M&E - Tool 1 (PD) COMPLIANCE MONITORING TOOL

Republic of the Philippines
Department of Education
National Educators Academy of the Philippines
PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PD) COMPLIANCE MONITORING TOOL
This tool will be used by the assigned Monitoring and Evaluation Officer during the
MATATAG Training. Please fill out all the fields below.
I. PROGRAM OWNER PROFILE AND PROGRAM DETAILS
SDO 1 PANGASINAN-HRD UNIT

PD Program Owner:
JOJO R. JOSE
PD Program Manager:
Senior Education Program Specialist
School Management Monitoring & Evaluation
DIVISION TRAINING OF TRAINERS ON THE

Title of the PD Program: MATATAG CURRICULUM
BURGOS CENTRAL SCHOOL
Venue of the PD Program:
May 23-25, 26 & 27, 2024

Implementation Dates of
the PD Program:
MONITORING AND EVALUATION OFFICER
Address: Room 214, Mabini Building, DepEd Complex, Meralco Ave., Pasig City 1600
Doc. Ref. Re 01
Code v
Effectivity Pa
ge
1
of
1
3
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
Email Address: neap.qad@deped.gov.ph | Website: www.deped.gov.ph
Name Position Office Signature
CHARITO C. MANUEL AO-II DE GUZMAN

INTEGRATED
SCHOOL
INSTRUCTIONS:
1. Put a check (/) in the box that corresponds to your observation to the program.
2. Assign the following points to each column that was selected during the monitoring.
3. Points for each column are as follows: A = 4 points; B = 3 points; C = 2 points; and D
= 1 point.
4. For items with more than one indicator, compute the average to obtain a single
rating.
5. All categories are considered crucial to any program, thus, weights are inapplicable.
II. PD PROGRAM MONITORING SECTION
1.0 PARTICIPANTS
Are the actual participants the same with the target participants of the program?
COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D
About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or less

the actual the actual the actual of the actual
participants are the participants are the participants are the participants are the
target participants target participants target participants target participants
of the PD Program. of the PD Program. of the PD Program. of the PD Program.
About 91-100% of About 81-90% of the About 51-80% of About 50% or less
the actual actual participants the actual of the actual
participants are are qualified to the participants are participants are
qualified to the selection criteria of qualified to the qualified to the
selection criteria of the PD Program. selection criteria of selection criteria of
Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

Effectivity Pag
e
2 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
the PD Program. the PD Program. the PD Program.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (e.g., Reasons for deviation, especially for responses made
under Columns C and D.)
REMARKS
The number of actual participants is not the same as the number of target
participants.
2.0 PROGRAM DESIGN

To what extent was the delivered PD Program compliant to the quality assured PD
Program Design?

Effectivity Pag
e
3 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
The delivered PD The delivered PD There were minor There were major
Program: Program made revisions in the revisions in the
minimal design aspects of the design aspects of the
● fully
adjustments in any PD Program: PD Program:
complied
of the following
with and was ● Professional ● Professional
aspects:
consistent Standards Standards
with the ● Professional
● Learning ● Learning
quality Standards
Objectives Objectives
assured PD
● Learning
Program ● Session ● Session
Objectives
Design. Contents Contents
● Session
● Logical ● Time
Contents
Sequence Allotment
● Time
● Program ● Logical
Allotment
Methodology Sequence
● Logical
● Program ● Program
Sequence
Methodology Methodology
● Program
● Session ● Session
Methodology
Outputs Outputs
● Session
● Workplace ● Workplace
Outputs
Application Application
● Workplace
● Time
Application
Allotment
● Logical
Sequence

Effectivity Pag
e
4 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
The delivered PD Program fully complied with and was consistent with the quality
assured PD Program Design.
3.0 RESOURCE PERSONS/SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS

