An Assessment of The Effectiveness Effic PDF

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES
AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY

AND ADVOCACY DIMENSIONS OF THE ENHANCED
IMPACT (Instructional Management by Parents,
Community and Teachers) SYSTEM
A Dissertation
Presented to
The Faculty of the Graduate School
Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Sta. Mesa, Manila
In Partial Fulfillment
of the Requirements for the Degree
Doctor in Educational Management
by
ROSALIE AMADOR CORPUS
December 2009
CERTIFICATION
This dissertation entitled “An Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency

and Advocacy Dimensions of the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional
Management by Parents, Community and Teachers) System”, prepared and
submitted by Rosalie Amador Corpus in partial fulfillment of the requirements for
the degree Doctor in Educational Management, has been examined and
recommended for Oral Examination.
Dissertation Committee
JOSEPH MERCADO, DEM

Adviser
VICTORIA C. NAVAL, DEM MARIETTA P. DEMELINO, Ph.D, SFCC

Member Member
-----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
APPROVAL
Approved by the PANEL OF EXAMINERS on Oral Examination on

November 4, 2009 with the grade of ____________.
SAMUEL M. SALVADOR, Ed.D

Chair
VICTORIA R. NAVAL, DEM FR. MARIO EVANGELISTA, OFM

Member Member
MARIETTA P. DEMELINO, Ph.D, SFCC CARMENCITA CASTOLO, DEM

Member Member
Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor in

Educational Management.
AMALIA C. ROSALES, DPA

Dean
Date of passing the Comprehensive Examination: September 13-14, 2007

CERTIFICATE OF ORIGINALITY
This is to certify that the research work presented in this dissertation entitled
“An Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency and Advocacy Dimensions
of the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional Management by Parents, Community
and Teachers) System” for the award of Doctor in Educational Management
from the Polytechnic University of the Philippines, Manila, embodies the result of
original and scholarly work carried out by the undersigned. This dissertation does
not contain words or ideas taken from published sources or written works by other
persons which have been taken as basis for the award of any degree from other
higher education institutions, except where proper referencing and
acknowledgement were made.
ROSALIE AMADOR CORPUS

Researcher/Candidate
Date: _____/_____/_____
Noted:
JOSEPH MERCADO, DEM

Adviser
Date: _____/_____/_____
ABSTRACT
Title: An Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency and Advocacy

Dimensions of the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional
Management by Parents, Community and Teachers) System”
Researcher: Rosalie Amador Corpus
Degree: Doctor in Educational Management
Institution: Polytechnic University of the Philippines
Year: 2009
Adviser: Dr. Joseph Mercado
The Problem
The main problem of the study is to evaluate the extent of implementation of
the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional Management by Parents, Community and
Teachers) System on its effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy dimensions as
perceived by the instructional coordinators (school heads) and instructional
supervisors (teachers) in their schools.
Research Methodology
The study utilized the descriptive-evaluative research design. The
respondents of the study were the 177 instructional coordinators and instructional
supervisors of nineteen identified Enhanced IMPACT Learning Centers in eight
regions nationwide.
In gathering the pertinent data for this study, the researcher utilized a
validated, standardized instrument used to arrive at both qualitative and
quantitative data for this research work. Since the sources of data are distributed
nationwide, a courier service was utilized. Questionnaires were sent out July 21,
2009 and filled-out forms from all 19 respondent-schools were in by August 31,
2009 for tabulation.
Statistical tools used to test the hypotheses were frequency, percentages and
the weighted mean. The t-computed values and the p-values were also used to
test if there is a significant difference between the perceptions of the two groups of
respondents.
Findings
Findings revealed that there were more older teachers than young ones and
more female teachers than males. Most of the respondents had 1 to 5 years of
teaching experience and the longest length of tenure is 20 years and above.
There were also more married teachers among the respondents than single ones.
In terms of the respondents’ perception of the extent of implementation of the
Enhanced IMPACT System on its Effectiveness dimension, the overall rating given
was 4.36, interpreted as being “to a very large extent” implemented in the schools.
The following characteristics were examined: the school’s mission, vision, goals
and objectives; classroom assessment and evaluation; teaching and learning

delivery mechanisms; curriculum; instructional materials and the learning
environment.
Enhanced IMPACT System on its Efficiency dimension, the overall rating given
was 4.33, though somewhat lower than the effectiveness dimension, still
interpreted as being “to a very large extent” implemented in the schools. The
following characteristics were examined: organization structure; leadership;
professional growth and development; and school culture.
Enhanced IMPACT System on its Advocacy dimension, the overall rating given
was 3.96 interpreted as being “to a large extent” implemented in the schools. The
following characteristics were examined: comprehensive school planning; physical
facilities and resources; pupil and family involvement and stakeholders and
community support.
Based on the foregoing findings, the following conclusions were drawn focusing on
the three dimensions of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) being implemented in the
respondent schools:
1. Schools implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System are faithful to the
instructional system requirements of the innovation and are working within the
parameters of the effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy dimensions.
2. Components of the effectiveness dimension of implementation work well
together to bring about instructional success. Components of the efficiency

dimension of implementation work well together to bring about administrative
success. Components of the advocacy dimension of implementation work well
together to bring about success in community participation. Of the three
dimensions, advocacy is the least implemented, although on a positive note, still to
a large extent.
3. Positive perceptions are deemed credible with both groups of respondents
expressing no significant difference in their assessments in all aspects of the
study.
4. Most pressing of problems encountered in the implementation of the
Enhanced IMPACT System include the lack of pertinent instructional materials
which are requisites to effective implementation, as well as the lack of the
corresponding training for the nitty gritty details of system implementation. The
instructional system is an innovation that needs a thorough grounding of
philosophy, delivery mode, methods and procedures, and other system
requirements.
5. Recommendations provided by the school implementers themselves help
to reduce the challenges in implementation articulated herein. They are practical
solutions worth looking at and address majority of the problems/ issues/ and
concerns of the EIS schools.
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following major
recommendations are being proposed:

1. It is highly recommended that UNICEF continue to sponsor all schools in
the country that are implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) since there
is empirical data that support the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.
2. All stakeholders of the EIS should put in more interest, money and effort
into the advocacy dimension of this educational innovation.
3. Intrinsic as well as other rewards for the EIS implementers are in order.
Such zeal and faithfulness to the mission, vision, goals and objectives of education
are commendable.
4. Immediate attention should be given to the lack of resources and
corresponding training articulated by the school implementers in delivering basic
education in the EIS schools.
5. Suggested solutions coming from the implementers themselves are worth
listening to, as they represent the practitioners’ practical view. Care must be taken
to dialogue regularly with the instructional coordinators and instructional
supervisors on their needs and wants.
Additional recommendations this researcher would like to make specific for
certain components or practitioners of the Enhanced IMPACT System are:
Training for Implementers
For the instructional supervisors who have mentioned that they do not feel
very confidently to teach their programmed teachers and peer group leaders higher
order thinking skills (HOTS) to be used during their lessons, additional training on
this strategy is recommended.
To assist the instructional supervisors who have said that they do not have
enough learning modules and posttests, another training on module and posttest
development is likewise recommended.
Likewise, a training workshop on how to develop pedagogically-appropriate
instructional materials making use of indigenous and inexpensive materials is also
recommended so that the IMPACT schools can have a bank of instructional
materials.
To address the observation of both groups of respondents on the negative
attitudes of some parents with regards to their children being tapped as
programmed teachers or peer group leaders, additional training on how to develop
and sustain advocacy relations with parents and other significant learning partners
is also recommended.
Another recommended training that the instructional supervisors can undergo
is on how to develop and sustain the motivation of programmed teachers and peer
group leaders.
Just like the instructional supervisors, the instructional coordinators also
need to have enhancement trainings on coaching and mentoring their school staff;
on creating and holding stakeholders’ interests in the school; on resource
allocation and sourcing; school-based management with R.A. 9155; and a better
appreciation of their role in the IMPACT system.

All these trainings can be done individually in an enhancement session with
the IMPACT schools. Alternatively, convening and holding an IMPACT summit
can best address the concerns of the instructional coordinators and supervisors as
well as be a forum for an exchange of best practices and implementation how-to’s
and development of pride and ownership in their IMPACT schools.
Continuous Monitoring and Evaluation Towards Effective Implementation and
Project Sustainability
This researcher recommends that a monitoring system with continuous
enhancement training sessions be instituted in the IMPACT schools so that the
staff do not feel isolated and their concerns immediately addressed before
implementation of the IMPACT system in their schools suffer.
Project proponents should also invest in an external, and if possible,
international evaluation of the EIS. The evaluation should look at all aspects of
the system to include pupils’ perception of their roles in the system, not just
confined to records of their academic achievement. A strong research-based
portfolio for IMPACT will go a long way towards recognition of its effectiveness and
efficiency as an alternative delivery mode of basic education whose time has
come. It could be that the result of the evaluation will recommend the
institutionalization of IMPACT in the Philippines.

