LA

FLORA
ELEMEN
TARY
SCHOOL School KRA 1:
ACCES
Monitoring,
Evaluation
and
KRA 2:
QUALITY AdjustmentsKRA 3:
GOVERNA
NCE
 Key Performance Indicators
KRA 1:
 Enrollment by Sex ACCES
 Students/Pupils At Risk of Dropping Out (SARDOs/PARDOs)
 No. of Learners No Longer Participating in School (NLPA)
 Failure Rate
 Madrasah Education Program (MEP)
 Arabic Language and Islamic Values Education (ALIVE)
Teachers
 Indigenous People Learners
 Indigenous Peoples Education (IPED) Program
 Recipients of Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps)
 Table A.1 Enrollment by Sex
Enrollment by Sex in a Quarter
(As of Sept to Nov of S.Y 2021-2022
Grade Level
Male Female Total

Kindergarten 26 18 44
Annotation:
Grade 1 25 27 52

Grade 2 26 21 47 The data revealed that from the start

Grade 3 19 28 47 of the class last September 2021,
Grade 4 14 19 33 the enrolment was 293 both male
Grade 5 15 20 35
and female as shown in the data.
However, for the first quarter of 2022
Grade 6 20 15 35
the enrolment reached to 310 with
Total 145 148 293 an increased of 17 learners. The
Enrollment by Sex in a Quarter reason for this increased were, the
Grade Level
(As of Jan to March of S.Y 2021-2022
learners were originally enrolled and
Male Female Total resided in Barangay La Flora they
Kindergarten 32 22 54 just migrate to the other place for 1
Grade 1 28 27 55 to 2 years then back again to the
place of La Flora. The school
Grade 2 26 22 48
implemented of no collection policy
Grade 3 21 29 50
as one of the best practices we
Grade 4 14 19 33 always reminded to all stakeholders.
Grade 5 15 20 35

Grade 6 20 15 35

Total 156 154 310 3

 Table A.2: Students/Pupils At Risk of Dropping Out
(SARDOs/PARDOs)
Total Number of SARDOs/PARDOs
No. of Learners
with 5 or more
Annotation:
Enrollment consecutive %
absences
No learners at risk of dropping
LEVEL M F T M F T M F T out as of the first quarter of 2022.
The best practices that we always
Kinder 32 22 54 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% implemented in the school were:
Grade 1 28 27 55 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% No collection policy, home
visitation, contact the learners
Grade 2 26 22 48 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% through their parents calling or
Grade 3 21 29 50 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% texting and communicate the
parents during distribution and
Grade 4 14 19 33 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
retrieval of modules.
Grade 5 15 20 35 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 6 20 15 35 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Total 156 154 310 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
 Table A.3:No. of Learners No Longer Participating in
School (NLPA)
Total Number of Learners No Longer Participating in
Learning Activities (NLPA)
No. of Learners Annotation
Enrollment %
who are NLPA
LEVEL M F T M F T M F T No pupils reported of no longer
paticipating in learning activities
Kinder 32 22 54 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% per record from the advisers. We
always communicate the parents
Grade 1 28 27 55 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% regarding their pupuls during the
Grade 2 26 22 48 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% distribution and retrieval of the
modules.
Grade 3 21 29 50 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 4 14 19 33 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 5 15 20 35 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 6 20 15 35 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Total 156 154 310 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
 Table A.7: Failure Rate
Quarter 1 Failure Rate in All Subjects
Enrollment English Math Science Filipino
LEVEL % % % %
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T

0 0
Grade 1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
Grade 2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 6 20 15 35 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
 Table A.7: Failure Rate
Quarter 1 Failure Rate in All Subjects
Enrollment AP MAPEH TLE/EPP EsP
LEVEL % % % %
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T

0 0 0
Grade 1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
Grade 2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
Grade 3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0 0
Grade 6 20 15 35 0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
0 0 0
%
✘ There were no
pupils failed for
the second quarter
in all subject areas.
All advisers from
Kindergarten to
Grade 6 were
always reminding
the parents about
their modules
 Table 13: Madrasah Education Program
(MEP)
Madrasah Education Program (MEP)
Number of Number of
Muslim ALIVE %
Learners Learners Annotation
LEVEL M F T M F T M F T
Our school has no learners for
Kinder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% Madrasah Education.