To what extent were the resource speakers/subject-matter experts compliant to the PD
Program Delivery Quality Standards?
All the sessions Most of the There were minor There were major
were delivered by the sessions were changes regarding changes regarding
resource delivered by the the expected the expected
speakers/subject- resource resource resource
matter experts as speakers/subject- speakers/subject- speakers/subject-
identified RPs who matter experts as matter experts to matter experts to
attended the identified RPs who deliver the sessions. deliver the sessions.
MATATAG Training attended the
for Trainers. MATATAG Training
for Trainers. Almost half of the More than half of
sessions were the sessions were
delivered by different delivered by different
Some of the sessions resource resource
were delivered by speakers/subject- speakers/subject-
alternatives who matter experts from matter experts from
those originally those originally
are equally excellent
identified RPs who identified RPs who
(or better).
attended the attended the
MATATAG Training MATATAG Training
for Trainers. for Trainers.
NEAP was informed
of the changes ahead
of time.
NEAP was not NEAP was not
informed of the informed of the
changes ahead of

Effectivity Pag
e
5 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
time. changes ahead of
time.
The resource About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or

speakers/subject- the following the following less of the following
matter experts indicators in the PD indicators in the PD indicators in the PD
executed 91-100% Program Quality Program Quality Program Quality
of the following Standards for Standards for Standards for
indicators in the PD Learning Learning Learning
Program Quality Management were Management were Management were
Standards for accomplished by accomplished by the accomplished by
Learning resource resource resource
Management. speakers/subject- speakers/subject- speakers/subject-
matter experts. matter experts. matter experts.
Note: Average all
the indicators met Note: Average all Note: Average all Note: Average all
in the Standards the indicators met the indicators met the indicators met
Checklist for all in the Standards in the Standards in the Standards
the sessions. Checklists for all Checklists for all Checklists for all
the sessions. the sessions. the sessions.
ADDITIONAL INFORMATION (e.g. Reasons for deviation, especially for responses made
REMARKS
All the sessions were delivered by the resource who attended the MATATAG Training for
Trainers.

Effectivity Pag
e
6 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
4.0 LEARNING RESOURCE MATERIALS
To what extent were the LRMs compliant to the PD LRMs Quality Standards?
The learning The learning About 30-50% of There were major

resource materials resource materials learning resource changes in the
were the same as the used in the PD materials used were learning resource
quality assured program were different to the materials used in
learning materials. different from the quality assured the program than
quality assured LRMs. the quality assured
LRMs. LRMs.
The program owner
fully complied with NEAP was not
the PD LRMs Quality The LRMs were informed ahead of NEAP was not
Standards. edited to better suit time regarding the informed ahead of
the session and are changes in the time regarding the
still compliant to the LRMs. changes in the
PD LRMs Quality LRMs.
Standards.
NEAP was informed

of the changes
ahead of time.
About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or

Effectivity Pag
e
7 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
the learning materials the learning the learning less of the learning
aligned with the materials aligned materials aligned materials aligned
purpose of the with the purpose of with the purpose of with the purpose of
methodology of the the methodology of the methodology of the methodology of
learning design were the learning design the learning design the learning design
distributed. were distributed. were distributed. were distributed.
About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or less

the participants the participants the participants of the participants
received a copy of the received a copy of the received a copy of the received a copy of the
learning resource learning resource learning resource learning resource
materials. materials. materials. materials.
REMARKS
The program owner fully complied with the PD LRMs Quality Standards.
5.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

To what extent was the Program Management compliant to the PD Program Delivery
Quality Standards?
91-100% of the 81-90% of the 51-80% of the 50% or less of the

following Program following Program following Program following Program
Management Management Management Management
indicators were indicators were indicators were
indicators were
implemented: implemented: implemented:
implemented:

Effectivity Pag
e
8 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
Note: Average all Note: Average all Note: Average all
the indicators met the indicators met the indicators met
Note: Average all
in the Standards in the Standards in the Standards
the indicators
Checklist. Checklist. Checklist.
met in the
Standards
Checklist.
under columns C and D.)
REMARKS
The Program Management got an Average of 94 % in all the indicators in the Standards
Checklist.
6.0 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: FACE-TO-FACE PD PROGRAM

To what extent was the venue for the face-to-face PD Program compliant to standards?

Effectivity Pag
e
9 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or
the following the following the following less of the following
indicators of the indicators of the indicators of the indicators of the
learning environment learning learning learning
and venue were met. environment and environment and environment and
venue were met. venue were met. venue were met.
Note: Average all

the indicators met Note: Average all Note: Average all Note: Average all
in the Standards the indicators met the indicators met the indicators met
Checklist. in the Standards in the Standards in the Standards
Checklist. Checklist. Checklist.
REMARKS
The learning environment and venue were satisfactory.