Accreditation of the IMPACT Schools
There should also be accreditation of IMPACT schools so that continuous
quality improvement of the system’s instructional delivery modes, the learning
modules and posttests and the over-all management processes can be assessed,
evaluated and gathered as benchmarks. Likewise the planned IMPACT Summit
should take place so that the many improvements brought about by the
educational innovation can be presented to other educators to attract national and
international audiences.
Policy Recommendations for the Enhance IMPACT System
Curing the financial ills and lack of facilities of schools may not be an option
for IMPACT proponents at this time. However, it is recommended that IMPACT
proponents advocate for policy reforms within the Department of Education to
refrain from transferring trained Instructional Supervisors and Instructional
Coordinators. Necessary promotions must be awarded but should be within the
IMPACT school for project continuity and sustainability.
Appropriate Audience
The Enhanced IMPACT System should be present not just in multi-grade
schools as recommended by some of the respondents but more for schools in
communities where drop-out rates are high and a scarcity of teachers and school
facilities prevalent.
Advocacy with Business and Industry
Advocacy with business and industry should also be undertaken by the
project proponents so that additional sources and funds can be tapped for an
educational innovation such as the Enhanced IMPACT System that this study has
proven is perceived to be truly effective and efficient by its implementers.
Future Research Directions for the Enhanced IMPACT System
The Enhanced IMPACT System has survived sporadically in our nation’s
schools since 1974. Yet it is a mature technology that is backed by researches
done locally and internationally. With the state of our schools’ physical plant and
facilities and the ever-growing population, alternatives must be found to be able to
provide quality education at least cost to our children. This was IMPACT’s
founding objective in the early 1970s and is still IMPACT’s mission up to the
present time. Maybe all that is needed is for additional studies to prove that such
is still IMPACT’s reason for being now into the twenty-first century.
For future researchers, this researcher suggests that the pupils, parents and
stakeholders, and the community be part of their studies’ respondents. The
IMPACT system is not solely composed of the effectiveness, efficiency and
advocacy dimensions studied here; the instructional delivery system and the roles
that the different categories of teachers, especially those of the resource and
testing teachers, should be studied too. The role the community may play in
IMPACT was not studied in this paper; it is recommended that a study be made on
this, too. The personality of the researcher may have also been a factor in the
overwhelmingly positive response of the respondents; a different manner of
floating the instrument may be in order.
This researcher hopes that the policy recommendations listed in this study
can come into fruition. Likewise, recommended future directions can hopefully be
acted upon especially the recommendation on non-transfer of trained instructional
coordinators and instructional supervisors to allow the technology the time to grow
and bear fruit in the communities they serve. Expanding to a secondary school
IMPACT system is also highly recommended: this will take much time and effort,
possibly more than what was experienced in the birthing years of IMPACT in the
1970s, but if the experiment proves to be worth it, then another educational
innovation will be added to the growing alternatives to the conventional school
system. One note of caution though: an innovation will necessarily entail great
initial outputs at least in man hours and effort if not in finances. Community
support, dedication of school staff and project proponents’ vision will carry the
innovation through to its maturity if only all components will work together. Nothing
worthwhile happens overnight; but with collective effort, something worthwhile can
begin.
Chapter 1
THE PROBLEM AND ITS BACKGROUND
Introduction
Imagine a twelve-year old child teaching a group of six-year olds, correcting
them with the proper intonation and pronunciation of words (Lockee, Moore,
Burton, p. 547). Imagine a seemingly ordinary boy leading a group of six learners
heterogeneously composed in a nipa hut serving as a learning kiosk, an
improvised classroom to augment existing classrooms (Pasigna, p. 52). In the
school shed, a Resource Teacher, a carpenter from the village, is teaching pupils
how to construct a work bench (Respati and Mante, p.13). A teacher, holding an
umbrella over her head, goes from nipa hut to nipa hut, observing and assessing
the teaching and learning episodes going on. Another teacher prepares
instructional materials in the corner of a classroom where four simultaneous
classes (R. Mante, p. 78) for Level I pupils are going on, handled by tutors who are
themselves pupils in Level VI (Pasigna, p. 83). On the grounds, a group of six
pupils are walking in line towards the school’s Learning Resource Center to take
their posttests under the Examination Teacher (R. Mante, p. 78). In the principal’s
office, a group of parents is conferring with a teacher on their children’s progress,
while the principal meets with the barangay chairman and other officials on the
requirements of the forthcoming sports fest.

The scenario described above is something that could be happening on an
ordinary school day in a school where the IMPACT System is being implemented.
The acronym, IMPACT, stands for “Instructional Management by Parents,
Community and Teachers.” In this system, the pupil handling the reading class is a
“Programmed Teacher” (PT) leading the class in rounds of learning chunks (R.
Mante, p. 79); the boy leading his co-pupils while learning together is a “Peer
Group Leader” (PGL) in a peer group learning class (Pasigna, p, 52); while the
professional teacher managing the pupils under her care and supervising
instruction is an “Instructional Supervisor” (IS). The school head is named
“Instructional Coordinator” (IC). She coordinates all instructional activities and
manages the school, making creative use of all community resources -- people,
time money and materials – and networking to build partnerships in pursuing
shared goals (Socrates, p. 75).
The IMPACT System was an educational innovation of the early seventies
designed to address the problem of burgeoning school population against a
backdrop of scarce classrooms, poor budgets and low academic achievement. Its
principal function was to reduce the cost of elementary education per child without
any reduction in the academic achievement of pupils (Socrates, p. 139). Its implicit
goals were: 1) effectiveness (without sacrifice to quality); 2) efficiency (producing
desired results at less expense); and 3) advocacy (generating community support
for the educative process). Its primary requirement was that it must be “more
economical but at least just as effective as the existing educational system”

(Socrates, 1983, italics provided). The underscore provides a clear understanding
of the principal feature of the innovation. Utilizing a unique system of programmed
teaching, itinerant teaching, peer tutoring and self-learning, one professional
teacher can handle several classes of a total of 100 or more pupils. Instructional
materials are re-usable and community resources are harnessed as resource
persons or sources of sweat equity. All these constitute a lot of savings on per
pupil costs.
The IMPACT System has since been enhanced; thus the qualifier, “Enhanced
IMPACT System.” Its curriculum has been made more relevant by its adherence
to the existing Basic Education Curriculum of the Department of Education
(DepED). Its instructional materials have been made more multifarious with the
integration of technology and the inclusion of multi-channel materials. Its
instructional management system remains basically the same as the original,
except for the enrichment provided in the training of teachers-cum-facilitators or
instructional supervisors as they are called. The Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)
is categorized as an alternative delivery mode of instruction for basic education. It
is currently being implemented in at least twenty-one public elementary schools
nationwide. These schools are located in mostly remote and rural communities
where the “unreached and underserved groups” of learners can be found
(Pefianco, 2006).
Interest in the EIS is legitimate. The 1987 Constitution of the Philippines
provides a legal basis in Article XIV, Section 2, thus: in # 1) The State shall
establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated system of
education, relevant to the needs of the people and society; and in # 4) Encourage
non-formal, informal and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-learning,
independent and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to
community needs.
R.A. 9155 (The Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001) reiterates the
policy and states: “It is hereby declared the policy of the State to protect and
promote the rights of all citizens to quality basic education and to make such
education accessible to all by providing all Filipino children a free and compulsory
education in the elementary level and free education in the high school level.
Such education shall include alternative learning systems and alternative delivery
modes for out-of-school youths and adult learners. It shall be the goal of basic
education to provide them with the skills, knowledge and values they need to
become caring, self-reliant, productive and patriotic citizens.”
To be adjudged truly responsive to the educational needs of the clientele it
serves, the Department of Education (DepED) is mandated to implement a
complete system of education that will serve all Filipinos, regardless of age, race,
sex, creed, economic condition and social situation in life. In this regard, it
becomes all inclusive – all Filipinos, be they of school age or not, dropouts, stay-
outs or school leavers; be they out-of-school-youths and illiterate adults; or with
differing needs and circumstances – DepED needs to serve their educational
needs (Barsaga, 2006). Hence, DepED offers a complete education system which
is multi-modal. It consists of either a formal or non-formal or alternative learning
system. It utilizes the conventional or traditional mode, innovative or alternative
delivery mode, or a combination of these various modes.
The Medium Term Philippine Development Plan 2004-2010 (p. 203) mentions
IMPACT and advocates its institutionalization and expansion because it addresses
the perennial education woes of overcrowded classrooms by instituting learning
kiosks to augment the number of classrooms, and using effective instructional
strategies that address professional teacher shortages.
With this renewed interest in alternative delivery modes in general, and the
IMPACT System in particular, this research study sought to determine the current
status of implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) in terms of its
three-fold goals: 1) effectiveness (producing intended results without sacrificing
quality), 2) efficiency (utilizing a system of learning that reaches the greatest
number of pupils with a minimum of expense), and 3) advocacy (mobilizing the
community to support their children’s learning).
Such study hopes to provide pertinent information that can guide and hasten
the possible institutionalization of the system in the elementary school.
Background of the Study
The IMPACT System was initially conceptualized in August 1972 as the major
research effort of SEAMEO INNOTECH in the 1970s (Soriano, 1983). Its focus
was the development of an effective and economical delivery system for mass
primary education. The idea was to design an instructional system that was more
economical but just as effective as the then existing educational systems in the
Southeast Asian region. It was initially conducted in five schools in Naga, Cebu,
Philippines and in another five schools in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia. It
underwent two phases in its development: Phase I from January to June 1974, in
which surveys and acceptance campaigns were done as well as the orientation
and training of module writers for the first semester modules for Grade IV. Initial
orientation of teachers as Instructional Supervisors (ISs) was done at this stage.
Phase II, from July 1974 to June 1975, saw the tryout of the components of the
delivery system at Grade IV; the supportive role of the community; the production
of instructional materials for non-teacher learning activities; the use of programmed
instruction, particularly programmed learning via modularized instruction; and the
evolution of the structural design of the Community Learning Center (CLC)
maximizing the use of existing buildings and other available community resources.
Further extension of the project, from July 1976 to December 1979, saw further
development of the delivery system components; demonstration of the delivery
system in operation; a cost analysis of the entire system; continuing assessment
and evaluation, inclusive of formative and summative evaluation of the project; and
replication of the delivery system in two other sites (Socrates, 1983).
Research findings from the evaluative study done in 1978 (Tugade, p. 152)
indicated higher achievement for pupils taught through the IMPACT system
compared to that of pupils from the conventional system. The findings likewise
indicated that the use of the IMPACT system resulted in higher achievement for
the average and slow learners, who constituted a very large segment of the school
population. It was concluded then that the IMPACT system might be more
effective than the conventional system in equalizing educational opportunities.
Recent developments have prompted SEAMEO INNOTECH, the developer of
the IMPACT Model, to review its relevance to present needs of pupils and
conditions of learning. SEAMEO is the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education
Organization, and INNOTECH is the Regional Center for Educational Innovation
and Technology. The IMPACT System is soft technology that went through a
rigorous process of research and development.
In the High School Readiness Test in 2003-2004, the following achievements
by IMPACT schools were posted: 1) San Francisco Learning Center, an IMPACT
school in Malilipot, Albay ranked 1st in the Division, 3rd in the region, and # 77.5
nationwide, notwithstanding its use of the old modules not yet attuned to the
Revised Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC); Bagong Buhay-F Elementary
School in Sapang Palay ranked # 950 nationwide; and 3) Culianan Learning
Center in Zamboanga City, still using the old IMPACT modules (version 1975),
consistently ranked at the top ten high achieving schools in the division. It ranked #
1,737 during the 2004 High School Readiness Test (Source: SEAMEO
INNOTECH Final Report on the “Implementation of the e-IMPACT System in Five
Pilot Schools,” p. 1).