Grade 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
 Table 14: Arabic Language and Islamic Values
Education (ALIVE) Teachers
Alive Teachers
Contract Service
Permanent Provisional Annotation
DepEd
LGU Paid
Subsidized
No ALIVE teachers in our
LEVEL M F T M F T M F T M F T school.
Kinder 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 3 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 4 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 5 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Grade 6 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
 Table A.15: Indigenous People
Learners
Indigenous People Learners
Manobo Maman Higaon Banwa Manda Talaan
Grade Badjao Others Total
wa on on ya dig
Level
M F T MF T MF T MF T MF T MF T MF T MF T M F T
Kinder 32 22 54 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 33 22 54
Grade 1 28 27 55 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 28 27 55
Grade 2 26 22 48 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 26 22 48
Grade 3 21 29 50 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 28 48
Grade 4 14 19 33 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 14 19 33
Grade 5 15 20 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 15 20 35
Grade 6 20 15 35 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 20 15 35
Total 156 154 310 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 155 153 308
Annotation:

100% or all learners of La Flora Elementary School were Manobo.

 Table A.16: Indigenous Peoples Education (IPED)
Program
Indigenous Peoples Education (IPED) Program

No. of No. of No. of No. of School

Number of Schools Utilizing Learners Teachers Heads
Contextualized/I
Grade Level Contextualized/Indigenized
ndigenized
Lesson Plans M F T M F T M F T
Lesson Plans

Elementary 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Secondary

Total 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Underwent IPED Program Orientation 0 0 0 0 0

Annotation:

No IPED offered in our school.

 Table 17: Recipients of Pantawid Pamilyang
Pilipino Program (4Ps)
Recipients of Pantawid Pamilya Pilipino Program (4Ps)
No. of Recipient
No. of Recipients Annotation:
with more than 10 %
of 4Ps absences
There were 41 males and 38
LEVEL M F T M F T M F T
females as beneficiaries of 4Ps
Kinder 1 2 3 0 0 0 0% 0% 0% out of 310 learners of La Flora
Elementary School.
Grade 1 5 4 9 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 2 9 5 14 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 3 7 9 16 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 4 3 4 7 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 5 5 11 16 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Grade 6 11 3 14 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
Total 41 38 79 0 0 0 0% 0% 0%
 Table 18: Alternative Learning
System(ALS)
Alternative Learning System (ALS)
Elementary Secondary Total
M F T M F T M F T
Accreditation &
0 0 0 0 0 0
Equivalency

Basic Literacy Program 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annotation
Learning Facilities 0 0 0 0 0 0
No learners in
ALIVE Learners 0 0 0 0 0 0
our school
Out of School Youth 0 0 0 0 0 0 enrolled in ALS.
Balik-Paaralan para sa
0 0 0 0 0 0
Out-Of-School Youth

Informal Education 0 0 0 0 0 0
Livelihood Program 0 0 0 0 0 0
Key Performance Indicators
KRA 2:
QUALITY
 Literacy Level for English and Filipino

 Literacy Level for MTB-MLE

 Quarterly Grade Point Average (GPA)

 Quarterly Grades
 Table Q.1: Literacy Level for English and
Filipino
LITERACY LEVEL IN FILIPINO (Phil-IRI)

