grade 6 Science from SY 2020 -2021 to SY 2021- 2022. The Most Essential
Learning Competencies (MELCs) were adopted beginning in SY 2020-2021 with 15
competencies.

For SY 2020-2021 Q1 to Q4, there were 7 out of 15 or 46.67% competencies
not learned and 5 unmastered competencies out of 10 or 50% from Q1 to Q3 of SY
2021-2022. The science process skills that are embedded in the unmastered
competencies include comparing and contrasting, inferring, communicating and
making models.
COMPARATIVE DATA ON TEACHERS’ IPCRF RATINGS
18
16
16 15
14 13
12
10
8
8
6
6 5
4
2
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
0
OUTSTANDING VERY SATISFACTORY SATISFACTORY UNSATISFACTORY POOR
SY 2018-2019 SY 2019-2020 SY 2020-2021
Figure 35: Comparative Data on teachers’ Individual Performance

Commitment and Review Form (IPCRF)
Prominently, there is an increasing pattern on the number of teachers who got

outstanding performance from school year 2018-2019 to 2020-2021. On the contrary,
the number of teachers who were rated very satisfactory from school year 2018-2019
to 2020-2021 formed a decreasing pattern. Majority of the teachers got very
satisfactory ratings for the last three school years. Fortunately, there is no recorded
data on the other three descriptive ratings (Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory and Poor) of
the IPCRF.
DATA ON LEARNING MODALITIES IMPLEMENTED
SY 2020-2021 SY 2021-2022
586 597

48 48
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Figure 36: Data on Learning Delivery Modalities Implemented

The data in Figure 36 show the Learning Delivery Modalities Implemented
during the school year 2020-2021 to 2021-2022. Modular Distance Learning got the
largest number with 586 or 92.43% participants during the school year 2020-2021.
It was on this year where Covid 19 emerged in the Philippines . A lot of
changes happened in the educational landscape. The shift of the teaching-learning
delivery in schools to modular distance learning made more challenging on the part of
the school personnel in the delivery of basic quality education. The COVID-19 crisis
has obliged most education systems to adopt alternatives to face-to-face teaching and
learning. Many education systems moved activities online, to allow instruction to
continue despite school closures (OECD, 2020). But the teachers, parents and learners
preferred the Modular Distance Learning as the mode of delivering instructions
because modular is more convenient if to consider the engagement capacity of
children.
As cited by Anzaldo (2021) in her research, Modular Distance Learning is
much accessible for the kind of pupils in the community. It can cater pupils who
cannot afford gadgets and internet connectivity that will be used in online class
As indicated in the graph, only 48 or 7.57% of the total enrolment participated
in the Blended Distance during that school year 2020-2021.
In contrast, Face to Face Instruction got the highest number with 597 or
92.46% participants during the school year 2021-2022. While Modular Distance
Learning was participated by only 48 or 7.44% learners.
EQUITY AND QUALITY IMPROVEMENT INDICATORS
Table 10 : Equity and Quality Improvement Indicators
INDICATORS SY 2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
TEACHER-PUPIL RATIO 1:30 1:30 1:31

TEACHER-CLASS RATIO 21:23 21:23 21:23
CLASS-CLASSROOM 23:22 23:22 23:22

RATIO
PUPIL-TEXTBOOK 1:2 1:2 1:2

RATIO
PROPORTION OF 23.81% or 28.57 % or 28.57 % or

TEACHER WITH
5 out of 21 6 out of 21 6 out of 21
GRADUATE DEGREES
The data on Equity and Quality Improvement Indicators demonstrate that the
pupil textbook ratio is considerably beyond the planning standard. It can be deduced
that there are not enough textbooks for the pupils in all learning areas in all grade
levels. Likewise, the ideal teacher-pupil ratio in the elementary level is 1:40 for
Grades I-III and 1:45 for Grades V and VI. Based on the given data, the teacher-pupil
ratio still meets the national standard except for the Kindergarten. This implies that the
school is in need of one nationally funded teacher.
The standard class-classroom ratio is 1:1. The table shows that the school’s
class-classroom ratio is 23:22. This means the school meet the national standard..
Moreover, the proportion/percentage of teachers with graduate degrees for the school
year 2021-2022 is 28.57% or 6 out 21.

Pillar 2: Support to the Learning Environment: Access, Equity and
Inclusion in Education
COMPARATIVE DATA ON ENROLMENT
647
632634
SY 2019-2020 SY 2020-2021 SY 2021-2022
130 126 120

74 88108 75 81 97 100 90 100 10192 85 97 93
63 55 56 62
KINDER GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADE 5 GRADE 6 TOTAL

GARTEN
Figure 37: Comparative Data on Enrolment

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School (BCES) registered a total enrolment
of 632 learners during the school year 2019-2020 broken down as follows:
Kindergarten, 74; Grade I, 130; Grade II, 75; Grade III, 97; Grade IV, 55; Grade V,
90; and Grade VI, 101. Likewise for school year 2020-2021, the registered total
enrolment is 634 and 647 for school year 2021-2022.
Based on the given data, the enrolment of BCES for the last three years
significantly formed an increasing pattern. There was an increase of 2 learners or
0.31% from school year 2019-2020 to 2020-2021 and 13 learners or 2.05% increase
from school year 2020-2021 to 2021-2022. An average of 1.18 percentage increase in
enrolment was recorded for the last three year
COMPARATIVE DATA ON ENROLMENT PER KEY STAGE

2019-2020 2020-20212 2021-2022
647
634
632
392
245
389
255
356
700
276
600
500
400
300
200
100
0
1st KEY STAGE 2ND KEY STAGE TOTAL
Figure 37: Comparative Data on Enrolment Per Key Stage
The data show the comparison of enrolment per Key Stage during the last three years. It can
be noted that the number of learners in Key Stage 1 (Kindergarten to Grade 3) is greater than the
number of learners in Key Stage 2 in every school year. Likewise, the enrolments in Key Stage 1
during the last three years present an increasing pattern while the enrolments in Key Stage 2 do not
show an observable pattern.
Moreover, it is visible that in Stage 1 during the school year 2021-2022 has the highest
recorded enrolment while in stage 2 of the same year has the lowest recorded enrolment.
COMPARATIVE DATA ON TRANSFERRED LEARNERS FROM

PRIVATE TO PUBLIC SCHOOLS
15
13
SY 2020-2021 SY 2021-2022
4
2 2 2 2 2
1 1 1 1 1

GARTEN
3.
Figure 38: Comparative Data on Transferred Learners from Private to Balingcanaway

Centro Elementary School (BCES)
The data in Figure 38 show the number of learners in all grade levels who
transferred to BCES during the school year 2020-2021 to 2021-2022. In school year
2020-2021, there were 13 recorded transferees. The highest number of transferees
during this school year was recorded in Grade 3 with 4 or 30.77% of total number of
the transferees followed by Grade 2 with 3 or 23.08%.
Moreover, in school year 2021-2022, the number of transferees was increased
from t3 to 15 or 15.38% percentage increase. Both Grade 2 and Grade 4 got the
highest number of transferees with 2 or 13.33% of the total transferees.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS – ACCESS
Table 11: School Performance Indicators on ACCESS
EFA SCHOOL TARGET

2019- 2020- 2021-
INDICATORS TARGET
2020 2021 2022
2022-2023 2022-2023 2023-2024
GROSS ENROLMENT 100.00% 90.24 91.67 93.10 100.00% 100.00%

RATIO
NET ENROLMENT 98.00% 93.96 93.23 94.91 98.00% 100.00%

RATIO/PARTICIPATION
RATE
APPARENT/GROSS 98.00% 92.85 92.59 95.29% 98.00% 100.00%

INTAKE RATE
NET INTAKE RATE 90.00% 85.00 85.19 89.41 90.00% 100.00%

The data show that there is an increasing pattern in the net intake rate and gross
enrolment ratio for the last three years. On the other hand, there is no observable
pattern in the net enrolment ratio or participation rate and apparent intake rate. It is
either increasing or decreasing.
The school’s net enrolment ratio or participation rate, gross enrolment ratio is
increasing every school year. This implies that the school has intensified its program,
projects and activities for the Improvement of ACCESS. Lastly, the participation rate
of the school almost meets the EFA Target.
School Performance Indicators on ACCESS

94.91
93.23
95.29
93.96
92.59
91.67
92.85
93.1
90.24
89.41
85.19
100.00
85.00
95.00
90.00
85.00
80.00
75.00
GROSS ENROLMENT PARTICIPATION RATE APPARENT/GROSS NET INTAKE RATE
RATIO INTAKE RATE
2019-2020 2020-2021 2021-2022
Figure 39: Comparative Data on School Performance Indicators on ACCESS
The graph above shows the Comparative Data on School Performance

Indicators on ACCESS.
Gross Enrolment Ratio measures the general level of participation of young children
in early childhood development programs. It indicates the capacity of the education system to
prepare young children for elementary education. It is also used to measure the extent of over-
aged and under-aged enrolment.
It is noted that the Gross Enrolment Ratio of the school for the last three years
presented an increasing pattern. It was increased by 1.43% in SY 2020-2021 compare with
SY 2019-2020. Likewise, a minimal increase of 1.47% was recorded during the School Year
2021-2022 compared with the gross Enrolment Ratio in School Year 2020-2021,
Participation Rate provides a more precise measurement of the extent of participation

in education of children belonging to the official school age.