These significant evidences of high academic performance from IMPACT
schools with minimal support from the DepED prompted SEAMEO INNOTECH to
fund the second revision of the learning modules, re-aligning them with the RBEC.
For the second revision of October 2004, school staff of San Francisco Learning
Center, Malilipot, Albay were involved as developers and consultants to the
enhancement of the system. Non-print learning materials in the form of audio and
video instructional materials for English and Filipino were also developed and
incorporated into the instructional system. This was intended to make the learning
materials more interesting and abreast with the times.
In SY 2005-2006, when USAID provided support to three schools in
Mindanao (two in Region 9 and one in Basilan in the Autonomous Region for
Muslim Mindanao), the learning modules were again subjected to a third review
and validation by educational specialists and experts of Region IX, not just in
content but in making the modules culture-sensitive and appropriate to the Muslim
faith. Now known as the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS), it has a total of 563
developed or revised learning modules categorized into 60 Programmed Teaching
(PT) modules; 448 Peer Group Learning (PGL) modules; 55 Itinerant Teaching (IT)
modules; and 68 audiotapes to support some of the learning modules in English
and Filipino (Lacuesta, 2008).
In 2007, UNICEF sponsored 19 schools within their identified Child Friendly
Schools System areas as pilot schools implementing the Enhanced IMPACT
System (Lacuesta, 2008). It is to the interest of UNICEF, as sponsoring agency;

DepED, as implementing agency; and the National Economic Development
Authority (NEDA), as advocate, to determine the extent of implementation of the
EIS in terms of its three-fold goals.
Hence, this researcher decided to conduct the study in the 19 UNICEF-
sponsored schools. The two non-UNICEF sponsored schools (out of the 21
schools currently implementing EIS) are not included in the study; they are just
starting this school year, and therefore, are not able to gauge yet the effectiveness,
efficiency and advocacy qualities of the system.
Theoretical Framework
This study is based on the Effective Schools Theory centering on effective
schools correlates derived from empirical investigations and case studies of school
success (Edmonds, Brookover, Lezotte plus other school effectiveness
researchers, conducting studies from 1966 through 1976). Throughout the 1980’s,
networks of researchers and school-based practitioners probed deeper into the
school effectiveness phenomenon, observing in detail what was happening at the
school and classroom level. A list of common traits and processes present in
these schools was identified. These unique characteristics became known as the
effective schools correlates because they correlated with high levels of student
achievement. These correlates appeared consistently in high-performing schools
in many systems regardless of the backgrounds of the children.

There are seven identified correlates or guiding principles. They describe the
culture and learning climate of schools where students are achieving. The
correlates have continually led schools, administrators and teachers towards
looking at ways to improve the culture of a school, and the achievement of its
students. This research bases its beliefs on the research results obtained from
decades of studies which have been intensive and extensive.
First of these correlates is a clear and focused mission. In the Effective
School, there is a clearly articulated school mission through which the staff shares
an understanding of and commitment to the instructional goals, priorities,
assessment procedures, and accountability. Second are high expectations for
success. In the Effective School, there is a climate of expectation in which the staff
believes and demonstrates that all students can attain mastery of essential school
skills and that they, the staff, have the capacity to help all students do so. Third is
instructional leadership. In the Effective School, the principal is the instructional
leader who shares leadership with the rest of the staff. He or she is a leader of
leaders. Fourth is the frequent monitoring of student progress. In the Effective
School, student academic progress is measured frequently. A variety of
assessment procedures are used and the results of the assessments are used to
improve individual students’ performance and to improve the instructional program.
Fifth is the opportunity to learn and student time on task. In the Effective School,
teachers allocate a significant amount of classroom time to instruction in the
essential skills. Sixth is a safe and orderly environment. In the Effective School,
there is an orderly, purposeful business-like atmosphere which is free from threat
of physical harm. The school climate is conducive to teaching and learning.
Seventh and last is home and school relations. In the Effective School, parents
understand and support the school’s mission and are given the opportunity to play
an important role in helping the school to achieve the mission.
Effective Schools Research provides a framework for reform based on the
seven guiding principles, or correlates, stated above. It indicates the need to focus
on elements that include “a basic societal belief that schools should demonstrate
both their contributions to student learning and how they are improving their
internal transformational processes” (Elmore, 2002 as cited by Hoy and Miskel,
2008). This researcher has undertaken this study and used the Effective Schools
Theory as framework for the analysis and interpretation of data provided by the
Instructional Coordinators (school heads) and Instructional Supervisors (teachers)
in the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) schools.
For purposes of this study, the effectiveness component of the Enhanced
IMPACT System has been operationally defined as the ability of the educational
innovation (IMPACT) to produce the intended results of quality education. Inputs
into the EIS in terms of its components are themselves the screens used to
examine school effectiveness, which include the respondent schools’ 1) mission,
vision, goals and objectives; 2) the curriculum; 3) teaching and learning
mechanisms; 4) classroom assessment and evaluation; 5) instructional
materials; and 6) the learning environment. It is of interest here what Zammuto

(1982) proposes and he says, “… for school administrators, the goal of creating
effective schools is continually to become effective rather than to be effective…”
Paraphrasing Zammuto, becoming an effective school is a journey, not a
destination. Toward this end, it is hoped that this study contributes to the journey
to excellence of the schools implementing the EIS.
The efficiency component of IMPACT encompasses 1) leadership; 2)
organizational structure; 3) professional growth and development; and 4) school
culture. Screens for these in the EIS schools ask about the existing conditions in
the school that allow the effectiveness component to prevail by determining the
most economical way of organizing instructional resources into a meaningful
learning system for a greater number of pupils. Efficiency and effectiveness work
hand in hand.
IMPACT’s advocacy component refers to the positive attitude towards the
educational innovation as perceived by its key informants: pupils, teachers, school
heads and learning partners of the school and its community. Advocacy activities
mobilize the community to support the educational innovation (IMPACT) for the
benefit of its children. It is to be noted that shared leadership and governance
works well in schools (Spillane, 2006). Multiple leaders in schools such as
teachers, administrators and parents identify, acquire, allocate, coordinate and use
social, material and cultural resources to advance teaching and learning. Since
principals and school officials cannot succeed alone, multiple formal and informal
leaders and their followers mobilize to guide and do the tasks necessary to
transform or make major changes in their schools. Clearly, Spillane’s views
provide a guide as to the screens used for determining advocacy in the EIS
schools.
The research paradigm (see Figure 1) presented on the next page follows the
Input, Process and Output (IPO) Systems Model. The schematic diagram shows
the conceptual framework of the study and provides the direction of this research.
Scriven’s (1991) prescription of evaluation has also guided this research in
taking concrete steps such as “first, to identify the goals and objectives of the
program, i.e., what the program is intended to accomplish.” Scriven continues:
“An evaluation plan describes both formative (process) and summative (product)
schemes for collecting useful evidence on the effectiveness of the program. The
evidence is synthesized and analyzed to produce findings. The findings are
compared to predetermined standards and judgments about the value of the
program from the conclusions. The conclusions are framed as recommendations
and reports for stakeholders and program managers.” Following this process, this
study elicited the perceptions of key program implementers; analyzed and
interpreted data; drew conclusions; and formulated recommendations relative to
implementation.
Conceptual Framework
As earlier described, inputs to this study are the perceptions of two groups of
respondents, the Instructional Supervisors (teachers) and Instructional

Coordinators (school heads), on the extent of implementation of the EIS in 19
implementing schools, in terms of their effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy.
Input Process Output
Feedback of respondents on the following Gathering, tabulating and · Status of

dimensions of the Enhanced IMPACT assessing the perceptions of the implementation of the
System (EIS): Instructional Supervisors Enhanced IMPACT
(teachers) and Instructional System (EIS)
Effectiveness— Coordinators (school heads)
· school’s mission, vision, regarding the Effectiveness, · Identified problems and
goals and objectives Efficiency and Advocacy their suggested
· curriculum components of the Enhanced solutions
· teaching and learning IMPACT System (EIS) through:
mechanisms · Recommendations on
· classroom assessment and · quantitative and how the implementation
evaluation qualitative data from a problems identified by
· instructional materials survey questionnaire the respondents may be
· learning environment and addressed .including
some policy
Efficiency— · secondary data from a recommendations for
· leadership review of pertinent possible implementation
· organizational structure documents. and future action.
· professional growth and
development
· school culture
Advocacy—
· comprehensive school
planning activities
· physical facilities and
resources
· pupil and family involvement
· stakeholders and community
support
Feedback to parties concerned on how to improve the Effectiveness, Efficiency and

Advocacy components of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)..
Figure 1: Research Paradigm and Conceptual Framework
In terms of the effectiveness aspect of the EIS, the following were reviewed:
1) the school’s mission, vision, goals and objectives; 2) curriculum; 3) teaching and
learning mechanisms; 4) classroom assessment and evaluation; 5) instructional
materials; and 6) the learning environment.

In terms of the efficiency aspect of the EIS, the following were reviewed: 1)
leadership; 2) organizational structure; 3) professional growth and development;
and 4) the school culture.
In terms of the advocacy aspect of the EIS, the following were reviewed:
1) comprehensive school planning activities; 2) physical facilities and resources;
3) pupil and family involvement; and 4) stakeholders and community support.
The research process included the gathering, tabulating, analyzing and
interpreting of data relative to the perceptions of the respondents on the
implementation of EIS in their schools. A questionnaire was administered to elicit
relevant data. Secondary data was collected from relevant reports and other
printed materials about the EIS in particular, and IMPACT in general.
The output of this study is a report on the status of implementation of the EIS
in the implementing schools and together with their identified problems and
suggested solutions. In addition, a set of recommendations is provided affecting
further implementation and possible institutionalization. All of these contribute to a
better understanding of the educational innovation.
The research results shall be disseminated to interested parties, notably
SEAMEO INNOTECH, the developer; DepED, the implementing agency; UNICEF,
the sponsoring agency; NEDA, the advocate; and other stakeholders.