Grade Enrollment Non-Reader Frustration Instructional Independent

% % % %
Level M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
6 24 32 38
G3 21 29 50 1 2 3 4 8 12 8 8 16 8 11 19
% % % %
3 21 33 42
G4 14 19 33 1 0 1 3 4 7 6 5 11 4 10 14
% % % %
3 37 51
G5 15 20 35 1 0 1 2 1 3 9% 5 8 13 7 11 18
% % %
3 26 37 34
G6 Annotation:
20 15 35 1 0 1 6 3 9 8 5 13 5 7 12
% % % %
Out of 153 learners from Grades 3 to 6, there were 6 or 4% learners belong to
15 4 20 35 41
70 83 31 or 20%
non-reader,
TOTAL 4 belong
2 6 to frustration,
15 1653 31 27 to
or 35% belong 26instructional
53 24 38 62
and 62 or 41%3learners belong to% % subject. All advisers
independent in Filipino % %
distributed the different books for their learners and follo-up constantly when to
get and retrun the modules on time.
 Table Q.1: Literacy Level for English and
FilipinoLITERACY LEVEL ENGLISH (Phil-IRI)
Grade Enrollment Non-Reader Frustration Instructional Independent
% % % %
Level M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
6 27 36 30
G4 14 19 33 2 0 2 4 5 9 6 6 12 2 8 10
% % % %
8 20 46 26
G5 15 20 35 2 1 3 3 4 7 7 9 16 3 6 9
% % % %
5 26 40 29
G6 20 15 35 2 0 2 6 3 9 9 5 14 4 6 10
% % % %
Annotation:
10 7 24 41 28
TOTAL 49 54 6 1 7 13 12 25 22 20 42 9 20 29
3 % % %
For Phil-IRI English, out of 103 learners from Grades 4 to 6, there were 7 or 7% %
belong to non-readers, 25 or 24% for frustration, 42 or 41% for instructional and 29
or 28% learners for independent. All advisers provided different books for their
learners and they conducted Brigada Pagpabasa.
 Table Q.2: Literacy Level for MTB-
MLE
LITERACY LEVEL MTB-MLE (EGRA - GRADES 1 TO 3)

Grade Enrollment Non-Reader Frustration Instructional Independent

% % % %
Level M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
22 24 38 16
G1 28 27 55 8 4 12 6 7 13 10 11 21 4 5 9
% % % %
21 27 27 25
G2 26 22 48 6 4 10 6 7 13 7 6 13 7 5 12
% % % %
22 32 40
G3 21 29 50 1 2 3 6% 4 7 11 7 9 16 9 11 19
% % %
Annotation:
15 16 24 33 27
TOTAL 75 78 15 10 25 16 21 37 24 26 50 20 21 41
3 % % %
For Literacy level for MTB-MLE Grades 1 to 3, out of 153 learners there were 25 %
or 16% as non-readers, 37 or 24% for frustration, 50 or 33% for instructional and
41 or 27% learners for independent. Advisers from Grades 1 to 3 conducted
Brigada Pagpabasa and always communicate the parents about the reading skills
of their children and by providing different books to the learners.
 Table Q.4: Quarterly GPA
Description and Grading Scale (2ND GRADING CONSOLIDATED)
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0 36 29 24 11
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
11 9 20
%
9 7 16
%
4 9 13
%
4 2 6
%
0 11 31 31 27
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
3 2 5
%
10 5 15
%
8 7 15
%
5 8 13
%
0 26 30 22 22
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 8 13
%
7 8 15
%
5 6 11
%
4 7 11
%
0 18 21 21 39
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
3 3 6
%
4 3 7
%
3 4 7
%
4 9 13
%
0 31 31 20 17
G5Annotation:
15 The 20 quarterly
35 Grade
0 Point
0 Average
0
%
5 of the6learners
(GPA) 11 from Grades5 1 to 6,6
%
11 learners from
Of 256 4 Grades
3 1 -76, there were 0%
%or 24% for Very satisfactory
1 learners
5
%and 54 or 22% for
6
%
for those who did not meet expectation, 64 or 25% for fairly satisfactory, 85 or 34% for satisfactory, 51
outstanding learners in all subject areas. The best practices that the teachers have done were: implementation of reading program entitled MANITA -
Magbasa Aron Naay Ikapasigarbo Ta, where in0pupils were given different26 reading materials at home,60 conduct Brigada Pagpabasa in the school, 14
G6 20 15 35 0 0 0 7 2 9 11 10 21 0 0 0 0% 2 3 5
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA in ENGLISH
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
G1
0 33 27 31
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 2 4 8% 10 6 16
%
9 4 13
%
5 10 15
%
0 34 22 22 22
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
8 9 17
%
4 7 11
%
5 6 11
%
4 7 11
%
0 18 21 18 43
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
3 3 6
%
4 3 7
%
3 3 6
%
4 10 14
%
0 31 32 20 17
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
5 6 11
%
5 6 11
%
4 3 7
%
1 5 6
%
Annotation: For specific sujects
For English subject Out of 201 learners from Grades 2 to 6, 0% for learners who did not meet expectation, 53 or 27% for fairly
0 43 and 51 or 25% for outstanding
43 14
G6 20 15
satisfactory, 35 for0satisfactory,
60 or 30% 0 0 37 or 18%
%
12for very
3 satisfactory
15
%
6 9 15
%
0 learners.
0 0 0% 2 3 5
%
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN MATHEMATICS
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0 44 23 22 11
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
14 10 24
%
6 7 13
%
4 8 12
%
4 2 6
%
0 11 29 31 29
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 3 5
%
10 4 14
%
8 7 15
%
6 8 14
%
0 30 26 22 22
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
6 9 15
%
6 7 13
%
5 6 11
%
4 7 11
%
0 21 21 18 40
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
3 4 7
%
4 3 7
%
3 3 6
%
4 9 13
%
0 28 28 26 18
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
5 5 10
%
7 3 10
%
2 7 9
%
1 5 6
%
Annotation:
0 52 34 14
G6 20 15 0%
In Mathematics, 35 learners
0 who0 did0 not meet12expectation,
6 1879 or 31% belongs
6
% learners belong to outstanding.
%
6 to fairly
12 satisfactory,
%
0 690or 27%
0 for0% 2 53
satisfactory, 3 or 5
%
20% for very satisfactory and 55 or 22% for
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN SCIENCE
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
G1
G2
0 26 20 26 28
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 8 13
%
4 6 10
%
6 7 13
%
6 8 14
%
0 15 27 21 37
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
2 3 5
%
4 5 9
%
4 3 7
%
4 8 12
%
0 32 40 14 14
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
5 6 11
%
7 7 14
%
2 3 5
%
1 4 5
%
0 46 40 14
G6 20 15 35 0 0 0
%
12 4 16
%
6 8 14
%
0 0 0 0% 2 3 5
%
Annotation:
Science is for Grades 3 to 6 only, per result conducted 0% for category of learners who did not meet expectation, 45 or 30% for
TOT 15 0belong to satisfactory, 25
30or 20% for very satisfactory
32 and 36 or 23% for 20 23
70 83 47% or 032% for
fairly satisfactory, 0 learners
0
%
24 21 45
%
21 26 47
%
12 13 25 13 23
outstanding
%
36
%
ALlearners. 3
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN FILIPINO
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0 49 24 18
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
16 11 27
%
6 7 13
%
3 7 10
%
3 2 5 9%