The participation rates of the school for the last three years do not have an observable
pattern. It is either increasing or decreasing. During the school 2020-2021, the participation
rate of the school was decreased by 1.43%. This result is due to the presence of pandemic.
However, during the school year 2021-2022, it was increased by 1.43%. This effect implies
that the school successfully complied with the requirements for school safety.
The Apparent Intake Rate reflects the general level of access to primary education. It
also indicates the capacity of the education system to provide access to grade 1 for the official
school-entrance age population. It is used as a substitute for Net Intake Rate in the absence of
data on new entrants by single years of age.
Based on the data presented in Figure 38, the Apparent Intake Rates of the school in
the last three years do not present an observable pattern. It was decreased by 0.26% in SY
2020-2021 and it was increased by 2.7% in 2021-2022. This increase implies that the school
was able to strengthen its program, projects and activities for the Improvement of ACCESS.
Net Intake rate gives a more precise measurement of access to primary education of
the eligible, primary school-entrance age population than the Apparent Intake Rate.
https://divmalaboncity.weebly.com/uploads/.
The net intake rates of the school for the last three years show no observable pattern
but it presented a significant increase of 4.22% during the school year 2021-2022.
PERFORMANCE INDICATORS– EFFICIENCY

Table 12: School Performance Indicators on EFFICIENCY
INDICATORS 2019- 2020- 2021- EFA

2020 2021 2022 TARGET
COHORT SURVIVAL RATE 83.33 97.98 96.88 83.00
PROMOTION RATE 96.43 100 100 100.00
REPETITION RATE 0 0 0 0.00
RETENTION RATE 97.71 99.58 100 100.00
SCHOOL LEAVER RATE 0 0 0 0
COMPLETION RATE 83.33 100 100 75.27
GRADUATION RATE 100 100 100 100.00

Figure 40: School Performance Indicators on Efficiency
Table 10 and Figure 40 show the Performance Indicators of Balingcanaway
Centro Elementary School for the last three years.
It can be gleaned from the table that the promotion rate, graduation rate,
repetition rate, completion rate and drop-out rate of the school for the last three years
meet the EFA Targets or planning standard. However, the data on cohort survival rate
illustrate no observable pattern which is either increasing or decreasing.
The completion rate and cohort survival rate of the school for the last three
years meet the EFA target. This is attributable to the zero drop-out projects and
interventions implemented by the school.
INVENTORY OF SCHOOL PERSONNEL
INVENTORY OF PERSONNEL SY 2021-2022

NON-TEACH-
ING; 4; 16%
TEACHING; 21;
84%
TEACHING NON-TEACHING
Figure 40: Inventory of School Personnel

The graph above shows the distribution of personnel of Balingcanaway Centro
Elementary School. The school is comprised of 21 or 84% teaching personnel and 4 or
16% non-teaching personnel. Out of the twenty-one (21) teachers, there are eleven
(11) or 52.38% Teacher I, three (3) or 14.29% Teacher II, six (6) or 28.57% Teacher
III and only one (1) or 4.76% Master Teacher. Moreover, out of the four (4) non-
teaching personnel, there are two (2) utility workers, one (1) administrative officer and
one (1) school principal.
Table 13. Teacher Distribution by Stages
Grade Level No. of Teachers

Kindergarten 2
Grade 1 3
Grade 2 3
Grade 3 4
Grade 4 3
Grade 5 2
Grade 6 4
Grand Total 21
The table shows the distribution of teachers by grade level. Out of the twenty-
one (21) teachers, there are two (2) teachers in the Kindergarten, three (3) teachers in
Grade 1, three (3) teachers in Grade 2, four (4) teachers in Grade 3, three (3) teachers
in Grade 4, two (2) teachers in Grade 5 and four (4) teachers in Grade 6. If the data in
this table will be correlated with the number of pupils, the number of teachers in
Grade 4 and Grade 5 will both increase by 1 for the coming school year 2022-2023.
INVENTORY OF CLASSROOMS
INVENTORY OF CLASSROOMS SY 2021-2022

NON-
ACA-
DEMIC; 4

ACADEMIC; 21
ACADEMIC NON-ACADEMIC
Figure 40: Inventory of Classrooms SY 2021-2022

The data above show the inventory of classrooms of Balingcanaway Centro
Elementary School as of school year 2021-2022. It is clearly shown that there are 21
academic classrooms
and 4 non-academic classrooms available in our school. The twenty one (21) academic
classroom are utilized by the teachers for classroom instructions while the four (4) non-
academic classrooms are utilized as H.E. room, school clinic room, principal’s office,
isolation room and stock room. There are academic classrooms that need minor repair while
the H.E. room needs major repair.
LEARNER-CLASSROOM RATIO

Figure 41: Learner-Classroom Ratio SY 2021-2022
It is clearly illustrated in the figure above that the computed learner-classroom
of the school is 1:32. The biggest class size is on Grade 5 with an average class size of
31 followed by Grade 3 with an average class size of 30 learners per class which is
below the recommended learner-classroom ratio.
INVENTORY OF SEATS
INVENTORY OF SEATS SY 2021-2022

DESK TYPE;
78 TABLE TYPE; 6
ARM CHAIR;
441
ARM CHAIR DESK TYPE TABLE TYPE
Figure 42: Inventory of Classrooms SY 2021-2022

The data above show the inventory of seats of Balingcanaway Centro
Elementary School as of school year 2021-2022. It is visibly shown that there are 441
arm chairs, 68 desk type and 6 table type seats.
A desk type seat can accommodate 2 learners while table type seat can
accommodate 10 learners.
INVENTORY OF TEXTBOOKS
Table 14. Number of Books per Subject Area SY 2021-2022

The data above show the number of textbooks per subject area. It is shown on
the table that Mathematics got the highest number of available textbook in school
followed by English, EsP, Filipino and Science. However, it is also presented that
there are no available textbooks in Arts, TLE-IA, TLE-ICT, TLE-AFA and Health.
Based on the given data, the computed ratio of the pupils to the number of textbooks is
1:2. This implies that the school is lacking of available textbooks particularly for
Grades 2 and 6.

Figure 43: Availability of Textbooks per Grade Level and Subject SY 2021-
2022
The data above show the availability of textbooks per Grade Level and subject
area. It is shown on the table that the Grade 5 got the highest percentage of available
learning materials in school followed by Grade 4 and Grade 3. However, it is also
presented on the table that Kindergarten got the lowest percentage of available
textbook in school followed by Grade 2 and Grade 6. This implies that the school is
lacking of available textbooks particularly for Kindergarten, Grade 2 and Grade 6.
INVENTORY OF LEARNING RESOURCES (SLMs)
GRADE 6 INVENTORY OF SLMs THIRD QUARTER
GRADE 5
GRADE 4
GRADE 3
GRADE 2
GRADE 1
0 200 400 600 800 1000 1200

MAPEH ESP MTB AP ENGLISH FILIPINO MATH
Figure 44: Inventory of Available Third Quarter Self Learning Modules

Table 15. Number of Available Third Quarter Self Learning Modules
GRADE SUBJECT/SPECIFICATION QUARTER QUANTITY
LEVEL
KINDERGARTE
N
GRADE 1 MTB MODULE 8-11,17,18 THIRD 504
MATH MODULE 8-11 THIRD 336
FILIPINO MODULE 9, 11-15 THIRD 504
ENGLISH MODULE 5A-E,6 THIRD 420
ARALING PANLIPUNAN MODULE THIRD 84
6
GRADE 2 FILIPINO MODULE 6-8 THIRD 243
ARALING PANLIPUNAN MODULE THIRD 162
MUSIC MODULE THIRD 81
ENGLISH MODULE 6-9 THIRD 324
MATH MODULE THIRD 81
ESP MODULE THIRD 162
GRADE 3 MATH THIRD 360
FILIPINO THIRD 240
ENGLISH THIRD 240
GRADE 4 ARTS THIRD 686
ESP THIRD 294
MATH THIRD 1078
GRADE 5 ESP THIRD 630
PE THIRD 126
GRADE 6 THIRD 0
The data on Table 15 and Figure 42 show the number of available Third
Quarter Self Learning Modules. It is shown on the table that there are no available
Third Quarter SLMs in Grade 6 and Kindergarten. Likewise, the only available Third
Quarter SLMs in Grade 5 are for ESP and PE only while in Grade 4, the only available
SLMs are for Arts, ESP and Mathematics. Similarly, in Grade 3, the available SLMs
are for Math, Filipino and English. This result implies that there are not enough
available self-learning modules in all grade levels.
INVENTORY OF SLMs FOURTH QUARTER
GRADE 6 SCIENCE MAPEH ESP MTB

AP ENGLISH FILIPINO MATH
GRADE 5 MODULE 6-10
GRADE 4
GRADE 3
57
GRADE 2
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan
KINDERGARTEN
0 100 200 300 400 500 600 700 800 900
Figure 45: Inventory of Available Fourth Quarter Self Learning Modules
The data on Table 16 and Figure 45 show the number of available Fourth
Quarter Self Learning Modules. It is shown on the table that there are no available
Fourth Quarter SLMs in Grade 1. Likewise, the only available Fourth Quarter SLMs
in Grade 3 are for Filipino, English and EsP only while in Grade 4, the only available
SLMs are for Science and Mathematics only. Similarly, in Grade 5, the available
SLMs are for Araling Panlipuna and English. Lastly, in Grade 6, the available SLMs
are for Science, Filipino and Araling Panlipunan only. This result implies that there
are not enough available Fourth Quarter Self Learning Modules in all grade levels.
Table 16. Number of Available Fourth Quarter Self Learning Modules

GRADE SUBJECT/ QUARTER QUANTITY
LEVEL SPECIFICATION
KINDERGARTEN MODULE FOURTH 642
GRADE 1
GRADE 2 MATH FOURTH 567
ESP FOURTH 162
ENGLISH FOURTH 486
FILIPINO FOURTH 486
AP FOURTH 405
MUSIC FOURTH 405
GRADE 3 FILIPINO FOURTH 840
ENGLISH FOURTH 840
ESP FOURTH 240
GRADE 4 SCIENCE FOURTH 56
MATH FOURTH 56
GRADE 5 ENGLISH FOURTH 126
AP FOURTH 63
GRADE 6 SCIENCE FOURTH 120
FILIPINO FOURTH 184
AP FOURTH 92

INVENTORY OF OTHER LEARNING RESOURCES (TABLETS)
INVENTORY OF OTHER LEARNING RESOURCES

SY 2021-2022
AMPLIFIER; 2
PRINTER; 10
LAPTOP; 3
PROJECTOR; 2
TABLETS; 50
DESKTOP; 1
TABLETS DESKTOP LAPTOP PROJECTOR AMPLIFIER PRINTER

Figure 46: Inventory of Other Learning Resources
The data in Figure 46 show the available multi-media learning resources in our
school. In general multimedia is the combination of visual and audio representations.
These representations could include elements of texts, graphic arts, sound, animation,
and video. However, multimedia is restricted in such systems where information is
digitalized and is processed by a computer.
Multimedia materials consist of items made up of more than one type of

material. These include books or serials in conjunction with software, CD-ROM
products, microfiche, audio tapes, video tapes, DVDs and LP discs, as well as various
combinations of non-book materials.
Multimedia is an innovative and effective teaching and learning tool, because

it helps students motivate their learning process and helps them understand the
information presented. It helps teachers present information in an effective way.
The available multimedia resources in Balingcanaway Centro Elementary

School are 50 tablets, 10 printers, 3, laptops, 2 amplifiers, 2 projectors and 1 desktop.
All of these resources are functioning and in good condition.
UPDATES ON SCHOOL BASED FEEDING PROGRAM
Table 17. Data on School Based Feeding Program

SCHOOL NUMBER NUMBER OF AMOUNT
YEAR OF FEEDING RECEIVED AMOUNT AMOUNT
BENEFICIA DAYS FROM DO DISBURSED LIQUIDATED
RIES
2020-2021 74 120 177600 177600 177600
2021-2022 178 53+30 23628 23628 23628

First
Tranche
100 % FULLY 13425 13425 13425
First
IMPLEMENTED Tranche
The table above show the updates on Balingcanaway Centro Elementary

School Based Feeding Program. The data clearly show the number of beneficiaries,
feeding days and the amount received during the school year 2020-2021 and 2021-
2022. In school year 2020-2021, there were 74 beneficiaries for 120 feeding days. The
school received, disbursed and liquidated a total amount of Php 117,600. While in
school year 2021-2022, the school received, disbursed and liquidated a total amount of
Php 23, 628 for the first tranche and Php 13, 425 for the second tranche. The SBFP
beneficiaries for the school year 2021-2022 are the 178 learners from Kindergarten to
Grade 6. The number of feeding days are 83 for Nutritious food and 45 days for milk
feeding.