Statement of the Problem
The main purpose of the study is to evaluate the extent of implementation of
the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional Management by Parents, Community and
Teachers) System on its effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy components. The
following specific questions served as the focus of inquiry:
1. How do the instructional coordinator and instructional supervisor respondents
perceive the extent of implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT System
(EIS) in terms of its:
1.1 Effectiveness
1.1.1 School’s Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives
1.1.2 Curriculum
1.1.3 Teaching and Learning Delivery Mechanisms
1.1.4 Classroom Assessment and Evaluation
1.1.5 Instructional Materials
1.1.6 Learning Environment
1.2 Efficiency
1.2.1 Leadership
1.2.2 Organizational Structure
1.2.3 Professional Growth and Development
1.2.4 School Culture
1.3 Advocacy
1.3.1 Comprehensive School Planning

1.3.2 Physical Facilities and Resources
1.3.3 Pupil and Family Involvement
1.3.4 Stakeholders and Community Support
2. Is there any significant difference in the assessment made by the two groups
of respondents on the extent of implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT
System (EIS) in terms of its:
2.1 Effectiveness?
2.2 Efficiency?
2.3 Advocacy?
3. What are the problems met by the respondents in implementing the
Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)?
4. What are the recommendations given by the respondents to improve the
Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)?
Research Hypothesis
The following hypothesis was tested at 5 percent level of significance:
Instructional coordinators and instructional supervisors do not differ in their
assessment of the extent of implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT System
(EIS) in terms of its 1) effectiveness, 2) efficiency, and 3) advocacy.
Scope and Delimitation
The respondents of the study were limited to the instructional supervisors
(teachers) and the instructional coordinators (school heads) of the nineteen (19)
schools, out of twenty-one (21) implementing the EIS. These 19 respondent
schools are the UNICEF-sponsored IMPACT schools. Respondents from among
the professional teachers were randomly selected. The period under review
covered the period of implementation from School Year 2007 to present. The
review is also limited to determining the extent of implementation of the program in
terms of effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy.
Significance of the Study
The researcher hopes that the results of the study would benefit the following:
1) SEAMEO INNOTECH as developer, in its policy of continuous
improvement, may use the results of this study as additional inputs that can help
perfect the instructional management system and further enhance its
effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy qualities.
2) DepED, as implementing agency, can learn from the experience of the
respondents. The actual users of the EIS, the instructional coordinators (school
heads) and instructional supervisors (teachers), now have a collective view of each
others’ perceptions. They can come together or communicate with one another to
share and learn some more about how to improve the system, their schools, their
pupils and themselves. They get to benefit from the collegial relationship.
3) UNICEF, as sponsoring agency, will have useful information that can
guide the terms and conditions of their sponsorship. In a way, the research results
will indicate the value of their financial contribution.

4) NEDA, as advocate, will have more information to back its advocacy as
stated in the government’s Medium Term Philippine Development Plan of 2004-
2010. It shall have more recent data to use in its advocacy.
5) The other stakeholders such as the parents and community workers
involved in the program will become aware of its progress, and accurately informed
of their children’s needs and the school’s identified problems as well as suggested
solutions.
6) The pupils in the EIS schools are the true beneficiaries, as any
improvements in the system will directly benefit their learning processes and
outcomes. As previously mentioned, the results of this study can help improve the
system.
7) Other researchers using assessment studies may use the dimensions of
effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy of a program as used in this study. Other
researchers may embark on possible offshoots of the study such as assessment of
the same program using other indicators of effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy;
and/or other studies related to either the context, input, process, or products of the
instructional management system.
Definition of Terms
For clarity and better understanding of the research paper, the following terms
are defined operationally, or as used in the study:

1) Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS). This refers to the enhanced system of
Instructional Management by Parents, Community and Teachers, a mature
alternative delivery mode in basic education, developed in the seventies by
SEAMEO INNOTECH, and now being implemented in 21 public schools distributed
in the three island areas as follows: Luzon (Region V), Visayas (Regions VI and
VIII), and Mindanao (Regions IX, X, XII, XIII and ARMM). (You may refer to Figure
2, Location Map of Respondent Schools). Its main learning materials are modules
that have been “enhanced” by aligning its curriculum with the competencies
prescribed in the Revised Basic Education Curriculum, and by incorporating
enhancements in the lessons for Muslim learners that are culturally sensitive, using
the computer, video, audio and other media.
2) SEAMEO INNOTECH. This is one of the any SEAMEO Centers in
Southeast Asia whose mission is to provide solutions to the educational problems
confronting the Region. SEAMEO is the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education
Organization, and INNOTECH is the Regional Center for Educational Innovation
and Technology. This is the Regional Center which has developed and enhanced
the IMPACT System.
3) Effectiveness. This is an important quality of the EIS which defines the
worthwhileness of the system. It refers to the ability of the educational innovation
to produce the intended results, which is the delivery of quality basic education in
the schools. Of emphasis here is that quality should not be sacrificed for economy.
Indicators of effectiveness include the following inputs: the respondent schools’

mission, vision, goals and objectives; the curriculum; classroom assessment and
evaluation; teaching and learning delivery mechanisms; instructional materials; and
the learning environment.
4) Efficiency. This is the second important quality of the EIS which is
equally noteworthy. It refers to the ability of the educational innovation to produce
the desired results at least expense. Among the efficiency indicators reviewed
were: leadership; organizational structure; professional growth and development;
and school culture. Screens for these in the EIS schools asked about the existing
conditions in the school that allow the effectiveness dimension to prevail by
determining the most economical way of organizing instructional resources into a
meaningful learning system for the greater number of pupils.
5) Advocacy. This is the third important quality of the EIS to sustain
implementation. It entails organizing, generating and mobilizing community
support for the benefit of the children. A positive attitude towards the educational
innovation is a requisite for success. Screens here include: comprehensive
school planning; physical facilities and resources; pupil and family involvement;
and stakeholders and community support.
6) Some terms specific to the EIS include the following:
a) Community Learning Center (CLC). This serves as the school in
the EIS set-up. It is the hub of all learning activities for pupils, parents, out-of-
school youth and the community at large.

b) School Enrolment. This is the actual count of the total number of
pupils in a school who have registered as of August 31 in a given school year.
Pupils are assigned to certain Levels equivalent to the Grade Levels of their
counterparts in the conventional set-up.
c) Instructional Coordinator (IC). This refers to a school head or
principal in a school implementing the EIS. The IC manages all school activities
and oversees the learning experiences of the pupils as facilitated by the teachers.
d) Instructional Supervisor (IS). This refers to a professional
teacher assigned to teach in a school implementing the EIS. The IS plays an
innovative role as facilitator and instructional supervisor in the school. This set-up
is contrary to the common notion of the teacher as giver of information, the center
of all learning, and the only authority before a class.
e) Learning Kiosk. This is a gazebo-like temporary structure that
functions as a classroom or learning center in a school implementing the EIS. In a
CLC, there would be many learning kiosks to accommodate the many groups of
learners who are doing varied learning activities.

Chapter 2
REVIEW OF RELATED LITERATURE AND STUDIES
This chapter presents a review of related literature and studies that have
relevance to the present research study. Among the many sources reviewed were
books, periodicals, journals, articles published locally and internationally; so too
were web-based resources, including local policy notes, brochures, primers and
orientation materials. All these materials have provided direction to the current
study.
Foreign Literature
Effective Schools. Much of the literature on effective schools stems from
the monumental research conducted in the decade between 1966 and 1976
(Source: ERIC, School Effectiveness Research, Effective Schools Research: How
It All Started). In 1966, a federal paper was written to discuss the effectiveness of
American education. The paper was funded by the U.S. Office of Education and
written by James Coleman, a prominent education researcher. Effective Schools
Research emerged in response to this controversial paper. Concluding that public
schools didn’t make a significant difference, Coleman’s report credited the
student’s family background as the main reason for student success in school. His
findings proposed that children from poor families and homes, lacking the prime
conditions or values to support education, could not learn, regardless of what the
school did. Ronald Edmonds, then Director of the Center for Urban Studies at
Harvard University, responded vigorously. Edmonds and others, refused to accept
Coleman’s report as conclusive, although they acknowledged that family
background does make a difference. They set out to find schools where kids from
low income families were highly successful, and thereby proved that schools can
make a difference. Edmonds, Brookover, Lezotte and other researchers (1978),
looked at achievement data from schools in several major cities – schools where
student populations were comprised of those from poverty backgrounds.
Nationwide, they found schools where poor children were learning. The puzzling
question remained why some low-income schools were successful while others
were not. To learn more about the phenomenon, researchers began to compare
high-achieving schools with schools where similar children were not learning.
What was it that the effective schools were doing differently?
Today, sources say that the effective schools research has evolved from
descriptive to prescriptive. The acquired knowledge base about practices in
effective schools is being shared to enable the processes to be replicated.
Researchers are documenting how to introduce these practices to produce positive
changes in the way adults interact with each other and with students. This
improvement model involves a collaborative effort by the principal, teachers, staff
and school community. It is characterized by a primary focus on teaching and
learning, a strong emphasis on documented outcomes, analysis of evidence to
monitor for quality and equity among student groups, and instructional
interventions based on feedback. Thirty-five years later, the result is a body of
scientific evidence to lay Coleman’s theory to rest and claim that schools do indeed
make a difference. In today’s environment of increasing expectations for schools
to produce high levels of achievement regardless of student backgrounds, this
research base is increasingly relevant. (Source: ERIC. Updated: November 30,
2009, The Board of Regents of the University of Oklahoma).
The Social Context of Effective Schools is explained by Philip Hallinger and
Joseph F. Murphy (1986) in their article which analyzes differences in the
operation of school effectiveness factors in high- and low-SES effective schools.
Observable differences are found on several effectiveness variables. The social
context of the effective schools appears to influence the breadth of the curriculum,
the allocation and use of instructional time, the instructional leadership role of the
principal, the nature of the school reward system, and the type of expectations
embedded in school policies and practices. These findings, though tentative,
indicate that practitioners should not treat the well-publicized effectiveness factors
as generalizable to all school settings. In addition, the results suggest that
researchers concerned with understanding the process of effective schooling
should focus on the manner in which these schools translate contextual
expectations into school policies and classroom practices.
In the area of family and community support, one document reviewed
shares lessons learned regarding how to strengthen public education systems
through support for parent and community organizing. It presents findings from
two case studies of the Edward W. Hazen Foundation (Rainbow Research, 2003).
The case studies illustrate how this can be done effectively and how much value
there is in parent and community organizing for creating effective schools.
Indeed, evidence shows a strong connection between parent and family
involvement in schools and children’s academic achievement, attendance, attitude,
and continued education (Henderson & Berla, 1994; Hickman, 1996). But families
may not become involved if they do not feel that the school climate – the social and
educational atmosphere of a school – is one that makes families feel welcomed,
respected, trusted, heard and needed. Research (e.g., Corner & Haynes, 1992;
Epstein & Dauber, 1993) suggests a connection between the school climate and
the extent to which parents and families are involved in their children’s education.
When schools create a positive school climate by reaching out to families and
providing structures for them to become involved, the result is effective school-
family partnerships. Such partnerships connect families and schools to help
children succeed in school and in their future. Hence, it is recommended that
schools create the climate and structures to support parent and family involvement.
The IMPACT school relies heavily on an effective parent and community
involvement.
What makes an effective school? Effective schools are those that
successfully progress the learning and development of all of their students. There
is no simple recipe for an effective school. Many factors combine to make each
school what it is, and each school is unique. However, it is possible to identify a
set of factors or characteristics that contribute to school effectiveness. Based on
research and consultations with parents, the ACT Council of P&C Associations
(Canberra, 2007) has identified nine characteristics of effective schools: (1) a
cohesive leadership team led by a caring and inclusive principal, (2) teachers with
a variety of skills and experiences, (3) clear positive philosophy, (4) environment
supportive of learning, (5) easily accessible student support, (6) effective school
organizational framework, (7) broad, balanced curriculum, (8) meaningful
assessment and reporting on student progress, and (9) active parent and
community participation. The ACT Council of P&C Associations in their report on
“Working with Schools” (Canberra, 2007), gave the caveat that these are a number
of important issues to bear in mind when using information on the characteristics of
effective schools.
Alternative Schools. In order to raise the quality of life of the people they
serve and care for, individuals and groups initiate programs and projects that
integrate education and livelihood as components. Both public and private sectors
join together to advance this cause.
A project supported by the United States Agency for International
Development (USAID) similar to the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) is
EDUCATODOS, implemented in Honduras. This project set up learning centers
within homes, maquilas, prisons, schools, vocational centers, and other available
locations. Partnerships were established with private businesses, NGOs, local