0 33 25 33
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 2 4 9% 10 6 16
%
8 4 12
%
6 10 16
%
0 26 30 22 22
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 8 13
%
7 8 15
%
5 6 11
%
4 7 11
%
0 12 30 21 37
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
2 2 4
%
4 6 10
%
4 3 7
%
4 8 12
%
0 20 17 43 20
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
3 4 7
%
4 2 6
%
7 8 15
%
1 6 7
%
Annotation:
Out of 256 learners from Grades 1 to 6, 0 0% learners who did not 17 66 satisfactory 61 or 22%, there were 83 or 14
G633% 20 15 35 0 0 0 5 and 6 23%meet
1 56 or expectation, for fairly
12 11 23 1 0 1 3% 2 3 5
%
for satisfactory, 56 or 22% for very satisfactory %for learners who belong %to outstanding. %
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN AP
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
10 10 20 36% 10 6 16 29% 4 9 13 24% 4 2 6 11%

0
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 2 4 8% 12 7 19 40% 7 5 12 25% 5 8 13 27%

0
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 9 14 28% 8 8 16 32% 4 7 11 22% 4 5 9 18%

0
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
2 2 4 12% 5 5 10 30% 3 3 6 18% 4 9 13 40%

0
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
3 5 8 23% 7 4 11 31% 4 6 10 29% 1 5 6 17%
Annotation:
For Aral 0
G6belong20 Pan 15the record
35 shown
0 0 that0out of 256 learners
5 1 from6 Grades
17%1 to126, 0%11learners
23 who
66%di not
1 meet0 expectation,
1 3%56 or221% 3 5 14%
% to satisfactory, 53 or 20% belongs to very satisfactory and 52 or 21% learners belong to
to fairly satisfactory, 95 or 38% belongs
outstanding.
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN MAPEH
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
12 9 21 38% 8 7 15 27% 5 9 14 26% 3 2 5 9%