Figure 47: Health and Nutritional Status of the Learners Current SY
The figure above show the updates on the health and nutritional status of the
learners in Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School. Based on the given data, there
are 298 boys and 245 girls or a total of 543 learners that fall under normal status.
Twenty eight (28) of the learners are overweight and nine (9) are obese. Moreover,
there are forty (40) learners that have wasted nutritional status and twenty nine (29)
with severely wasted nutritional status.
In the current school year, 58 out of 356 male learners or 16.29% fall outside
normal health status while 15.81 percent (46 of 291) of the female learners fall out
normal health status.
VACCINATION STATUS OF SCHOOL PERSONNEL
TOTAL NUMBER OF PERSONNEL

30
TOTAL OF VACCINATED PERSONNEL AND WITH BOOSTER SHOT
25 25 25
25
20
15
15
10
0
FULLY VACCINATED WITH BOOSTER SHOT
Figure 48: Vaccination Status of School Personnel

The data show the vaccination status of the teaching and non-teaching
personnel of Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School. Out of the 25 personnel, 25 or
100% are fully vaccinated. Likewise, fifteen (15) or 60% of the teaching and non-
teaching personnel had their booster shots
UPDATES ON SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT
3.5 SBM LEVEL SCORE

3
3
2.53
2.5 2.35
2
2
1.5
0.5
0
2020-2021 2021-2022
Figure 49: Updates on School Based Management

The data on Figure 49 show the School Based Management levels and ratings
of the school for the last two years. It can be gleaned from the graph that the SBM
level of practice of Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School was improved to Level
III during the school year 2021-2022. From 2.35 in 2020-2021, it was increased to
2.53 in 2021-2022.
Table 18. School Based Management Rating SY 2021-2022
SCHOOL BASED MANAGEMENT SUMMARY RESULT

Raw Ratin SBM SBM Level
SBM Principle Weight
Score g Rating of Practice
A LEADERSHIP &
14 2.80 30% 0.84
GOVERNANCE
B CURRICULUM AND
17 2.43 30% 0.73 Level III
INSTRUCTION
C ACCOUNTABILITY AND
CONTINUOUS 13 2.60 25% 0.65
IMPROVEMENT
D MANAGEMENT OF
10 2.00 15% 0.30
RESOURCES
SBM Rating 2.52
Table 18 presents the School Based Management Rating of Balingcanaway

Centro Elementary School. It can be seen from the table that the school got the 14
points out of 15 in Leadership and Governance. In Curriculum and Instruction, the
score recorded is 17 points out of 21 while in Accountability and Continuous
Improvement, the score recorded is 13 point out of 15. The lowest points that the
school received is in Management of Resources which 10 points out 15. This result
implies that the school should strengthen and improve the preparation of documents
and documentation of evidences management of resources.
SCHOOL SAFETY ASSESSMENT TOOL COMPLIANCE
Figure 50 presents the Compliance Certificate of Balingcanaway Centro

Elementary School. The Compliance Certificate was given last February 24, 2022 and
it stated that the school has been found compliant in the four indicators of School
Safety Assessment Tool. After receiving this certificate, the school the started the face
to face classes last March 1, 2022.

Figure 50: School Safety Assessment Tool Compliance Certificate of
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School
PARTICIPATING LEARNERS IN LIMITED FACE -TO -FACE
TOTAL PARTICIPATING LEARNERS=597 OR 92.27%

KINDER-
GRADE 6; 88; GARTEN; 92;
GRADE 5; 15% 15%
56; 9%
GRADE 1;
78; 13%
GRADE 4;
91; 15%
GRADE 3; 114; 19% GRADE 2;
KINDERGARTEN GRADE 1 GRADE 2 GRADE 3 GRADE 4 GRADE 5
GRADE 6
Figure 51: Number of Participating Learners in the Limited Face to Face Classes SY
2021-2022
The data above show the number of participating learners in the limited face to
face classes during the School year 2021-2022. Out of 597 participating learners, there
are 114 or 19% learners in Grade 3, 92 or 16% in Kindergarten, 91 or 15% in Grade
4, 88 or 15% in Grade 6, 78 or 13% in Grades 1 and 2 and 56 or 9% in Grade 5. The
Grade 3 got the highest percentage of participant while the Grade 5 got the lowest
percentage. It can be noticed that almost 93% of the total learners participated in the
face to face classes.
.
VACCINATION STATUS OF LEARNERS
151
vaccination status of learners
AS OF MAY 2022
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan

52 65
17 20
12 12 13

GARTEN
Figure 52: Vaccination Status of Learners

The graph shows the vaccination status of the learners of
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School. Out of the 597 participants in the
face to face classes, 141 or 23.61% of the learners had been vaccinated. The
Grade 6 has the largest number of vaccinated learners with 52 or 8.71% of
the total number participating learners while the Grade 1 and Kindergarten
got the smallest number of vaccinated learners with 12 or 2.01%.
Pillar 3: Upskilling and Reskilling of Personnel: Quality of

Teachers, School Heads and Supervisors
PROFILING OF TEACHERS
PROFILE OF TEACHERS BY POSITION
MASTER TEACHER
I 1
TEACHER III 6
TEACHER II 3
TEACHER I 11
Figure 53: Profile of Teacher by Position
Out of the twenty-one (21) teachers of Balincanaway Centro
Elementary School, there are eleven (11) or 52.38% Teacher III. six (6)
or 28.57% Teacher III, three (3) or 14.29% Teacher II and only one (1)
or 4.76% Master Teacher.
PROFILE OF TEACHERS BY HIGHEST DEGREE

OBTAINED
DOCTORATE
DEGREE 0
MASTER'S DEGREE 5
BACHELOR'S
DEGREE 16
HIGHEST DEGREE
0 OBTAINED
2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 18
Figure 54: Profile of Teachers by Highest Degree Obtained

Out of the twenty-one (21) teachers of Balincanaway Centro
Elementary School, there are five (5) or 23.81% teachers who obtained
Master’s Degree and sixteen (16) or 76.19% teachers who obtained
Bachelor’s Degree..
PROFILE OF TEACHERS BY AGE
56-64 5
46-55 1
36-45 5

20-35 10
AGE
Figure 55: Profile of Teachers by Age
The data show that there are ten (10) or 47.62% who belong to
the age bracket of 20-35 while five (5) or 23.81% fall under the age
bracket of 36-45. Likewise, there is one or 4.76% who fall under the
age bracket of 46-55 and another five (5) or 23.81% who belong the
age bracket of 56-64.
PROFILE OF TEACHERS BY GENDER
2; 10%
MALE FEMALE
19; 90%
Figure 56: Profile of Teachers by Gender

The data present the profile of teachers by gender. Out of the
twenty-one (21) teachers of Balincanaway Centro Elementary School,
there are nineteen (19) or 90.48% female teachers and only 2 or 9.52%
male teachers.
NUMBER OF PERSONNEL TRAINED
NUMBER OF PERSONNEL TRAINED
NUMBER OF TEACHERS
INING ON THE PREPARATION OF IMS
TRAINING ON COMMUNICATING SKILLS 6
TRAINING ON COMPUTER MANIPULATION AND BASIC SKILLS 14
TRAINING ON MATHEMATICS SKILLS AND PROBLEM SOLVING 6
TRAINING ON CONDUCTING ACTION RESEARCH 4
0 5 10 15 20 25
3. CAPACITY BUILDING CONDUCTED/TO BE

CONDUCTED
Figure 57: Number of Personnel Trained

The data present the number of teachers who attended training
based on their training needs assessment. Out of the twenty-one (21)
teachers of Balincanaway Centro Elementary School, there are twenty
one (21) or 100% who attended training on the preparation of
instructional materials, 12 or 57.14 have attended training on
classroom management, 6 or 28.57% have attended training on
communication skills, 14 or 66.67% have participated training on
computer manipulation and basic skills, 6 or 28.57% have attended
training on Mathematics skills and problem solving, and 4 or 19.05%
have joined training on conducting action research. Based on the given
data, it can be deduced that most of the teachers are equipped with
skills and knowledge in the preparation of instructional materials.
Likewise, majority of the teachers are computer literates.
Levels of Trainings/seminars Attended by Teachers
NATIONAL; 4 REGIONAL; 12
SCHOOL; 21
DISTRICT; 21
DIVISION; 21

INTERNATIONAL NATIONAL REGIONAL DIVISION DISTRICT SCHOOL
Figure 58: Levels of Trainings/Seminars Attended by

Teachers
The figures present the levels of trainings/seminars attended by the teachers
for the last three year. Twenty-one or 100% of the teachers have
trainings/seminars in the School, District and Division levels. Likewise, 12
or 57.14 have participated in trainings/seminars in the Regional Level while
4 or 19.05 have attended trainings/seminars in the national level.
Unfortunately, no one attended in the international level.
Table 18. School Based Training/SLAC Attended by Teachers, SY 2021-2022