government, and religious or community organizations. The first phase of the
program started in 1995, and by 2002 had provided over 250,000 person-years of
schooling, with over 4,000 volunteer facilitators assisting at learning centers
throughout the country. The curriculum for grades 7 to 9 was initialed by the
Improving Educational Quality Project (IEQ) and built on an approach in which
activities of interest to youth are the foundation for integrating the basic subject
areas. Delivery is print and audio learning materials and through volunteer
facilitators, in sessions that last approximately two hours a day. A service-learning
component is introduced through community projects designed, implemented, and
evaluated by youth. Several external impact assessments were conducted and
results showed that students’ academic performance in Mathematics and Spanish
were equivalent to the results achieved by students from regular schools. Further,
a qualitative study and a self-assessment study both revealed that the new
integrated curriculum is highly attractive to youth because they become active in
their own learning through problem-focused activities. Development of values and
community service learning among the youth was notable. The flexibility of
scheduling is particularly attractive to teenagers and young adults who are working
or have responsibilities that inhibit their returning to regular schools. This
component of the program has thereby reduced the drop-out rate. A study on
volunteer facilitators indicated that as a result of their participation with the program
their leadership skills have been strengthened and most of them (94%) have
become role models exemplifying values and leadership for the youth in their
communities. The total cost for a participant to complete a year of schooling is
approximately a third of what the government invests annually per student at this
level in regular schools, which for the most part covers only teachers’ salaries (Siri
2004). This project is similar in many ways to the EIS in terms of an economic
delivery system that produces desired results.
Another example of a project similar to the EIS is the traditional vocational
education in an agricultural technical school called the PROJOVEM conducted in
Sao Paulo, Brazil. This was developed in 1995 between the Agricultural and Rural
Development Department of the University of Sao Paulo and the Paulo Souza
State Center for Educational Technology with funding from the Kellogg Foundation.
Its objective is to prepare rural youth to manage small farms or agribusinesses,
increasing productivity and increasing the standard of living of rural families. In a
span of three years, students develop individual projects with the family property
serving as a laboratory for learning, while academic subjects are integrated into the
learning process. Students and parents work together to determine the efficiency
of their farm and compare it with research-based techniques. The student projects
are intended to teach students how to conduct diagnostic studies, market research,
design, implement, manage, and evaluate projects. A cost-benefit study on the
economic benefits of participation in the program and the value of the economic
investment, as compared with agricultural technical schools, showed PROJOVEM
to be a most cost-efficient investment because the ratio of benefits to costs was

significantly higher than the agricultural technical program. The study concludes
that “PROJOVEM has the ability to not only entice the students to remain in the
rural area and contribute to rural development, but through their personal agri-
business projects, students can increase production on the property, have the
possibility of providing others with employment, transfer technology to rural
families, act like an agricultural technician… and become more entrepreneurial”
(ibid).
Two other projects called YouthBuild (YB) and Bridge Over Troubled Waters
(BOTW) engage disconnected youth who have no apparent path to a productive
future by teaching them basic academic, life, leadership, and employability skills
through work on community housing rehabilitation projects” (Kerka, 2003). These
programs’ underlying philosophy of respect sees youth as untapped resources for
the development of their own communities. Program features include supportive
peer-group communities, community service, culturally appropriate curricula, youth
leadership development and participation in governance, and follow-up through
alumni clubs and support services such as information, counseling, and job
placement (Conescu et al. 2002; Pines 1999, cited in Kerka 2003). The youth
aged 16-24, and even those with developmental disabilities, are provided with (1)
opportunities to perform meaningful work while learning marketable skills; (2) warm
relationships with caring adults committed to youth; (3) systematic attention to
improving basic skills toward achievement of a diploma, GED certificate, or college

entrance; and (4) a safe community in which to dream and achieve goals (Pines
1999, cited in Kerka 2003). BOTW recommends: “The identification of youth
capacities and resiliency should be strengthened as the proper way to establish
positive working relationships with youth who are runaways, homeless, or at risk.”
This is one recommendation that provides an important lesson for any alternative
program.
The Framework for Learning Alternatives Environments of Iowa, USA,
represents a research and experienced-based synopsis of basic principles to
develop and improve learning alternatives within Iowa. It serves to focus on a
critical question to guide education: “What is the purpose of education?” The
answer is: “being responsible citizens, effective workers and lifelong learners.” It
also offers insights into how individuals learn best identifying modern principles
and brain-compatible strategies for managing learning. Most importantly, it offers a
consideration of learning alternatives as a means to maximize learning for all
individuals in the community. The content of the framework was established
through broad inputs from educators involved in diverse alternative learning
environments at various levels across Iowa and the United States. It has been
formally recognized by the Iowa Association of Alternative Education and reviewed
and edited by all major education organizations within Iowa. The framework
identifies the essential components necessary for establishing and maintaining
quality learning alternative environments. These are: (1) The student as the
center of teaching and learning. The paradigm of the learning alternative
environment considers the student first. The needs of the individual relative to
personal, social, emotional, behavioral, essential learnings and career and talent
development are carefully considered and the appropriate provisions for meeting
individual needs are developed. (2) Unique needs of students. The education
process is geared to meet the unique needs of the student. Students and
parents/guardians choose to participate as an option to fulfill the defined
educational goals. Personalized education plans direct learning and graduation.
Assessments are regular and frequent for continuous feedback to students and to
determine success toward goals and expectations. The results of the assessment
are used to modify curriculum, instruction, methodology, support services and
management practices to benefit students. Reviews and evaluation are guided by
the principle of enhancing the worth and dignity of each student. (3) School
climate motivates learning. Students are immersed in a climate that assists them
to perceive that (a) they can learn, (b) they belong, (c) their learning style is a
personal characteristic that is valid and varied, (d) they are responsible for their
own learning, (e) learning is stimulating, (f) emotions are part and parcel to
learning, (g) forming family relationships strengthens learning and acceptance of
learning, and (h) teaming contributes to personal freedom, independence and
security. 4) Staff focus. Teachers directly influence students and reflect and model
whether they care. Choice to be in an ADM environment can improve attitudes
towards learning, cooperation and acceptance for the responsibility to learn and
can impact learning environments positively. (5) Management and support focus.
There are six important components in this section. (a) Gaining the advice of
community members in decision-making for developing and improving the school
or programs is an established process. (b) Organization, administration, control
and decision making. (c) Meeting the needs of the students. (d) Accountability.
There is an organized plan to collect and analyze data to determine needs, assess
student performance and guide the school’s progress towards student success.
(e) Financial stability. An adequate budget is provided to administer the school with
high quality and fulfill all standards including instruction, facility, discipline, staff
development, curriculum and materials development, technology, guidance,
assessment and evaluation. (f) Adequate facilities to promote learning. Adequate
space is available for group learning, allowing cooperative learning groups to
function appropriately and to accommodate individual learning areas for
independent study.
Another important ADM is homeschooling as evidenced by this excerpt from
E. Fogle, published in Educational Connections, 2001. “… In 1985,
homeschooling became legal in Washington State. In 1995, Alternative Learning
Programs became legal. Since then Homeschooling or Home-Based Instruction
(HBI) has become legal in 50 states in the US…”. HBI focuses on one major point:
“Who is responsible for the education of the children?” In HBI, parents take full
responsibility for educating their children. Quoting the law: “…all decisions relating
to philosophy or doctrine, selection of books, teaching materials and curriculum,
and methods, timing, and place in the provision or evaluation of home-based
instruction shall be the responsibility of the parent…” While family support is a
requirement for success in EIS, it is clearly the main criterion in HBI.
This researcher has included these related literature and studies to show the
numerous qualities, components and character of alternative learning modalities.
Differing opinions on these modalities exist. Differentiation of instruction seems to
be the norm in alternative learning systems (ALSs) and alternative delivery modes
(ADMs) although the underlying principle is that there must be a positive outcome
with regards to the question of who is responsible for educating our children. The
rhetoric of whether it is the country’s right and duty, or whether it is the parents’
right and duty, is somewhat like the trick question “Which comes first, the chicken
or the egg?” The ultimate aim of all education systems worldwide is to be able to
develop children into productive, responsible adults who can be gainfully employed
or who can earn a living.
Country Initiatives. Much closer to home are the related literature and
studies of alternative learning systems and alternative delivery modes from the
SEAMEO member countries and other countries in the world, showcasing another
component of ADM which is its equivalency character leading towards gainful
employment and opportunities for life-long learning.