0
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 2 4 8% 9 2 11 23% 10 9 19 40% 5 9 14 29%

0
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 7 12 24% 7 10 17 34% 4 5 9 18% 5 7 12 24%

0
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
2 3 5 15% 4 5 9 27% 4 2 6 18% 4 9 13 40%

0
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
3 4 7 20% 6 4 10 29% 5 7 12 34% 1 5 6 17%
Annotation:
0
G6orIn36%
MAPEH subject, of 256 learners from Grades
20 15 35 0 0 0
for satisfactory, 60 or 23% for very% 4
1 to 6, 0% learners who did not meet expectation, 53 or 19% for fairly satisfactory, 88
satisfactory 0and 554 or 11%
22% for14 12 26learners.
outstanding 74% 0 0 0 0% 2 3 5 14%
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN TLE/EPP
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
G1
G2
G3
0
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
2 4 6 18% 4 4 8 24% 4 3 7 21% 4 8 12 36%

0
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
3 3 6 17% 6 3 9 26% 5 8 13 37% 1 6 7 20%

0
G6 20 15 35 0 0 0
%
7 0 7 20% 11 12 23 66% 0 0 0 0% 2 3 5 14%
Annotation:
TOTFor TEEP Grades 4 to 6, 103 pupils recorded0 during the second grading period where in 0 or non pupilswho did not meet
49 54 103 for0fairly0satisfactory,
0 12 7 19 18% 21 19 40 39% 9 11 20 19% 7 17 24 24%
ALexpectation, 19 or 18% % 40 or 39% for satisfactory, 20 or 19% for very satisfactory and 24 or 24% for outstanding.
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN ESP
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
6 3 9 16% 12 11 23 42% 6 7 13 24% 4 6 10 18%

0
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 3 5 10% 6 4 10 21% 10 9 19 40% 5 9 14 29%

0
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 7 12 24% 4 6 10 20% 4 8 12 24% 8 8 16 32%

0
G4 14 19 33 0 0 0
%
1 0 1 3% 4 6 10 30% 4 2 6 18% 5 11 16 48%

0
G5 15 20 35 0 0 0
%
3 2 5 14% 4 4 8 23% 6 8 14 40% 2 6 8 23%
Annotation:
0 there were non or 0% learners who did not meet expectation, then 33 or 12% for fairly satisfactory,
For ESP subject, out of 256 learners recorded,
G687 or 35%
20 for satisfactory,
15 35 670or 26% 0 for0very satisfactory
%
1 and 0 69 or1 27%3% 16 belong
for learners 10 26 74% 1
to outstanding. 2 3 9% 2 3 5 14%
 Table Q.5: Learners’ Quarterly GPA by
Subject GPA IN MTB-MLE
Did Not Fairly Very
Meet Satisfactor Outstandi
Gra Satisfactor Satisfactor
Enrollment Expectatio y ng
de n y y
% % % % %
Leve
l 70-74 75-79 80-84 85-89 90-100
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0
G1 28 27 55 0 0 0
%
14 9 23 42% 6 7 13 24% 5 9 14 25% 3 2 5 9%