Effectivity Pag
e
10 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
III. SUMMARY OF FINDINGS
INSTRUCTIONS:
Calculate the average of all six (6) categories to get the overall rating for the program.
Compute the average of the rating to obtain the category rating.
1. Points for each column are as follows: A = 4 points; B = 3 points; C = 2 points; and D
= 1 point.
2. For items with more than one indicator, compute the average to obtain a single
rating.
3. All categories are considered crucial to any program, thus, weights are inapplicable.
INTERPRETATION PER CATEGORY:
Rating Description
3.26 to 4.0 Fully met all agreed standards.
2.51 to 3.25 Partially met agreed standards.
1.76 to 2.50 Minimal conformance to the standards.
1.0 to 1.75 Non-conformance to the standards.
INDICATORS Category Rating
1.0 PARTICIPANTS
Are the actual participants the same with the target 3.5
participants of the PD Program?
2.0 LEARNING DESIGN

To what extent was the delivered PD Program compliant to the 4
Detailed PD Program Design?
3.0 RESOURCE PERSONS/SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS

To what extent were the resource speakers and subject-matter 4
experts compliant to the PD Program Delivery Quality
Standards?

Effectivity Pag
e
11 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207
4.0 LEARNING RESOURCE MATERIALS
To what extent were the LRMs compliant to the PD LRMs 4
Quality Standards?
5.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 4

To what extent was the Program Management compliant to the
PD Program Delivery Quality Standards?
6.0 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: FACE-TO-FACE PD 3

PROGRAM
To what extent was the venue for the face-to-face PD Program
compliant to standards?
TOTAL RATING
3.75
MAJOR OBSERVATION, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS
MAJOR OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS
Overall the PD was implemented with the The program was implemented successfully
quality assured PD Program Design. although there were minor challenges on day
1.
I recommend that on the next conduct of
such activity a provision of internet
connection/wifi would be provided to the
participants, resource persons, PMTs and
M&Es.

Effectivity Pag
e
12 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207

Effectivity Pag
e
13 of
13
Telephone No.: (+632) 86337207

M&E - Tool 1 (PD) COMPLIANCE MONITORING TOOL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

You might also like

M&E - Tool 1 (PD) COMPLIANCE MONITORING TOOL

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

M&E - Tool 1 (PD) COMPLIANCE MONITORING TOOL

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Republic of the Philippines

PROFESSIONAL DEVELOPMENT (PD) COMPLIANCE MONITORING TOOL

I. PROGRAM OWNER PROFILE AND PROGRAM DETAILS

SDO 1 PANGASINAN-HRD UNIT

DIVISION TRAINING OF TRAINERS ON THE

May 23-25, 26 & 27, 2024

MONITORING AND EVALUATION OFFICER

CHARITO C. MANUEL AO-II DE GUZMAN

II. PD PROGRAM MONITORING SECTION

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D

About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or less

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

2.0 PROGRAM DESIGN

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

3.0 RESOURCE PERSONS/SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

The resource About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D

The learning The learning About 30-50% of There were major

NEAP was informed

About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

About 91-100% of About 81-90% of About 51-80% of About 50% or less

5.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D

91-100% of the 81-90% of the 51-80% of the 50% or less of the

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

6.0 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: FACE-TO-FACE PD PROGRAM

COLUMN A COLUMN B COLUMN C COLUMN D

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

Note: Average all

The learning environment and venue were satisfactory.

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

INTERPRETATION PER CATEGORY:

3.26 to 4.0 Fully met all agreed standards.

2.51 to 3.25 Partially met agreed standards.

1.76 to 2.50 Minimal conformance to the standards.

1.0 to 1.75 Non-conformance to the standards.

INDICATORS Category Rating

2.0 LEARNING DESIGN

3.0 RESOURCE PERSONS/SUBJECT-MATTER EXPERTS

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

5.0 PROGRAM MANAGEMENT 4

6.0 LEARNING ENVIRONMENT: FACE-TO-FACE PD 3

MAJOR OBSERVATION, FINDINGS, AND RECOMMENDATIONS

MAJOR OBSERVATION AND FINDINGS RECOMMENDATIONS

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

Doc. Ref. Code Rev 01

You might also like