The data show the school-based training/SLAC attended and
participated by Teachers during the SY 2021-2022. Most of the
trainings/SLAC conducted by the school are based on the needs of
teachers. The skills and knowledge gained from the training/SLAC
were utilized by the teachers in the performance of their duties and
specifically in meeting the needs of the learners.
Comparative Data on Teachers’ Individual Performance Commitment and

Review Form Ratings

Figure 59: Comparative Data on Teachers’ IPCRF Ratings
The data show the IPCRF’s ratings of the teachers for the last three years. It
can be seen from the graph that there is an increasing pattern on the number of
teachers who got outstanding performance from school year 2018-2019 to 2020-2021.
In contrast, the number of teachers who were rated very satisfactory from school year
2018-2019 to 2020-2021 formed a decreasing pattern. Majority of the teachers got
very satisfactory ratings for the last three school years. Fortunately, there is no
recorded data on the other three descriptive ratings (Satisfactory, Unsatisfactory and
Poor) of the IPCRF.
SUMMARY OF INDIVIDUAL PERFORMANCE COMMITMENT AND

REVIEW FORM RATINGS OF TEACHERS’
Summary of IPCRF Rating for SY 2018 – 2019
EMPLOYEE ADJECTIVAL
ID NAME POSITION RATING RATING
4277726 SUMANDE, MIRIAM D. Teacher III 4.646 Outstanding
4154311 MAÑEZ, JOY, E. Teacher III 4.538 Outstanding
4594277 BAGTAS, JENNY T. Teacher III 4.513 Outstanding

4670323 SANTOS, CRISTINA R. Teacher I 4.512 Outstanding
5382672 MACAPAGAL, RIO M. Teacher I 4.510 Outstanding

Very
6268119 SAMPANG, ROSEMARIE E. Teacher III 4.475 Satisfactory
Very
5394115 DE JESUS, RHEA M. Teacher I 4.450 Satisfactory
PAGUIO, MARIA THERESA Very
4594275 T. Teacher III 4.440 Satisfactory
Very
6448040 VENZON, MARIA TERESA L. Teacher I 4.438 Satisfactory
Very
5394148 MANUEL JR., FRISCO D. Teacher I 4.325 Satisfactory
Very
4092682 PINGOL, ERMY Q. Teacher III 4.300 Satisfactory
Very
4329587 TABABA, VIDA D. Teacher III 4.300 Satisfactory
Very
4670396 DAYAO, HONEYLET T. Teacher I 4.250 Satisfactory
TACMO, CLAIRE MARIE Very
5382665 EUNICE C. Teacher I 4.250 Satisfactory
Very
4670355 MANIALONG, ROMAN G. Teacher III 4.210 Satisfactory
Very
6268233 GALULU, JINKY E. Teacher I 4.185 Satisfactory
Very
5391445 ESPINO, JANINE S. Teacher I 3.875 Satisfactory
Very
5382667 TIPAY, CHEYENNE AIRA F. Teacher I 3.850 Satisfactory
Very
6268238 DEL MAR, DOMINGA T. Teacher I 3.850 Satisfactory
Very
4002404 BGONOT, JOSEPHINE A. Teacher II 3.725 Satisfactory

ADJECTIVAL
EMPLOYEE ID NAME POSITION RATING RATING

6268119 SAMPANG, ROSEMARIE E. Teacher III 4.586 Outstanding
5394115 DE JESUS, RHEA M. Teacher I 4.498 Very Satisfactory

PAGUIO, MARIA THERESA
4594275 T. Teacher III 4.486 Very Satisfactory
5394148 MANUEL JR., FRISCO D. Teacher I 4.486 Very Satisfactory
6448040 VENZON, MARIA TERESA L. Teacher I 4.472 Very Satisfactory
4670355 MANIALONG, ROMAN G. Teacher III 4.461 Very Satisfactory
4092682 PINGOL, ERMY Q. Teacher III 4.425 Very Satisfactory
4329587 TABABA, VIDA D. Teacher III 4.387 Very Satisfactory
4670396 DAYAO, HONEYLET T. Teacher I 4.374 Very Satisfactory

TACMO, CLAIRE MARIE
5382665 EUNICE C. Teacher I 4.361 Very Satisfactory
5382667 TIPAY, CHEYENNE AIRA F. Teacher I 4.348 Very Satisfactory
6268233 GALULU, JINKY E. Teacher I 4.336 Very Satisfactory
5391445 ESPINO, JANINE S. Teacher I 4.324 Very Satisfactory
6268238 DEL MAR, DOMINGA T. Teacher I 4.149 Very Satisfactory
5397963 TAMANGAN, KORINA B. Teacher I 4.286 Very Satisfactory
4002404 BGONOT, JOSEPHINE A. Teacher II 4.112 Very Satisfactory

ADJECTIVAL
ADJECTIVAL

6268119 SAMPANG, ROSEMARIE E. Teacher III 4.640 Outstanding
5394148 MANUEL JR., FRISCO D. Teacher I 4.520 Outstanding
4670355 MANIALONG, ROMAN G. Teacher III 4.520 Outstanding
5394115 DE JESUS, RHEA M. Teacher I 4.480 Very Satisfactory

PAGUIO, MARIA THERESA
4594275 T. Teacher III 4.480 Very Satisfactory
4092682 PINGOL, ERMY Q. Teacher III 4.480 Very Satisfactory
4329587 TABABA, VIDA D. Teacher III 4.480 Very Satisfactory
5391445 ESPINO, JANINE S. Teacher I 4.480 Very Satisfactory
6268238 DEL MAR, DOMINGA T. Teacher I 4.480 Very Satisfactory
4670396 DAYAO, HONEYLET T. Teacher I 4.460 Very Satisfactory
6448040 VENZON, MARIA TERESA L. Teacher I 4.440 Very Satisfactory
5382667 TIPAY, CHEYENNE AIRA F. Teacher I 4.440 Very Satisfactory
5397963 TAMANGAN, KORINA B. Teacher I 4.440 Very Satisfactory
4002404 BGONOT, JOSEPHINE A. Teacher II 4.360 Very Satisfactory
Pillar 4: Engagement of Stakeholders for Support and

Collaboration: Responsive Engagement for Education

The Engagement of Stakeholders for Support and Collaboration
is the focus of the fourth key reform area of Sulong Edukalidad. In
order to achieve quality of education, we need the support and
collaboration of the internal and external stakeholders. The
accountability system of the school must be owned by the community
and it should be continuously enhanced to ensure that management
structures and mechanism are responsive to the emerging needs and
demands of the school and community. Gaining the support and
collaboration of the stakeholders for school engagement involves three
steps: first, define the roles, duties and responsibilities of the
stakeholders; second, plan the communication approach with each
stakeholder; and, third, execute the plan.
Figure 60: Data on Stakeholders Participation
The data show the number of partners by general and specific

partner types and the number of support per specific contribution
type. It is shown in the graph that the private sector is the first type of
partner that contributed most to our school. The other types of
partners that provided support to our school are the civil society and
public sectors. Moreover, the private individuals and the LGU-
barangay officials are the most specific type of partners that gave
support and contribution to our school programs, projects and
activities.
The furniture, learners’ wellness, volunteer works are the
specific contributions that our partners gave to our school. Financial
support and technical assistance are also given by generous
stakeholders.
Stakeholders of the school shown significant contributions and

participation in different programs and activities. The most common

general partner type is the Private Sector. As to the specific type of
partner, the Private Individual is the top contributor. Likewise, the
type of contribution commonly given to the school are Furniture and
Learner Wellness Health Nutrition. The total amount generated by the
school from the different stakeholders is amounting to Php 83,000.
FURNITURE; 5;
3%
INTERNET FINANCIAL SUPPORT; 14; 8%
SERVICE ; 2; SCHOOL SUP-
1% PLIES SUP-
PORT; 16; 10%
VOLUNTARY
WORKS; 100;
60%
LEARNERS'
WELLNESS
AND WORKS
VOLUNTARY HEALTH LEARNERS' WELLNESS AND HEALTH SUPPORT INTERNET SERVICE
SUPPORT; 30;
18% SUPPORT
SCHOOL SUPPLIES FURNITURE FINANCIAL SUPPORT
Figure 61: Distribution of Partners in the Different Types of Support

The figure presents the distribution of partners in the different
types of support. The type of support with the highest number of
partners is the volunteer works with 100 or 60% of the partners,
followed by learners’ wellness and health support with 30 or 18%
partners. Likewise, there are recorded 16 or 10% partners who
contributed in the school supplies support, 14 or 8% partners for
financial support, 4 or 3% partners for furniture and only 2 or 1%
partners for internet service support. Although internet service got the
lowest number of partners but it is the most significant contribution of
partners in the delivery of services of the school especially during the
time pandemic. The school was able to convinced the two partners to
sign Memorandum of Agreement f(MOA) for the free internet service
that they are providing for school operations. The copies of MOA are
presented in the succeeding pages.

IV. SWOT ANALYSIS:

V. KEY CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS
Table 19: Key Challenges in Pillar 1- K to 12 Curriculum: Quality of Learning Outcomes and Learning Delivery Modalities
KEY CHALLENGE GOAL STRATEGY INTERVENTION
1. Large number of non- Ensure quality teaching 1. Reduce the number of non-  Strengthen the implementation of
readers with poor skills in and pedagogy, learning readers with poor skills in School Reading Program- Project
decoding and learners assessment and learners’ decoding and learners with BRIGHTER (Bridging Reading
with Frustration Reading assessment in English, frustration reading level with Interventions Gladly Hands On with
Level with poor skills in Filipino and poor skills in comprehension Tangible Results)
comprehension in Stages Mathematics through through conducting intervention  Conduct Remedial Reading Activities
1 and 2 both English and conducting regular projects and activities.  Revitalize the implementation of
Filipino. classroom observations, Project DEAR (Drop Everything and
providing technical Read
assistance and close
monitoring of learning  Introduce Project “BONDAGE” (Books
outcomes. on Nook for Different Ages)-
2. Too many non- 2. Lessen the number of non-  Enhance the implementation of
numerates and nearly numerates and nearly numerates Project SALAMath (Strengthening
numerates in Key by managing and implementing and Accelerating the Learning and
Stages 1 and 2 with Mathematics intervention Achievement in Mathematics)
poor skills in basic projects and activities  Conduct Remedial Teaching on
numeracy, reading and Numeracy Skills Development.
writing numbers, and Everyday activities like counting,
problem solving skills. looking at shapes, and talking about
sizes can help children develop early
numeracy and Math skills.