0
G2 26 22 48 0 0 0
%
2 2 4 8% 9 6 15 31% 9 5 14 29% 6 9 15 31%

0
G3 21 29 50 0 0 0
%
5 8 13 26% 7 8 15 30% 5 6 11 22% 4 7 11 22%

G4
G5
G6
Annotation:
TOTThe MTB-MLE GPA from Grades 1 to 3, 0% 0 for learners who did not meet expectation, 13 or 26% for fairly satisfactory, 15 or 30% for
75 78 153 for 0very0satisfactory
0 21 19 40 25% 22 21 43 28% 19 20 39 26% 13 18 31 21%
ALsatisfactory, 11 or 22% % and 11 or 22% for outstanding.
 Key Performance Indicators
KRA 3:
 Classrooms, Comfort Rooms, Armchairs, Monoblock Chairs, GOVERNANCE
Learners Table and Chairs, Teachers’ Table and Chairs
 Functional Library, Science Laboratories, TLE Laboratories,
ICT Laboratories
 Number of Textbooks Per Grade Level and Subject
 Fund Source
 Awards and Recognition
 Stakeholders Support
 Teachers’ Professional Development
 Instructional Supervision
 Learning Action Cell (LAC) Sessions
 Table G.1-6: Classrooms, Comfort Rooms, Armchairs,
Monoblock Chairs, Learners Table and Chairs, Teachers’
Table and Chairs
Learners’ Teachers’
Comfort Monobloc
Classrooms Armchairs Table and Table and
Rooms k Chairs
GRADE Chair Chair
LEVEL Annotation:
N N N N N
No % % % % % %
o o o o o The table shown provide an
information that in Kindergarten it
1.85 1.85 0 needs 1 class room and comfort
Kinder 1 1 0 O% 0 0 0% 0 0%
% % % room because there were 2 sections
for this grade with no arm chairs,
0 monobloc, learners table and chair
3.64 3.64 100
Grade 1 2 2 0 0% 0 92 1.7% 2 and non for the teachers’ table and
% % % % chair however they used the non
prescribe larners table as for them to
4.17 2.08 73 0 50 learn, while the rest of the
Grade 2 2 1 35 0 0 0% 1
% % % % % classrooms have their arm chairs,
learners table and chair and teachers
100 0 50 table. We submitted our reports
Grade 3 2 4% 1 2% 50 0 0 0% 1 through BEIS everytime that we were
% % % ask to filled in the data through online
encoding.
3.03 3.03 60 0 100
Grade 4 1 1 20 0 0 0% 1
% % % % %

2.86 2.86 100 0 100

Grade 5 1 % 1 % 35 % 0 0 0% 1 %
 Table G.7-10: Functional Libraries, Science Laboratories,
TLE Laboratories, ICT Laboratories
TLE Laboratories for ICT Laboratories for
Functional Library Science Laboratories
Diff. Specialization Classroom Instruction
Total Total No.
Enrollment
LEVEL of Current of Learner
Learner School Learner School School Learner School
SY Schools No. -Library Library No. -Sci Lib Sci Lab No.
-TLE
TLE Lab No. -Library Library
Lab
Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio Ratio
Ratio

K to
G6
310 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 310 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annotation:

We do not have rooms for library, Science laboratories, H.E building and ICT
laboratories. We included these needs during the BEIS online encoding.
 Table G.12: Number of Textbooks Per Grade Level and
Subject
English Math Science Filipino AP MAPEH TLE ESP
Total
GRADE
Enrollm Rati Rati Rati Rati Rati Rati Rati Rati
LEVEL No No No No No No No No
ent o o o o o o o o

Kinder 54
Grade 1 55 50 1:1 40 1:2 40 1;2 40 1:2 0 0 40 1:2
Grade 2 48 10 1:5 10 1:5 10 1;5 10 1:5 10 1:5 10 1:5
Grade 3 50 50 1:1 50 1:1 50 1:1 50 1:1 50 1:1 50 1:1 50 1:1
Grade 4 33 35 1.1 25 1:2 20 1:2 20 1:2 14 1:3 95 1:1 35 1:1 30 1:1
Grade 5 35 30 1:1 25 1:2 20 1:2 20 1:2 14 1:3 30 1:1 30 1:1 30 1:1
Grade 6 35 0 0 30 1:1 35 1:1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 30 1:1
Total 310 175
Annotation:
The number of books per grade level can not provide with one is to one ratio
especially in higher grades where in there were shortages of books as shown in
the data.
 Table G.13: Fund Source

Fund Source Amount %

General Appropriate Act
112,510.00
(MOOE)
General Appropriate Act
(Subsidy for Special Program
Local Government Unit Funds
Canteen Funds
Donations
Annotation:
32.52%
For the firat quarter January to
March, 2022 Our school received an
0
amount of 112, 510.00 and all
0 materials were purchased and the
liquidation is now on process. We
0 automatically purchased the
materials after the PhilGEPs.
0