The ROSC Project in Bangladesh. One such example cited by the UNESCO
is a program that targets out-of-school youth in Bangladesh called the Reaching
Out-of-School Children (ROSC). The main objective of the project is to attract the
disadvantaged out-of-school children by compensating their opportunity cost
partially through stipend and giving them a second chance to have equivalent
education of the formal primary level. This is done with the end in view to get them
to go back to the mainstream education system.
The OBE Program in India. Another example is the Open Basic Education
Program (OBE) of India as initiated by the National Institute of Open Schooling
(NIOS), the largest equivalency program in the country. It is in response to
concerns raised by many policy documents for the need for open primary level
education. The program caters to the disadvantaged groups such as girls and
women, marginalized social groups, ethnic groups, and others. Both children and
adults are registered in this program. The program has three levels: A, B, and C,
which are equivalent to the formal classes: III, V, and VIII. The curriculum is
competency-based and the program is implemented with the help of partners both
from the government and non-government agencies. The OBE certificate is
recognized by the government for purposes of higher education and employment.
The Primary Equivalency and Re-entry Programs in Cambodia. Cambodia
is implementing equivalency programs to address the needs of a big percentage of

their school-going age population who never attended school or who dropped out
of school either in the elementary or secondary levels. For the primary level out-of-
school children, a program called “Primary Equivalency” aimed at providing a
structured, nonformal, part-time primary education curriculum leading to
equivalency certification at the grade 6 level is being developed targeting poor
children and adolescents of an age or life situation at which they cannot enter or
reenter the formal system on a full-time basis. Another program called “Re-entry
Program” is a short-term activity (2003–2005) aimed at bringing recent primary
school dropouts back in the formal primary system while the primary equivalency
program is under development. This reentry program is focused on children aged
10 to 14 years who have recently dropped out of primary school. The program is
designed as two-month intensive tutorial courses, focused primarily on Khmer
language and mathematical skills, to allow students to complete their current level
of study and reenter the formal system at the next level.
In the same manner as in the primary equivalency program, the lower
secondary equivalency program is aimed at providing lower secondary education
to adolescents aged 12 to 18 years. This is nonformal, part-time, structured, and
with recognized certification at the ninth grade level. This program will be based in
the community learning centers, making it more accessible to girls. It uses self-
study materials enhanced by distance learning support through television and
radio. Some core subjects are taught by “mobile” teachers who will move from
center to center.
The PAMONG Project in Indonesia. In Indonesia, equivalency education is
part of the non-formal education system and consists of Paket (Package) A, B, and
C programs. Paket A is equivalent to primary school education, Paket B to junior
secondary education, and Paket C is equivalent to senior secondary school
education. The programs cater to the educational needs of certain disadvantaged
members of the public who otherwise have no access to education due to poverty
or the discontinuation of schooling. The program also serves those of productive
age who wish to improve their knowledge and skills as well as those who require
particular educational services in order to be able to cope with rising economic
standards and changes brought about by science and technology. Equivalency
programs have a very special place in the Indonesian education system and have
played a very significant role in the country’s educational development. There are
some shortcomings, obstacles, and problems in its implementation. Some of them
are: (a) Curriculum – the diversity of backgrounds, different competencies, and
age levels of learners require that the program utilize a contextualized and
customized curriculum, taking into account the local conditions, resources of the
immediate environment, and its potential in order to be relevant to the needs of the
learners and groups seeking livelihood. (b) Teaching-learning Methodologies – the
package also calls for a variety of teaching-learning methodologies that meet the
elements of constructivism, cooperative learning, and active classroom interaction.
(c) Tutor Training – this is seriously needed for enhancing tutors’ competencies,
capability, and professionalism. (d) Tutor Salary – This needs upgrading, if they
are to be more efficient and professional, since it is considered relatively small for
tutors. (e) ICT – this must be adopted as important media for developing network
between educational personnel, NFE institutions, and for upgrading the quality
of teaching-learning techniques. (f) Socialization – these activities involving
communities need to be undertaken more rigorously in order to disseminate
information about policies, regulations, and programs related to equivalency
education. Socialization must utilize all possible and available channels and
include not only government agencies but also related organizations and all kinds
of media. In this way, the public will not have any misconceptions as to the validity
and worth of equivalency education certificates. (g) Implementing the MOU – for
purposes of widening access to equivalency education, the Directorate General of
Out-of-school Education and Youth, Ministry of National Education, has
collaborated and signed MOUs with other directorates of other ministries. To date,
however, the MOUs formalized at the central government level have not been
filtered down well to the district level, hence, no significant collaborations have
resulted and no significant outcomes have been reached. (h) National
Examination for Equivalency Programs – service standards of the highest quality
should be applied in the management and administration of examinations for the
equivalency education programs.
The NFE Program of Basic Education in Thailand. NFE Basic Education in
Thailand is defined as an alternative education to the existing education.

Equivalency essentially means the application of levels of education completed,
i.e., equivalency for some rights such as to enter public service, ordain, campaign
in politics, etc. The Ministry of Education-approved equivalency certificates give the
same rights and privileges as those of formal schools.
Target groups are those outside the school population, those who are
underprivileged or wish to return to school. Delivery mechanisms include distance
learning, classroom-type, and self-study. Equivalency programs are not without
challenges, and among these are the limited time the learners are able to devote to
the program because of family responsibilities, the capabilities of teachers or
instructors, and the limited budget which affects quality.
The VSAS Program in Thailand. Vocational Subjects in Academic Schools
(VSAS) is another initiative of the Ministry of Education of Thailand for the upper
secondary school students to provide them with greater access and wider array of
elective subjects to select from according to their interests and aptitudes. Its
curriculum and teaching methodology are tied to the students’ interests as they
perform meaningful tasks that have direct relevance to real work practices. The
reformation of the assessment methods from traditional “paper and pencil tests” to
a modular-assessment and competency-based system brought about favorable
outcomes. The students’ involvement in learning is significantly increased as the
contents are more relevant to the world of work. The general aim of VSAS is to
develop skills in relevant enterprise that would enable students to reach

employment, start businesses or pursue higher levels of technical training. The
subjects offered are categorized into 5 sectors: construction, manufacturing, home
economics, agro-tech and computer applications. A regular comment by the
students is that VSAS enable them to identify a clear career path for themselves.
The reformation of the assessment methods from traditional “paper and pencil
tests” to a modular-assessment and competency-based system brought about
favorable outcomes. The students’ involvement in learning is significantly
increased as the contents are more relevant to the world of work.
The Smart Schools Program of Malaysia. The project framework of the
Smart Schools Program (SSP) is embedded in the research on, and theories of,
multiply intelligences and social constructivism. Its pedagogical philosophy is not
total “student-centeredness” but an appropriate mix of learning strategies to ensure
mastery of basic competencies and promotion of holistic development. Teaching
and learning in SSP utilize the browser-based teaching and learning materials in
four core subjects namely: Bahasa Malaysia, English, Science and Mathematics.
These materials are designed to accommodate different needs and abilities,
resulting in fuller realization of other capabilities and allow children to take greater
responsibility in managing their own learning The SSP has also encouraged the
development of teaching and learning coursewares for the classroom. These
coursewares are designed to be incorporated into the Smart School Integrated
System (SSIS). All coursewares are launched through the networked computer
system provided to all Smart Schools. Currently the Math and Science
coursewares are being translated into English to support the Ministry of
Education’s initiative in the teaching of Math and Science in English.
The NDESAA Project in Southeast Asia. The Agriculture, Natural
Resources, and Social Sectors Division (RSAN) and the Asian Development Bank
(ADB) education committee and network commissioned SEAMEO INNOTECH to
investigate the distribution of effective schools across the Asian region and see
whether public and private, large and small, rural and urban, coed and single
gender schools are servicing their communities efficiently. This project has been
titled the National Databases for Education Achievement (IAEA) public release
data banks of school achievement among 13 year-olds in Asia as bases for the
study, the Center shall prepare database files for analysis and presentation of
findings in 12 country reports. The countries are the Philippines, Indonesia,
Thailand, Malaysia, Singapore, Hong Kong, Taiwan, Korea, Japan, Australia,
Turkey, and New Zealand. Work is still in progress.
Local Literature
Public Sector Initiatives. The Philippines cannot be left behind when it
comes to ALS and ADM. With focus on certification and equivalency, one of the
best known certification and equivalency programs within the country is the
Accreditation Equivalency Program (AEP) of the Bureau of Alternative Learning