The table presents the Key Challenges obtained from the data collected in
literacy and numeracy.
Based on the data gathered, a large number of non-readers with poor skills in
decoding and learners with frustration reading level with poor skills in comprehension in
Stages 1 and 2 both English and Filipino were derived as key challenges.
In English, the results of the assessment in the current school year show that
majority of the learners belong to the reading level wherein they found the reading material
so hard to handle that they could not even successfully respond to them. The same is true
with the learners in the Instructional Level, they could not respond correctly without the
direction and supervision of the teachers.
Likewise, majority of the learners in Stage 1 could not perform the skills in the eight
components of Early Grades Reading Assessment tool. From orientation to print, word recognition
to phonological awareness, and reading comprehension, learners have shown poor reading
skills same with the Phil-IRI results for Key Stage 2.
Equally, in Filipino, the recorded average percentage that cannot perform the
components, both for distance and face to face learners is 18.58%. Under the Reading Sight
Words (C4- Familiar Word Reading, C5-Invented Word Decoding, C6A-Oral Passage
Reading), the recorded average percentage that cannot perform the components is 40.09%.
Moreover, under the Comprehension Parts (C6B-Reading Comprehension, C7-

Listening Comprehension, C8-Dictation), the recorded average percentage that cannot
perform the components is 42.34% both for distance and face to face learners.
An average of 16.83% of the assessed learners in both distance and face-to-face

learning modalities fell under the Frustration Level and an average of 1.58% are under the
Non-Reader Level for both modalities.
These imply that learning gaps in reading should be addressed in order to improve
the performance of the learners.
Meanwhile in numeracy, for Key Stage 1, the results show that 197 learners or
74.34% of the total learners assessed in Grades 1 to 3 need to undergo remediation in
problem solving and computational skills, 111 or 41.89% in Reading and Writing skills, and
98 learners or 36.98% in counting of numbers in English and Filipino.
Similarly, the results in Numeracy Assessment for Key Stage 2 show that there
are 146 or 63.20% who do not have mastery in problem solving and 160 or 69.26% learners
scored below 80% in computational skills and 138 or 59.74% in reading and writing. This
implies the need to intensify the conduct of intervention/ remediation activities to further
strengthen the skills in the three components.
To fully address these challenges, the Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School

designed various interventions and remediation activities suited to the needs and abilities of
the varied kinds of learners in Stage 1 and 2.

In English, the school introduced the Reading Intervention Project BRIGHTER
(Bridging Reading Interventions Gladly Hands On with Tangible Results). This project
aims to bridge reading interventions among identified pupils in the frustration level and non-
readers. The teachers will implement the reading interventions program with specified time-
frame and assessment to achieve tangible results. Specifically, the program aims to reduce
the number of frustration readers at least by 75% and the non- readers to 85 % if not 100%.
In Mathematics, the school head introduced the Project SALAMath as an

intervention project to address the needs of the learners in learning basic numeracy and
problem solving skills. This project is the acronym for Strengthening and Accelerating the
Learning & Achievement in Mathematics The main objective of this project is to improve
the Mathematics performance of the learners in Stages 1 and 2 through collaborative
remedial instructions and employing some innovative teaching strategies such as Arithmetic
Drill Game, Re-teaching the subtopic, Computer Aided Teaching, and Using Various
Cooperative Learning Strategies.

Table 20: Strategic Directions in Pillar 1- K to 12 Curriculum: Quality of Learning Outcomes and Learning Delivery Modalities
PILLAR 1 Goal: Ensure quality teaching and pedagogy, learning assessment and learners’ assessment
in English, Filipino and Mathematics through conducting regular classroom observations,
providing technical assistance and close monitoring of learning outcomes.
STRATEGIES INTERVENTIONS MAJOR OUTPUTS
1. Reduce the number of non-readers with  Strengthen the implementation of  PHIL-IRI/EGRA Post Test Results
poor skills in decoding and learners with School Reading Program - Project  Report on Reading Intervention Program
frustration reading level with poor skills in BRIGHTER (Bridging Reading  Accomplishment Report on Project
comprehension through conducting Interventions Gladly Hands On with BRIGHTER
intervention projects and activities. Tangible Results)  Activity Completion Report
 Conduct Remedial Reading Activities
 Revitalize the implementation of
Project DEAR (Drop Everything and
Read
 Introduce Project “BONDAGE”
(Books on Nook for Different Ages)-
2. Lessen the number of non-numerates and  Enhance the implementation of  Project ALL Numerates Post Test Results
nearly numerates by managing and Project SALAMath (Strengthening  Report on TIN-AR- Templates in Numeracy
implementing Mathematics intervention and Accelerating the Learning and and Reporting
projects and activities Achievement in Mathematics)  Activity Completion Report
 Accomplishment Report on Project
 Conduct Remedial Teaching on SALAMath
Numeracy Skills Development.
Everyday activities like counting,
looking at shapes, and talking about
sizes can help children develop early
numeracy and Math skills.

Table 21: KEY CHALLENGES PILLAR 2
KEY CHALLENGE GOAL STRATEGY INTERVENTIONS

S
1. The School has incomplete Improve and maintain a 1.1. Allocate fund for the  Prepare Program of Work.
ancillary facilities such as library. learner-friendly, inclusive and rehabilitation of the Material  Prepare Purchase
MRF and Industrial Arts Laboratory. healthy learning environment. Recovery Facility. Order/Abstract of Canvass
1.  Rehabilitation of the
1.2. Rehabilitate the School School MRF
Material Recovery Facility
2. Low number of vaccinated 2. Motivate and convince the  Conduct information and
learners. (Willingness of learners to parents to allow their dissemination campaign
have a COVID-19 vaccination.) children to be vaccinated on Importance of Covid
through conducting 19 Vaccination.
Information Campaign..
3. Insufficient textbooks in Grades 2 3. Prepare and reproduce  .Submit the
and 6. supplementary learning supplementary
materials for Grade 2 and 6. learning materials in
the Division for
evaluation and
quality assurance
4. Many learners have wasted and 4. Strengthen the conduct of  Establish partnership with
severely wasted nutritional status. conduct of School Based barangay officials and
feeding Program non-government
organization for the
conduct of extended
feeding activities

Table 22: Strategic Directions in Pillar 2- Support to the Learning Environment: Access, Equity and Inclusion in Education
PILLAR 2 Goal: Improve and maintain a learner-friendly, inclusive and healthy learning environment.
Allocate fund for the rehabilitation of the  Prepare Program of Work.  Liquidation Report
Material Recovery Facility.  Prepare Purchase Order/Abstract of  Acceptance and Completion Report
5. Canvass
Rehabilitate the School Material Recovery  Rehabilitation of the School MRF
Facility
Motivate and convince the parents to allow their  Conduct information and  Accomplishment Report
children to be vaccinated through conducting dissemination campaign on  Attendance Sheet
Information Campaign.. Importance of Covid 19
Vaccination.
Prepare and reproduce supplementary learning  Submit the supplementary  Copies of the quality assured supplementary
materials for Grade 2 and 6. learning materials in the learning materials.
Division for evaluation and  Evaluation Form of the Supplementary
quality assurance learning materials
Strengthen the conduct of conduct of School  Establish partnership with barangay  Accomplishment Report
Based feeding Program officials and non-government  Attendance Sheet
organization for the conduct of
extended feeding activities

KEY CHALLENGE GOALS STRATEGY INTERVENTIONS
1. Insufficient training of teachers on Implement professional  Initiate/Spearhead the  Prepare Training Proposal, Matrix
Mathematics problem solving skills. development initiatives conduct of school- and Budget
for the enhancement of based training on  Invite Resource Persons/Speakers.
teachers’ competencies. Improving the  Conduct the School Based
Mathematical Skills Training on Improving the
and Problem Solving Mathematical Skills and Problem
Skills of Teachers Solving Skills of Teachers
 Prepare Training Monitoring and
Evaluation Tool
2. Limited number of teachers with  Organize a School  Prepare Training Proposal, Matrix
training on communicating skills Based Training on and Budget
Improving  Invite Resource Persons/Speakers.
Communicating Skills  Prepare Training Monitoring and
for teachers Evaluation Tool
 Conduct the School Based
Training on Improving
Communicating Skills for teachers
3. Inadequate Training on Conducting  Spearhead the conduct  Prepare Training Proposal, Matrix
Action Research of school-based and Budget
training on Conducting  Invite Resource Persons/Speakers.
Action Research  Conduct the School Based
Training on Conducting Action
Research
Evaluation Tool
Table 24: Strategic Directions in Pillar 3- Pillar 3: Upskilling and Reskilling of Personnel: Quality of Teachers,
School Heads and Supervisors
PILLAR 3 Goal: Implement professional development initiatives for the enhancement of teachers’
competencies.
 Initiate/Spearhead the conduct of school-  Prepare Training Proposal, Matrix  Activity Completion Report
based training on Improving the and Budget  Training Monitoring and Evaluation Tool
Mathematical Skills and Problem Solving  Invite Resource  Required Outputs for Teachers
Skills of Teachers Persons/Speakers.  Attendance Sheet
 Conduct the School Based  Activity Completion Report
Training on Improving the
Mathematical Skills and Problem
Solving Skills of Teachers
Evaluation Tool
 Organize a School Based Training on  Prepare Training Proposal, Matrix  Activity Completion Report
Improving Communicating Skills for and Budget  Training Monitoring and Evaluation Tool
teachers  Invite Resource  Required Outputs for Teachers
Persons/Speakers.  Attendance Sheet
 Prepare Training Monitoring and  Activity Completion Report
Evaluation Tool
 Conduct the School Based
Training on Improving
Communicating Skills for
teachers
 Spearhead the conduct of school-based  Prepare Training Proposal, Matrix  Activity Completion Report
training on Conducting Action Research and Budget  Training Monitoring and Evaluation Tool
 Invite Resource  Required Outputs for Teachers
Persons/Speakers.  Attendance Sheet
 Conduct the School Based  Activity Completion Report
Training on Conducting Action

Research
Evaluation Tool

KEY CHALLENGE GOALS STRATEGY INTERVENTIONS
1. Limited financial assistance Increase the participation of  .Strengthen the  Conduct of conferences,
from LGU and public sector. stakeholders for the partnership with all meetings, or dialogues with
improvement of school’s stakeholders including the parents.
achievement and performance LGU to improve  Conduct Recognition and
instructional provisions Awarding of Certificates to
and promote positive Stakeholders.
image of the school.  Distribution/Presentation of
2. Limited engagement of Non-  Intensify the partnership School Report Card to
Government Organization with all stakeholders stakeholders.
including the NGO to  Prepare/submit/distribute
improve instructional Request Letter to LGU and
provisions and promote other stakeholder to gain their
positive image of the support to school.
school.
 Identify the possible
NGO partners
3. Incomplete records on classroom  Create a Team that will  Posting of the names of the
donations monitor and record all the donors and the amount of
donations received or donations given on School
acquired by the teachers. FB Page .