PTA 0

Others 0

Total 112,510.00 32.52%

 Table G.14: Awards and
Recognition
Award-Giving Body
Category Intern
Title Year Distri Divisi Region Natio
Awards a-
ct on al nal
tional
Students
Teachers
School
Head
First Place Division Wide Search for GPP
/
Best Implementer
School Second Place for Division Wide Search for
Annotation:Brigada Eskwela 2021 Best Implementing /
School
There were no students, teachers and schood awards for the S.Y. 2021 - 2022
but for the school category we garnered the award from the Division - wide
search for the best GPP and Brigada Eskwela implementers.
 Table G.15: Stakeholders Support to
Education
Contributions Attendance
Activity Volunteer No. of No. Attendance
Cash In Kind
Hours Attendees Invited Rate
Co-Curricular
18 hrs 0 0 310 310 100%
Activities

Extra-Curricular
0 0 0 0 0 0
Activities

Other Major Activities 0 0 0 0 0 0

Annotation:
For the stakeholders support to education in the school, it was only in Co-curricular activities
that were participated by the stakeholders in terms of the academic subjects in all subject areas
by getting, retrieving and helping the parents answering the modules given to the learners. (18
hours were only for submitting and retrieving the modules of the parents or stakeholders)
 Table Q.19: Teachers’ Professional
Development
Total No. of Teachers Trained
Total
No. of Pedagogy/
Localizat
Learning No. Of
Lev Teacher ion/ Assessme
Content Instructio Resource Teachers Not
el s Contextu nt
% n % % % s % Trained %
alization

M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
100 100 100 100 0
K 1 1 2 1 1 2 % 1 1 2 % 0 0 0 0% 1 1 2 % 1 1 2 % 0 0 0 %
100 100 100 100 0
G1 0 2 2 0 2 2 % 0 2 2 % 0 0 0 0% 0 2 2 % 0 2 2 % 0 0 0 %
100 100 100 100 0
G2 0 2 2 0 2 2 % 0 2 2 % 0 0 0 0% 0 2 2 % 0 2 2 % 0 0 0 %
100 100 100 100 0
G3 2 0 2 2 0 2 % 2 0 2 % 0 0 0 0% 2 0 2 % 2 0 2 % 0 0 0 %
100 100 100 100 0
G4 0 1 1 0 1 1 % 0 1 1 % 0 0 0 0% 0 1 1 % 0 1 1 % 0 0 0 %
100 100 100 100 0
G5 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0 0% 0 1 1 0 1 1 0 0 0
Annotation: The Teachers’ Professional Development 11 or all teachers and SLACundergo the content of the training%
% % % such as on line %
webinar and SLAC, 11 or 100% 100
for Pedagogy and Instruction,
100 0% or non for Localization and Contextualization,
100 11 or100
100% for 0
G6Assessment,
0 1 111 or
0 100%
1 Learning
1 % and0Resources
1 1 and%non 0or 0% 0 teachers
0 0% of not0trained
1 in1 Teachers’
% 0 1 1
Professional 0
Development.
% 0 0 %
 Table Q.21: Instructional Supervision
(IS)
No. of Schools
Expected No. of IS
Actual No. of
to be conducted Percentage
Lead by SHs IS Conducted
Level by the SHs
M H TI M TI M H TI M TI
P P HT P P HT
T T C T C T T C T C
Elementa 100
1 11 11
ry %
Total
Percentag
e
Annotation:

For the first quarter of 2022, from January to March there were 11 or 100%
teachers were observed for their first class room observation.
 Table Q.26: Learning Action Cell (LAC)
Sessions Topics for LAC Sessions
Learner % Content % Assess % 21st Century % Curriculum %
Diversity and and ment and ICT and
Student Pedagog and Integration Contextualiza
Level Inclusion y Reporti in Instruction tion,
Localization
ng and and
Assessment Indigenizatio
n

Kinder 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%

Grade 1 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Grade 2 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Grade 3 2 100% 2 100% 2 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Grade 4 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Grade 5 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Grade 6 1 100% 1 100% 1 100% 0 0% 0 0%
Annotation: For the Learning Action Cell, 11 or 100% of teachers undergo Learner Diversity and Student Inclusion, Content and
Total Assessment
Pedagogy, 11 and Reporting
100%but non11 100%
or 0% in 21st Century 11 100%
and ICT Integration 0
in Instruction 0%
and Assessment and0Curriculum 0%
and Contextualization, Localization and Indigenization.
 End of
Presentation