Systems (BALS), Department of Education (DepED). School dropouts completing
this program reenter the formal school subsystem or gain work in a company
through the accreditation of knowledge and skills acquired via a variety of non-
formal avenues. Learning in this program is based and culminates in the Philippine
Educational Placement Test (PEPT) which is used to assess student proficiencies.
Some models that illustrate a multiple delivery modality scheme for
delivering elementary and secondary school programs include: (a) DepED’s
Project EASE (Effective and Affordable Secondary Education) that addresses the
learning needs of students who cannot attend secondary school programs
regularly due to personal, economic or financial reasons. EASE students enter into
a contract with the school to study at home for a period of time until they are ready
to return to the formal school system. EASE students are provided learning
modules. More recently, EASE has been re-packaged as a Balik Paaralan Para sa
Out-of-School Adults (BP-OSA) Program and now provides education and
assistance on entrepreneurial and employability skills. (b) The University of the
Philippines Open University (UPOU) System is a program that recognizes the
“perennial challenge of providing quality higher education to a growing population”
in the Philippines. The UP-Distance Education Program (UP-DEP) was established
to implement distance education as an alternative mode of instruction. UP Los
Banos initiated the first school-on-the-air program called Paaralang
Panghimpapawid over DZLB. In 1988 the first degree program offered by distance
education was approved and was popularly known as STUDE, an acronym for
Upgrading Science Teachers Using Distance Education. (c) SEAMEO INNOTECH
recently completed research and development work for two projects that offer
options to teachers and training through multiple delivery modality. These are: (1)
Project COMPETE or Competency Based Education and Training of Teachers
consisting of 50 modules developed in multi-media format for on-line instruction
and/or distance education delivery. COMPETE is now being offered for academic
credits in graduate education programs by some of the Center’s partner
institutions, namely: the Philippine Normal University at the National Capital
Region, the Pangasinan State University in Northern Philippines, the West Visayas
State University in Central Philippines and the University of Southeastern
Philippines in Southern Philippines. (2) LearnTech eXCELS refers to a program
on “Excellence in Educational Leadership for School Heads in Southeast Asia.”
LearnTech eXCELS is based on a competency framework for school heads
developed with the active participation of representatives of ministries of education
in the Southeast Asian region. This framework consists of 13 competency strands
all of which require more than 150 learning modules in print, audio and video,
accessible by open learning through distance education and/or on-line learning.
Modules have been developed and are being used by participating teacher
education institutions in the Philippines, Vietnam and Cambodia. The modules are
translated into the languages of the region and used in an open source learning
platform system.
Such initiatives have likewise influenced the present study in looking at its
clientele as the marginalized sector of society; the EIS as an alternative learning
system; and its research framework as a function of input, process and output.
Private Sector Initiatives. Private citizens, NGOs and foundations have
also lent their hands towards providing OSYs with a better chance in life. Some
examples are: (a) A Better Chance (ABC) Foundation founded in 2001 by Mr.
Lewis Edwards; through the support of its friends and other donors, the foundation
has been working with Sienna College in Taytay, Rizal to help over 90 high school
students finish their studies through its Night High School program. These high
school students are provided with books and other supplies that they need for their
classes. Teachers of Sienna College volunteer their time and services to train
these students every night. (b) RVM Skills Training Program for OSY by St. Mary’s
College launched in May 1995. Different vocational and skills trainings were
offered using a modified Dual Training System approach. The RVM-STP is now
on its tenth year of helping out-of-school youth go back to the mainstream of life.
The program is also very closely linked with existing industries in Tagum City
where the on-the-job training of the OSYs is conducted using the existing facilities,
tools and equipment of the workshop and where the expertise of potential trainers
is tapped. (c) The Immaculate Conception College (ICC) – La Salle Night High
School in Ozamiz City. Started in SY 2002-2003 by ICC-La Salle, through the
initiative of the Schools of Business and Education in coordination with the Office
of Community Extension Services, the free night high school for the financially
deprived elementary graduates and in particular for the household helpers and out-
of-school youth opened with 39 first year high school students as its first enrollees.
Classes are held from four in the afternoon and last up to nine in the evening.
Instruction is provided by volunteer teachers who are not paid nor given
honorarium. (d) The Alternative Home Education Agenda for Development
(AHEAD) program is a modularized ADM for OSY and adults. It is an adaptation of
the Home Study Program conceptualized by Fr. Rogelio Alarcon, O.P., former
rector of the Angelicum College, Quezon City. His project was replicated by Notre
Dame of Marbel University (NDMU) with his encouragement and assistance in the
earlier implementation of the program. With the Department of Education’s
approval to operate the program, NDMU incorporated innovative strategies to
make the project more appropriate in the context of Mindanao; the project is seen
as a viable means of addressing the educational concerns of the out-of-school
youth and adults of South Cotabato, Sarangani, General Santos City, Sultan
Kudarat, and Maguindanao areas. (e) The Miriam College Adult Education Unit
(MAE), established in 1967, it conducts a DepED approved night high school
program and a special ungraded elementary course. MAE also linked up with the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to strengthen the
quality of its vocational instruction and to provide the students the opportunity to
get a college degree in technical courses. (f) The ABS-CBN Talent Center
opened in 1998 a distance-learning high school program accredited by the

Department of Education to cater to the needs of young talents with hectic show
business schedules to pursue their high school education. Graduates of the Center
are eligible for admission in colleges and universities, and so far, majority of their
graduates are now enrolled in the University of Santo Tomas, while some qualified
in De La Salle University, Ateneo de Manila University, and the University of the
Philippines. (g) DepED’s Modified In-School Off-School Approach (MISOSA) this
approach can be traced back to the late Dr. Liceria B. Soriano when she was then
the Director of the Bureau of Public Schools Ministry of Education, Culture, and
Sports (now Department of Education, DepED) in 1973. The approach is a
restructured organization setup in which a teacher with 80 pupils in a class can
divide the class into two groups. One group stays with the teacher in school for one
week, while the other group goes off the school with self-learning kits as tutors in
the absence of a teacher while at home. The shift is implemented gradually, from
two half-day sessions to two one-day sessions in order to acquaint the children
little by little with the processes involved. Finally, the children go through the year
with one week in school and one week off school. Self-learning kits (SLKs) follow
the learning continuum sequenced according to learning tasks. SLKs are
community-based. This means that the learners are advised to seek varied
resources in the community to help him/her in carrying out the activities provided in
the kits. The learners are also taught to seek the help first of their parents or elders
assuring family participation in the child’s education. Learners progress at different
rates and evaluation of learner’s progress is criterion-referenced rather than norm-

referenced. The In School-Off School Approach, if successfully implemented will
produce learners who are well-prepared with life skills that will enable them to learn
by themselves and to find a place in this complex world.
Foreign Studies
Effective Schools. Sammons, et al (1995) analyzed information found in
School Effectiveness Research to determine key characteristics of effective
schools. This review provided an analysis of the key determinants of school
effectiveness in elementary and secondary schools. The literature review
identified the following key correlates of effectiveness: (1) professional leadership;
(2) shared vision and goals; (3) a learning environment; (4) concentration on
teaching and learning; (5) purposeful teaching; (6) high expectations; (7) positive
reinforcement; (8) monitoring progress; (9) pupil rights and responsibilities; (10)
home-school partnership; and (11) a learning organization. The majority of
effectiveness studies have focused exclusively on students’ cognitive outcomes,
but there is less evidence about school and classroom processes that are
important in determining schools’ success in promoting social or affective
outcomes. Because of this focus, the review revealed more about the correlates of
academic effectiveness. Results of the review did not support the view that any
one particular teaching style is more effective than others, but did indicate that
flexibility and the ability to adapt teaching approaches are more important than
notions of any single style.

Levine and Lezotte (1990) did a review and analysis of the research
(conducted from 1985 to 1990) and practice of unusually effective schools. Three
major issues were addressed: (1) the viability of the effective school concept in
contemporary school reform; (2) the correlation between recent research and basic
findings; and (3) the congruency of school level practices with research on
classroom and district practices and policies. The first part discusses issues
involving the identification of unusually effective schools based on academic
achievement criteria, such as effective schools correlates and achievement criteria
of effectiveness. The two following major sections address school practices within
different contexts – such as grade level, socioeconomic status, and rural schools –
and the effectiveness of such practices. Findings indicate that effectiveness
correlates should be viewed as prerequisites rather than guarantees of success;
that policy and practices at the school level should consider contextual variables
and set priorities accordingly; that tests should encourage the development of
higher order thinking skills; and that research should focus on both effective
teaching skills and school practices. Recommendations for successful change
models call for a focus on the single school and a collegial effort between
administration and staff.
In the search for effective schools, Edmonds and others (1977), conducted
research on the identification and analysis of city schools that are instructionally
effective for poor and/or minority children. This study is related in some ways to
the present research in that it focuses on the poor and culturally disadvantaged. It,
therefore, provides some direction to the present investigation. The “Search For
Effective Schools” project attempted to answer the question: are there schools
that are instructional effective for poor children? Two thousand five hundred pupils
in twenty schools in the model cities’ neighborhood were randomly sampled. The
mean math and reading scores of these schools were compared with citywide
norms. Effective schools were defined as those schools whose pupils were above
city average grade equivalent in reading and mathematics and an ineffective
school’s pupils were defined as those who scored below the city average. Nine
schools were judged effective in teaching reading and five were judged effective in
teaching both reading and math. The results of the study indicated that pupil
family background neither caused nor precluded elementary school instructional
effectiveness. A re-analysis of the 1966 Equal Educational Opportunity Survey
(EEOS) indicated that large differences in performance between the effective and
ineffective schools could not be attributed to differences in the social class and
family background of pupils enrolled in those schools. The report recommended
future studies of school and teacher effectiveness which would consider the
stratification design as a means for investigating the separate relationship of
programs and policies for pupils of differing family and social background.
A most recent study (Mosen-Lowe, Vidovich and Chapman, 2009) titled
“Students “At-Risk” Policy: Competing Social and Economic Discourses”, drew
attention to both policy and practice. Within a context of global reform agendas
that promote economic ideologies in education, the discourses surrounding “school

failure” have shifted from “individual risk” to “a nation at-risk”. Enhancing the
quality of schooling through improving educational outcomes and standards for all,
and thereby reducing “school failure,” is simultaneously constructed as enhancing
both social justice and a nation’s economic advantage in the global marketplace.
Within this broader context, this research explored the complexity of issues
related to policy for students at educational risk through an analysis of the
Education Department of Western Australia’s “Making the Difference: Students at
Educational Risk Policy.” This research adopted a theoretical framework of a
“policy cycle” that allowed for an exploration of power relations within the policy
process. Primarily, consideration is given to the competing social and economic
discourses found within the policy text and subsequent tensions reflected and
retracted throughout the policy process from macro (system), to meso (district) and
finally to micro levels within the schools and classrooms.
Alternative Schools. The Alternative Schools Research Project by the
College of Education and Human Development, University of Minnesota, is a
three-year project funded by the U.S. Department of Education, Office of Special
Education Programs starting in October 2001 which gathered and synthesized
information about the policies and practices of alternative schools across the USA,
especially in relation to students with disabilities.
The study is entitled “Alternative Schools and the Students They Serve:
Perceptions of State Directors of Special Education” by authors Camilla A. Lehr

and Cheryl M. Lange. This study has provided some influence on the current
research in terms of its descriptive methodology. Data gathered from a national
survey estimated that there are around 20,000 alternative schools existing in the
U.S.A., and that about 12% of all students in alternative schools are students with
disabilities. Forty-nine state directors of special education took part in the study to
describe their perceptions of (a) basic characteristics of alternative schools, (b)
major issues for alternative schools, (c) major issues for state education agencies,
(d) major issues for students with disabilities, and (e) educational reforms
impacting alternative schools. The study concluded with a discussion of trends that
require further study.
State-level research conducted in Minnesota found that students with
emotional/behavioral disabilities were attending alternative programs in much
higher proportions than traditional public schools (Gorney and Ysseldyke, 1993)
raising questions about the schools’ characteristics and use. Likewise, a
commonly accepted definition of alternative schools did not exist until the U.S.
Department of Education, in 2005 defined an alternative education school as “a
public elementary/secondary school that addresses needs of students that typically
cannot be met in regular, special education or vocational education” (U.S.
Department of Education, 2002, p. 55). Lange and Slettern (2002) found that
alternative schools are generally characterized as having small enrollment, one-on-
one interaction between teachers and students, supportive environments,