Table 22: Strategic Directions in Pillar 4: Engagement of Stakeholders for Support and Collaboration: Responsive
Engagement for Education
PILLAR 4 Goal: Increase the participation of stakeholders for the improvement of school’s
achievement and performance
 .Strengthen the partnership with all  Conduct of conferences, meetings,  Deed of Donation
stakeholders including the LGU to improve or dialogues with parents.  Memorandum of Agreement
instructional provisions and promote  Conduct Recognition and Awarding  Memorandum of Understanding
positive image of the school. of Certificates to Stakeholders.  List of Donors and Donation
 Intensify the partnership with all  Distribution/Presentation of School  Certificate of Acceptance
stakeholders including the NGO to improve Report Card to stakeholders.  Posting of Donations to DepEd Partnership
instructional provisions and promote  Prepare/submit/distribute Request Database System (DPDS)
positive image of the school. Letter to LGU and other stakeholder
 Identify the possible NGO partners to gain their support to school.
 Create a Team that will monitor and record  Posting of the names of the donors  List of Donors and Donation
all the donations received or and the amount of donations given  Posting of Donations to DepEd Partnership
acquired by the teachers. on School FB Page. Database System (DPDS)

IV. PERFORMANCE TARGETS
Reading Target from 2022 to 2030 (English)
Proportion of Learners in Key Stage 1 Achieving at least Min-
imum Proficiency Level in Reading (English)
90
NATIONAL TARGET SCHOOL TARGET
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 63: Proportion of Students in Key Stage 1 Achieving at least a

Minimum Proficiency Level in Reading (School Target)

imum Proficiency Level in Reading (English)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figures above present the division target proportion of students in Key Stages 1 and 2
95 Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School – FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 95

achieving at least a minimum Proficiency Level in Reading.
Based on the results of assessment in reading particularly the academic profiling

administered to the participants of face to face classes, the initial target is set to 45% The
results of the assessment (distanced and Face to Face) show that 39% of the learners could
not perform C1 to C3B, 46% of the learners could not perform C4 to C6A and 53% could not
perform C6B to C8. The average percentage of the learners who could not perform all the
components is 43.66%.
In Key stage 2, the percentage of learners who could not perform the first four
component of the EGRA is 46.29% , 44.49% for the next 3 components ( C4 to C6A) and
52.20% for last 3 component (C6B to C8). The average percentage of learners in Stage 2 who
could not perform all the component of EGRA tool is 47.59. However, the initial target
agreed upon by the English teachers and leader is also 45%. Furthermore, the target
proportion is increasing until it reaches 85% in the SY 2030.
Target Proficiency Level in English for Key Stages 1 and 2
Target Proficiency Level for English Stages 1 and 2
100
SCHOOL TARGET
95
90
85
80
75
70
Figure 65: Target Proficiency Level for English (Key Stages 1 and 2)
These data present the target proficiency level in English both for Key Stages
1 and 2. The starting proficiency level is 81 which is based on the achievement rate
obtained by learners during 3rd quarter this School year and will increase by 1% or
2% each until it reaches 95 in the year 2030

Reading Target from 2022 to 2030 (Filipino)
imum Proficiency Level in Reading (Filipino)
90 NATIONAL TARGET SCHOOL TARGET
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0


imum Proficiency Level in Reading (Filipino)
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figures above present the division target proportion of students in Key Stages 1 and 2
achieving at least a minimum Proficiency Level in Reading.
Based on the results of assessment in reading (Filipino) particularly the academic

profiling administered to the participants of face to face classes, the initial target is set to
45%. The results of the assessment (distanced and Face to Face) show that 40.09% of the
learners could not perform C4 to C6A and 42.34% could not perform C6B to C8. The average
percentage of the learners who could not perform the five components is 41.22%.
In Key stage 2, the percentage of learners who could not perform the first four
component of the EGRA is 35.33% , 39.5% for the next 3 components ( C4 to C6A) and 32
% for last 3 component (C6B to C8). The average percentage of learners in Stage 2 who
could not perform all the component of EGRA tool is 38.81. However, the initial target
agreed upon by the Filipino teachers and leader is also 45%. Furthermore, the target
proportion is increasing until it reaches 85% in the SY 2030.
Target Proficiency Level in Filipino for Key Stages 1 and 2
Target Proficiency Level for Filipino Stages 1 and 2
100
SCHOOL TARGET
95
90
85
80
75
Figure 68: Target Proficiency Level for Filipino (Key Stages 1 and 2)
These data present the target proficiency level in Filipino both for Key Stages

1 and 2. The starting proficiency level is 82 which is based on the achievement rate
obtained by learners during 3rd quarter this School year and will increase by 1% or
2% each until it reaches 95 in the year 2030
Numeracy Target from 2022 – 2030

imum Proficiency Level in Numeracy
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 69: Proportion of students in key stage 1 achieving at least a minimum

proficiency level in Numeracy (School Target)

imum Proficiency Level in Numeracy
90
80
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0

Figure 70: Proportion of students in key stage 2 achieving at least a minimum
proficiency level in Numeracy (School Target)
Performance Target on Proficiency Level for Mathematics Key

Stages 1 and 2
100
SCHOOL TARGET
95
.
90
85
80
75
70
Figure 71: Performance Target on Proficiency Level for Key Stage 1 to 2
The figure above presents the target proficiency level in Mathematics both for
Key Stages 1 and 2. The starting proficiency level is 81 and 1% or 2% is added each
year till 2030.
TARGET PROFICIENCY LEVEL IN SCIENCE
SCHOOL TARGET
100
95
90
85
80
75
70
Figure 72: Target Proficiency Level in Science for Key Stage 1
Figure shows the performance target on proficiency level in Science for Key
Stage 1. The baseline performance for 2022 is 80% for grade 3. This number is based
on the average grades of learners obtained in the last three years. An increment of 2%
is expected to be added each year until 2030.
SCHOOL TARGET
70
60
50
40
30
20
10
0
Figure 73: Target Proficiency Level in Science for Key Stage 2
Figure shows the performance target on proficiency level in Science for Key Stage 2.
The baseline performance for 2022 is 50% for Stage 2. This number is 15 points greater that
the Division Target. An increment of 2% is expected to be added each year until 2030
PERFORMANCE TARGET
PILLAR 2
Figure 74
net enrolment rate

250
elementary
200 94.56 95.76 96.96
150
95.2 96.4 97.6
100
TARGET
50
FORECAST
0 0
2022 2023 2024
Figure 75
completion rate
250
elementary
100 99.58
200 99.75
150
100 100 100 TARGET
100
50 FORECAST
Figure 75
school leaver rate

1.6 1.48
elementary 1.36
1.4 1.26
1.2
1
0.8 TARGET
0.6
0.4 FORECAST
0.2 0 0 0
0 0
2022 2023 2024
Figure 76
RESILIENCY AND WELLBEING (Based on CO Targets)
START
RESULTS STATEMENT/KEY PERFORMANCE YEAR 2023 2024
INDICATORS 2022
1. Percentage of affected and displaced learners retained

100% 100% 100%
2. Percentage of learners who reported violence

committed against them by other learners (bullying) or
adults (child abuse) based on intake sheets of schools
100% 100% 100%
3. Percentage of learners who are happy and satisfied

with their basic education experience in relation to the
enjoyment of their specific rights in school and learning
centers 100% 100% 100%
4. Percentage of learners who know their rights TO
and IN education, and how to claim them positively
100% 100% 100%
5. Percentage of schools and learning centers

significantly manifesting indicators of Right to
Basic Education in the learning environment 100% 100% 100%
6. Percentage of DepEd personnel in SDO, and

schools/learning centers who know the rights of children
and learners in relation to Right to Basic Education, and
are able to infuse them in their respective jobs/duties
100% 100% 100%
7. Percentage of learners equipped with capacities on

what to do before, during, and after
disaster/emergency 100% 100% 100%
8. Percentage of learners in safe schools 100% 100% 100%
9. Percentage of students with improved health statistics

35% 35% 35%
Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School – FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 103
103
Table 23: Implementation Plan of Pillar 1- K to 12 Curriculum: Quality of Learning Outcomes and Learning Delivery Modalities
Goal: Ensure quality teaching and pedagogy, learning assessment and learners’ assessment in English, Filipino and Mathematics
PILLAR 1
through conducting regular classroom observations, providing technical assistance and close monitoring of learning outcomes .
Strategies Interventions Functional Critical Action Responsible / Timef Estimated Budget
Division- (Activities) Accountable rame Budget Source
in-Charge Unit
1. Reduce the number  Strengthen the implementation  Conduct Remedial

of non-readers with of School Reading Program - Reading Activities
poor skills in Project BRIGHTER (Bridging  Daily conduct of
decoding and Reading Interventions Gladly reading any materials
learners with Hands On with Tangible 10 minutes before
frustration reading Results) dismissal. School Head,
July –
level with poor skills  Conduct Remedial Reading  Conduct of PHIL- Reading 4000 MOOE
in comprehension Decemb
Activities IRI/EGRA Post Test Teachers
through conducting er 2022,
 Revitalize the implementation of School Reading
intervention projects Project DEAR (Drop Everything Leader
and activities. and Read
 Introduce Project “BONDAGE”
(Books on Nook for Different
Ages)-
2. Lessen the number of  Enhance the implementation of  Conducting MathDOKU 6000
non-numerates and Project SALAMath Activities
nearly numerates by (Strengthening and Accelerating  Everyday activities School Head April-
managing and the Learning and Achievement like counting, looking at Math Teachers Dece MOOE
implementing in Mathematics) shapes, and talking School Math mber
Mathematics  Conduct Remedial Teaching on about sizes can help Leader 2022
intervention projects Numeracy Skills Development. children develop early
and activities. Everyday activities numeracy and math
like counting, looking at shapes, skills
and talking about sizes can help  Conduct of Project AN
children develop early numeracy Post Test
104
and Math skills.
Table 24: Implementation Plan of Pillar 2- Support to the Learning Environment: Access, Equity and Inclusion in Education
.
Strategies Interventions Critical Action (Activities) Responsible / Timef Estimated Budget
Accountable rame Budget Source
Unit
Allocate fund for the  Rehabilitate the School MRF  Realign budget for the
rehabilitation of the rehabilitation of MRF School Head
Material Recovery  Prepare Program of Work. Physical Facilities
July to
Facility.  Prepare Purchase Order Leader
August
 Prepare Abstract of Canvass BAC Chairman 20,000 MOOE
2022
Prepare and submit  Prepare Completion and Industrial Arts
School Operating Acceptance report Leader
Budget
Motivate and convince  Conduct information and  Conduct information and School Head June 2022
the parents to allow dissemination campaign on dissemination campaign on School Health Decembe
2000
their children to be Importance of Covid 19 Vaccination. Importance of Covid 19 Leader r 2022 Donation
vaccinated through Vaccination.
conducting Information
Campaign..
Prepare and reproduce  Submit the supplementary learning  Conduct of quality assurance School Head Septembe
supplementary learning materials in the Division for of the tools Teachers r 2022
materials for Grade 2 evaluation and quality assurance  -Final evaluation of the Decembe 30,000 Donation
and 6. learning materials r 2022 MOOE
Strengthen the conduct  Establish partnership with barangay  Signing of MOA with partners School Head Septembe 80,000
of conduct of School officials and non-government for the conduct of extended Teachers r 2022
Based feeding Program organization for the conduct of feeding activities SBFP Focal Decembe Donation
extended feeding activities  Prepare Budget and Menu for Person r 2022
105
the feeding
Table 25: Implementation Plan of Pillar 3- Upskilling and Reskilling of Personnel: Quality of Teachers, School Heads and Supervisors
PILLAR 3 Goal: Implement professional development initiatives for the enhancement of teachers’ competencies.
Strategies Interventions Critical Action (Activities) Responsible / Time Estimated Budget
Accountable frame Budget Source
Unit
 Initiate/Spearhead .  Preparation of Training
the conduct of  Contextualize Training Design Proposal, Matrix and Budget
school-based  Conduct the School Based  Invite Resource
training on Training on Improving the Persons/Speakers School Head July
Improving the Mathematical Skills and Problem  Preparation Training School LAC 2022- 2000 Donation
Mathematical Skills Solving Skills of Teachers Monitoring and Evaluation Leader Decembe
and Problem Tool Master Teacher r 2022
Solving Skills of
Teachers
 Organize a School  Contextualize Training Design  Preparation of Training

Based Training on  Conduct the School Based Proposal, Matrix and Budget
School Head July
Improving Training on Improving  Invite Resource
School LAC 2022-
Communicating Communicating Skills for teachers Persons/Speakers 2000 Donation
Leader Decembe
Skills for teachers  Preparation Training
Master Teacher r 2022
Monitoring and Evaluation
Tool
 Spearhead the .  Preparation of Training School Head July

conduct of school-  Contextualize Training Design Proposal, Matrix and Budget School LAC 2022- 2000 Donation
based training on  Conduct the School Based  Invite Resource Leader Decembe
106
Conducting Action Training on Conducting Action Persons/Speakers
Research Research  Preparation Training
Master Teacher r 2022
Tool
PILLAR 4 Goal: Increase the participation of stakeholders for the improvement of school’s achievement and performance
Strategies Interventions Critical Action (Activities) Responsible / Timef Estimated Budget
Accountable rame Budget Source
Unit
 1. Strengthen the  Conduct of conferences,  Preparation of invitation and
partnership with all meetings, or dialogues with request letter for LGU
stakeholders including the  Organizing Recognition and July 2022
parents. School Head
LGU to improve  Conduct Recognition and Awarding of Certificates to
Master Teacher
instructional provisions Stakeholders. Decembe 2000 Donation
Awarding of Certificates to Adopt A School
and promote positive  Preparation/submission/ r 2022
image of the school.
Stakeholders. distribution of Request Letter
Program Leader
 Distribution/Presentation of to LGU and other stakeholder
School Report Card to to gain their support to
stakeholders. school
 Prepare/submit/distribute
 2. Intensify the Request Letter to LGU and  Prepare invitation and School Head July 2022
partnership with all other stakeholder to gain their request letter for NGO Master Teacher
stakeholders including the  Organizing Recognition and Adopt A School Decembe
support to school.
NGO to improve Awarding of Certificates to Program Leader r 2022
instructional provisions Stakeholders. 2000 Donation
and promote positive  Prepare/submit/distribute
image of the school. Request Letter to NGO and
107
 2.1. Identify the possible other stakeholder to gain
NGO partners their support to school
 3. Create a Team that will  Post the names of the donors and  Preparation of List of Donors
monitor and record all the the amount of donations given on and Donation School Head
July 2022
donations received or School FB Page .  Posting of Donations to Property none Donation
June 2023
acquired by the teachers.  Close monitoring of recording and DepEd Partnership Database Custodian
documen System (DPDS)
ANALYSIS AND MANAGEMENT OF RISK
IDENTIFIED RISK SEVERITY

Institutional Risk Risk Categories Probability Impact Overall Rate Mitigation Strategies
High/Medium/Low High/ Medium/ Low
Continuous monitoring of the
Unexpected surge of Operational Low (2) Medium (2) 2 compliance of schools to safe
COVID-19 cases in the operations;
community
Adhere to issuances of IATF,
DOH, and DepEd
Too many non-academic Operational Medium (2) Low (2) 2 Equal distribution of tasks;
and Provision of TA to the focal
Administrative functions of persons of PPAs
teachers
108
Insufficient funds and Financial Low (2) Medium(2) 2 Resource mobilization
resources to support
division initiated PPAs
in line with the LRP
implementation
Change of education Strategic Medium (3) High(5) 4 Align education plans with the
priorities by the new priorities of the new
administration in 2022 administration
109
Indicative Timelines
JULY ONWARDS
APRIL MAY JUNE
ACTIVITY W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4 W1 W2 W3 W4
Attend Division LRP
training-workshop
Formulate the School LRP
Orient the Teachers on LRP
Present the LRP to the DO

for approval
Finalization of the LRP
Presentation of the LRP to

stakeholders
Presentation of the LRP to
Teachers
Submission of school LRP to

DO
Implementation of the Phase 1
of the LRP
110
REFERENCES
Abigail Alviz, “The Language Proficiency and Process Skills of Filipino High School Teachers” Education Quarterly Reviews
2019: Volume 2, No. 3, 615-628
Alexandra Usher and Nancy Kober, “Student Motivation - An Overlooked Piece of School Reform”, Center on Education Policy -
Graduate School of Education and Human Development The George Washington University: 2012: Accessed on May 2, 2022,
www.cep-dc.org
Antiado, D. et al. (2020). Managing Professional Development Activities for Non-teaching Staff: For Professional Growth. DOI:
10.13189/ujer.2020.080758
Cranston, N.C.(2001). Collaborative Decision-Making and School-Based Management: Challenges, Rhetoric and Reality. Journal of
Educational Inquiry, 2 (2), 1-24
David Geary, “Consequences, Characteristics, and Causes of Mathematical Learning Disabilities and Persistent Low Achievement in
Mathematics”: April 1, 2012: Accessed on May 4, 2022, https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC3131082/
Esha (2016). A Study of Effectiveness of Training & Development Programme on Bank Employees Performance. doi:
10.21474/IJAR01
Fullan, M., Hill, P., & Crevola, C. (2006). The Contribution of School Climate and Teaching Quality to the Improvement of Learning
Achievements, According to an External Evaluation System. Breakthrough. Thousand Oaks, CA: Corwin Press.
Fisher D. and Frey N. (2014). Student and Teacher Perspectives on a Close Reading Protocol.
Irwanto, Irwanto, Eli Rohaeti and Endang Wijayanti, “Students’ Science Process Skills and Analytic Thinking Ability in Chemistry
Learning” August 2017: AIP Conference Proceedings 1868 (1) : 030001 Conference: The 4th International Conference on Research
and Implementation and Education of Mathematics and Science (4th ICRIEMS): Research and Education for Developing Scientific
Attitude in Science and Math
111
0
1
2
3
4
0
1
.
Strategies Interventions Functio Critical Action (Activities) Responsible / Timef Estimated Budget
nal Accountable rame Budget Source
Divisio Unit
n-in-
Charge
Allocate fund for the  Rehabilitate the School MRF  Realign budget for the
rehabilitation of the rehabilitation of MRF School Head
Material Recovery  Prepare Program of Work. Physical
July to
Facility.  Prepare Purchase Order Facilities Leader
August
 Prepare Abstract of Canvass BAC Chairman 20,000 MOOE
2022
Prepare and submit  Prepare Completion and Industrial Arts
School Operating Acceptance report Leader
Budget
Motivate and  Conduct information and  Conduct information and School Head June
convince the parents dissemination campaign on dissemination campaign School Health 2022
to allow their children Importance of Covid 19 on Importance of Covid Leader Decemb 2000 Donation
to be vaccinated Vaccination. 19 Vaccination. er 2022
through conducting
Information
Campaign..
Prepare and reproduce  Submit the supplementary  Conduct of quality School Head Septemb
supplementary learning materials in the Division assurance of the tools Teachers er 2022
learning materials for for evaluation and quality  -Final evaluation of the Decemb 30,000 Donation
Grade 2 and 6. assurance learning materials er 2022 MOOE
Strengthen the  Establish partnership with  Signing of MOA with School Head Septemb
conduct of conduct of barangay officials and non- partners for the conduct of Teachers er 2022
School Based feeding government organization for the extended feeding activities SBFP Focal Decemb 80,000 Donation
Program conduct of extended feeding  Prepare Menu for the Person er
activities feeding 2022
0
1
2
3
The LRP includes the areas of recovery and readiness. As defined in the April, 2020 survey, recovery is the capacity of a school to return to a functional
level of operation in all aspects of school life. There are two interventions in recovery that this template addresses. These are instructional recovery and
financial recovery. Instructional recovery refers to the efforts schools will need to exert to make-up for time lost by teachers in covering end-of-year curriculum
competencies or in ensuring student mastery the
0
In terms of readiness, readiness is conceptualized as the school’s capacity in the new schoolyear to effectively respond to new operational challenges
and concerns emerging from or demanded by the current pandemic health crisis and post-ECQ conditions. This Plan template looks at six interventions of
readiness that schools can consider. These are instructional, faculty, administrative, financial, academic support and physical plant readiness. Instructional
readiness involves coverage of required student competencies and delivery of teaching and learning experiences in different modalities. Faculty readiness looks
at the skills and dispositions teachers possess in designing and delivering learning plans in various modalities. Administrative readiness focuses on the school’s
ability to prepare and implement a plan in response to crisis (e.g., pandemic) demands, challenges and disruptions. Financial readiness covers the availability of
funds and other resources to support new school operations brought about by the pandemic. Academic support readiness is specifically characterized in terms
of ensuring mental health and well-being so that student learning and faculty instruction is secure and productive. Physical plant readiness examines the
school’s capacity to do the necessary changes in facilities and adopt protocols and measures in response to physical distancing and the threat of outbreaks. As
shown in the following diagram, these interventions for recovery and readiness comprise the framework for the development of this Plan:
The Glossary of Education Reform by Great Schools Partnership https://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/
Pitagan, Fernando B. Continuity of Education in the Philippines Amidst COVID-19 Pandemic
Ferdinand B. Pitagan, PhD

National Teachers College
Gatcho, Al Ryanne G. A Literature Review on Remedial Reading Teachers: The Gaps in the Philippine Context
1
https://bulacandeped.com/ Sama-Sama sa Pag SULONG ng EduKALIDAD
- Al Ryanne G. Gatcho gatcho.arg@pnu.edu.ph Assistant Professor, College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research Philippine Normal
University Judy C. Bautista bautista.jc@pnu.edu.ph Assistant Professor, College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research Philippine Normal
University D
Open Journal of Social Sciences Vol.9 No.5, May 2021
2
3
The LRP includes the areas of recovery and readiness. As defined in the April, 2020 survey,
recovery is the capacity of a school to return to a functional level of operation in all aspects of school
life. There are two interventions in recovery that this template addresses. These are instructional
recovery and financial recovery. Instructional recovery refers to the efforts schools will need to exert
to make-up for time lost by teachers in covering end-of-year curriculum competencies or in ensuring
student mastery the
In terms of readiness, readiness is conceptualized as the school’s capacity in the new

schoolyear to effectively respond to new operational challenges and concerns emerging from or
demanded by the current pandemic health crisis and post-ECQ conditions. This Plan template looks
at six interventions of readiness that schools can consider. These are instructional, faculty,
administrative, financial, academic support and physical plant readiness. Instructional readiness
involves coverage of required student competencies and delivery of teaching and learning
experiences in different modalities. Faculty readiness looks at the skills and dispositions teachers
possess in designing and delivering learning plans in various modalities. Administrative readiness
focuses on the school’s ability to prepare and implement a plan in response to crisis (e.g., pandemic)
demands, challenges and disruptions. Financial readiness covers the availability of funds and other
resources to support new school operations brought about by the pandemic. Academic support
readiness is specifically characterized in terms of ensuring mental health and well-being so that
student learning and faculty instruction is secure and productive. Physical plant readiness examines
the school’s capacity to do the necessary changes in facilities and adopt protocols and measures in
response to physical distancing and the threat of outbreaks. As shown in the following diagram,
these interventions for recovery and readiness comprise the framework for the development of this
Plan:
0
The Glossary of Education Reform by Great Schools Partnership
https://www.greatschoolspartnership.org/
CONTINUITY OF EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

AMIDST COVID-19 PANDEMIC
Ferdinand B. Pitagan, PhD
National Teachers College
HTTPS://BULACANDEPED.COM/ SAMA-SAMA SA PAG SULONG NG

EDUKALIDAD
A Literature Review on Remedial Reading Teachers: The Gaps in the Philippine Context - Al
Ryanne G. Gatcho gatcho.arg@pnu.edu.ph Assistant Professor, College of Graduate Studies and
Teacher Education Research Philippine Normal University Judy C. Bautista bautista.jc@pnu.edu.ph
Assistant Professor, College of Graduate Studies and Teacher Education Research Philippine Normal
University D
Open Journal of Social Sciences > Vol.9 No.5, May 2021
The Perceived Challenges in Reading of Learners:

Basis for School Reading Programs
Mary Jane L. Tomas1, Erleo T. Villaros2, Sheena Mai A. Galman1
1
College of Education, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Cabanatuan
City, Philippines.
2
Schools Division of Aurora, Department of Education, Baler, Aurora, Philippines.
DOI: 10.4236/jss.2021.95009 PDF HTML XML 1,234 Downloads 38,826 Vi
ews
Abstract
This mixed method research study was conducted to investigate the English and
Filipino reading profile of learners,
1
PLIGHT OF THE PARENTS OF THE FILIPINO LEARNERS IN THE IMPLEMENTATION OF THE
MODULAR DISTANCE LEARNING FITZGERALD C. KINTANAR, SUZETTE T. ELLADORA & FRENAH R.
CUIZON Cebu Technological University–Argao, Cebu Philippine
International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) ISSN (P): 2249–6947; ISSN
(E): 2249–8052 Vol. 11, Issue 2, Dec 2021, 35–48
GD Anzaldo - International Journal of Scientific Advances, 2021 Modular Distance Learning in

the New Normal Education Amidst Covid-19 Geraldine D. Anzaldo
US-China Education Review A, May 2015, Vol. 5, No. 5, 349-360 doi:

10.17265/2161-623X/2015.05.006 Impact of Multimedia-aided Teaching on Students’ Academic
Achievement and Attitude at Elementary Level Iqbal Shah, Muhammad Khan Allama Iqbal Open
University, Islamabad, Pakista
Tomas, Mary Jane L. et al. The Perceived Challenges in Reading of Learners: Basis for
School Reading Programs
1
, Erleo T. Villaros2, Sheena Mai A. Galman1
1
College of Education, Nueva Ecija University of Science and Technology, Cabanatuan
City, Philippines.
2
Schools Division of Aurora, Department of Education, Baler, Aurora, Philippines.
DOI: 10.4236/jss.2021.95009 PDF HTML XML 1,234 Downloads 38,826 Vi
ews
Abstract
This mixed method research study was conducted to investigate the English and
Filipino reading profile of learners,
Kintanar, Fitsgerald C., Plight of the Parents of the Filipino Learners in the
Implementation of the Modular Distance Learning
PLIGHT OF THE PARENTS OF THE FILIPINO LEARNERS IN THE
IMPLEMENTATION OF THE MODULAR DISTANCE LEARNING FITZGERALD C.
KINTANAR, SUZETTE T. ELLADORA & FRENAH R. CUIZON Cebu Technological University–Argao,
Cebu Philippine
International Journal of Educational Science and Research (IJESR) ISSN (P): 2249–
6947; ISSN (E): 2249–8052 Vol. 11, Issue 2, Dec 2021, 35–48
GD Anzaldo - International Journal of Scientific Advances, 2021 Anzaldo, Geraldine D.,
Modular Distance Learning in the New Normal Education Amidst Covid-19.
US-China Education Review A, May 2015, Vol. 5, No. 5, 349-360 doi:

10.17265/2161-623X/2015.05.006
Muhammad, Khan., Impact of Multimedia-aided Teaching on Students’ Academic

Achievement and Attitude at Elementary Level Iqbal Shah, Allama Iqbal Open University,
Islamabad, Pakistan

Bces 2022 LRP Book Form Final Deadline 2 For Printing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

Bces 2022 LRP Book Form Final Deadline 2 For Printing

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

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

Bces 2022 LRP Book Form Final Deadline 2 For Printing

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 1

The Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School Learning Recovery Plan is

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 2

I. BACKGROUND AND CONTEXT...............................................................................1

II. OPERATIONAL FRAMEWORKS OF THE LEARNING RECOVERY PLAN.....3

IV. SWOT ANALYSIS.......................................................................................................80

V. KEY CHALLENGES AND STRATEGIC DIRECTIONS.......................................84

VI. PERFORMANCE TARGETS...................................................................................94

VII. IMPLEMENTATION PHASES...............................................................................104

VIII. RESEARCH SUPPORT.................................................................................................110

IX. SDO ORGANIZATIONAL CHART........................................................................111

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 3

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, the Department of Education (DepEd)

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 5

The RAPID Learning Recovery Framework

The KITE Framework

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 6

National Learning Recovery Framework

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 7

DATA ON LITERACY IN ENGLISH

PRE-TEST POST TEST

PRE-TEST POST TEST

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning

PRE-TEST POST TEST

PRE-TEST POST TEST

Figure 5: Pretest and Posttest Results of Reading Assessment in Key Stage 1,

PRE-TEST POST TEST

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 13

150 127 128

PRE-TEST POST TEST

Figure 7: Summary of Pretest and Posttest Results of Reading Assessment in Key

In response to the Division Reading Program, GOALS (Gaining Outstanding

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 10

NON-READER; 19; 23%

INSTRUCTIONAL; 33; 39%

Figure 8: Pretest Results of Early Grades Reading Assessment in Grade 1,

NON-READER; 18; 22%

INSTRUCTIONAL; 27; 33%

Figure 9: Pretest Results of Early Grades Reading Assessment in Grade 2,

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 11

NON-READER; 33; 29% INDEPENDENT; 29; 26%

Figure 10: Pretest Results of Early Grades Reading Assessment in Grade 3,

As stated by Tomas et al. (2021), the Philippines shared a significant rate of

However, it could be seen in the table that 91 or 31.93% of the assessed

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 12

FRUSTRATION; 35; INDEPENDENT; 29;

INSTRUCTIONAL; 39; 38%

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 13

Figure 12: Pretest Results of Early Grades Reading Assessment in Grade 5,

NON-READER; 1; 1% INDEPENDENT; 13;

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 14

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 15

CAN PERFORM CANNOT PERFORM

Assessment (EGRA), SY 2021-2022

Figure 14 shows the summary of performance of Key Stage 1 learners in Early

Balingcanaway Centro Elementary School -FY 2022-2024 Learning Recovery Plan 16

Assessed Learners 253