opportunities and curriculum relevant to student interests, flexibility in structure,
and an emphasis on student decision-making. Most educators, researchers and
policymakers do seem to agree that alternative schools are designed for students
at risk of school failure (Raywid, 1994). As alternative schools continue to evolve
and play a more prominent role in response to educational, political, economic and
social forces today, the need for current information about these schools and the
students they serve grows.
When asked to describe alternative schools, respondents referred to five
characteristics: small size (e.g, class size, overall enrollment, student/teacher
ratio), flexibility (hours, class schedule, individualized), and a creative curriculum
(nontraditional, hands-on, experiential). The instructional program was typically
described as including a core curriculum tied to district or state requirements
and/or a vocational/career planning/service learning component. Governance -
occurs primarily at the local level. Students - the majority of alternative schools
are designed for high school age students although the demand for alternative
schools serving middle school and elementary grade levels appear to be
increasing. Students who attend alternative schools are generally described as
being at risk of dropping out of school, having a history of behavioral or disciplinary
problems in school (e.g., suspended or expelled) or failing school (e.g., behind in
credits or poor academic skills or achievement.
With regards to major issues for alternative schools, results of a study
pointed out three pressing problems: funding, staffing and accountability. It was
found out that there is a perennial lack of funding, a lack of sufficient funds to
provide for quality facilities and instructional resources. Alternative
schools/programs may be the first to be affected by budget cuts. In terms of
staffing, there may be a need for dual certification (in subject area and special
education), training and more licensed educators to teach in alternative schools.
And in terms of accountability, there is a need for clearly documented measures of
effectiveness and student success (outcomes).
Because officials within state education agencies are often given the
responsibility of oversight, respondents were asked to provide their perspectives
on major issues for state education agencies in relation to alternative schools their
replies were: monitoring and compliance, legislation and policies, technical
assistance and growth. In Monitoring and Compliance there is a need for
increased monitoring to determine quality instructional programs, student
enrolment and demographic information as well as progress and outcomes. There
is a need for monitoring of special education’s due processes and procedures.
Legislation and policies may be minimal and state policy may not be
comprehensive (lack of definition, limited description of policies and procedures).
Issues related to Technical Assistance and Growth means an increased demand
for technical assistance and difficulty providing such due to inadequate resources
(time, staff or money)
Another section of the study looked at reforms impacting alternative
schools. Respondents were also asked to describe the impact of major

educational reforms on alternative schools in their state: (1) Efforts to Decrease
Dropout and Increase school completion – pressure to keep kids in school and
increase the rate of school completion for all students. (2) Standards-based
Reform and Accountability – perceived impact includes increased numbers of
students enrolling in alternative schools, increase in students choosing to obtain
GED certificates, efforts to align curriculum with state standards, and efforts to
raise test scores. (3) IDEA Disciplinary Requirements – helping to keep students
with disabilities who are expelled or suspended in school, increase awareness of
positive behavioral supports and use of alternative programs as interim alternative
education settings (IAES).
In conclusion, the study said that understanding the role alternative schools
play in the education of students at risk of school failure will enhance services and
help to facilitate successful school outcomes for students with disabilities.
The International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada funded
several studies on the IMPACT approach in the Philippines, Indonesia, Malaysia
and other countries. Interestingly, the Malaysian InSPIRE (Integrated System of
Programmed Instruction for the Rural Environment) project, also aimed to develop
a Malaysian system for mass primary education, having as its origins the
successful Philippine and Indonesian experiences. Project objectives were two-
fold: (1) to provide a systematic diagnosis of the problems of teaching and
learning in the rural part of the country; and (2) to design and test alternative
approaches to increase the effectiveness of instruction in the rural primary schools.
The project examined the instructional performance of the teacher, the
effectiveness of learning modules, and the role of the administrative structure of
the educational system in enhancing or inhibiting the teaching-learning process.
From mid 1977, three learning modes were determined: teacher mediated,
peer mediated, and module mediated. The director of education for Sabah
expressed interest in the InSPIRE approach and project researchers agreed to
experiment with InSPIRE materials in 10 Sabah schools with continuing support for
a second phase. Phase 2 started in July 1, 1981 till official closure date of January
1, 1985. Researchers completed new instructional materials for Grades II and III.
However, a new educational system was introduced in 1983.
Research assessing the impact of InSPIRE on teaching style in mathematics
and the national language found a substantial improvement in language teaching
styles but only marginal changes for mathematics. A study of student academic
achievement and attitudes showed that InSPIRE facilitated the learning process of
pupils. Project results were reported in national and international seminars and
journals; and InSPIRE became a basic component of education in Sabah.
IDRC’s research on programmed instruction was known as Proyek PAMONG
and implemented in Phase 1 in four schools in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia.
Research results seen in the Philippine experience were more or less seen in
Indonesia as well. Additional findings from the PAMONG experience advocated
three major actions to be undertaken: (1) reconsider the feasibility of the strategy
of volunteerism; (2) simplify the role of the Instructional Supervisor (IS) or the
teacher in the IMPACT system, and the system operation; and (3) provide the IS
with continuing education programs and training to ensure the success of the
experimental delivery system.
With background materials on IMPACT’s developmental phases and
subsequent enhancement and implementation such as has been presented herein,
a desire to review the enhanced IMPACT system has emerged. This research
study was undertaken in an attempt to see if the initial objectives of IMPACT were
still being met at this current time wherein the educational problems that existed in
the 1970s are still very much felt by our students. To this end, additional literature
and studies have been read and examined to see any parallelisms in objectives,
implementation concerns, and institutionalization challenges.
Local Studies
Alternative Learning Programs. A number of alternative learning programs
have been developed by government and non-government organizations from the
1970s to the present. The educational problems that are being addressed
continue to haunt the country and the search for alternative solutions continue to
intensify. It is in this interest that the present study evolved, as a major educational
innovation in the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) as documented, has proven its
potential for producing desired results with minimized costs.

1. Project NFE A&E – Part I
The Bureau of Nonformal Education (BNFE) of the then Department of
Education, Culture and Spots (DECS) commissioned SEAMEO INNOTECH to
undertake this project. The Nonformal Education, Accreditation and Equivalency
(NFE A&E) program aimed to develop and produce prototype self-instructional
learning materials, teacher’s guides and other instructional materials on several
learning strands which include communication skills, problem solving and critical
thinking, sustainable use of resources and productivity, development of self and a
sense of community, and expanding one’s world vision for elementary and
secondary levels. A total of 152 modules were produced under this project. Audio
supplements were included in 14 of these modules. The modules are used by
adult learners and out-of-school youths. The A&E Program provides certification
for skills and knowledge acquired after passing the NFE A&E Test. The
certificates can then be used for re-entry into the formal school system or for
employment. For its efforts to improve education in the Philippines, this project
received the UNESCO International NOMA Literacy Prize.
2. Project NFE A&E – Part II
This project is a continuation of the first NFE A&E project. Under this, new
and additional learning modules were developed. Modules meant for higher
elementary levels and high school were designed to be self-instructional while
those for lower elementary levels were designed to be facilitator-mediated. A total
of 165 modules were produced. About half of these (84) were developed to
prepare nonformal education learners for college. Moreover, except for the
modules on English, all modules that were produced for NFE A&E – Parts I and II
now have a Filipino and English version to enable learners to choose the language
that best suits them. Ten of the audio supplements for NFE Part I were also
translated into English. In addition, 32 of the modules were supplemented with
audio while 6 were supplemented with video. The A&E Program is geared toward
helping learner-participants to develop marketable skills and eventually increase
their income. It also aims to assist them in availing job opportunities.
3. Project ELSA – IR4
The Education and Employment Skills Alliance (EESA) create and expand
community-based learning and employment activities for young Filipinos, ages 30
and under, living in the Philippines in the southern island of Mindanao, including
the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) through the Education and
Livelihood Skills Alliance (ELSA) Project. One of the components of ELSA is IR4
or Reforming Educational Policy. The objectives of the policy research follows: (1)
to look into existing as well as proposed educational policies in the formal
education system, its implementing procedures and implications and how these
can be further improved in the context of our Muslim brothers and sisters; (2) look
into policies of currently available alternative learning systems for non-formal
education and how these can be further improved to address the needs of our
Muslim brothers and sisters; (3) recommend policy measures that are sound and
politically acceptable as regards a system of certification or accreditation for the

Madaris in Mindanao in the context of the overall Philippine education system; and
(4) recommend policy measures for a transparent and accountable management
and financial implementation procedures.
This research and development project has been commissioned to SEAMEO
INNOTECH. The review of existing educational policies and literature, documents
and other secondary data has been done. To augment the view of policies, focus
group interviews of key informants were done, focusing more on what and how
these policies have affected Muslim learners. Case study subjects have also been
chosen to learn how they are affected by particular policies, such as the NFE
Accreditation and Equivalency System.
4. Project EASE
Project EASE is an alternative learning system for students who want to finish
high school, but cannot attend classes regularly, or do not learn optimally in the
formal school. The acronym stands for Effective and Affordable Secondary
Education. The system was developed by SEAMEO INNOTECH in cooperation
with the then Department of Education, Culture and Sports – Educational
Development Project Implementing Task Force (DECS-EDPITAF), Philippines.
EASE is a school-based system that primarily makes use of distance and self-
learning modes in the delivery of first year secondary education. Its main learning
materials are the standard high school textbooks, supplemented by Student
Guides (SGs).
5. Project RIT
RIT or Reduced Instructional Time is an alternative approach to an effective
and efficient mass primary education. Its thesis is that both the time required for
student learning and the time that teachers must spend in support of learning can
be reduced through the design and scheduling of learning. RIT is also an attempt
to increase learning efficiency through the use of well-prepared learning materials.
Such learning is controlled in most situations by instructions provided in the
learning materials themselves. In situations where such forms of control are not
very effective, teachers are employed to facilitate learning. Through better learning
strategies and appropriate designs of the instructional programs, the time spent on
learning is reduced by increasing the learning speed of the student, and by
decreasing the amount of time that teachers need to spend with their students.
The project was conducted in Thailand with funding support from the Government
of the United States.
6. Project CB-BLP
The main thrust of CB-BLP or the Community-based Basic Learning Package
is to provide out-of-school youths and adults in community, relevant basic learning
in a period shorter than what is needed in primary education. The project
incorporated the use of programmed teachers, individualized instruction and group
learning with the aid of learning packages.
The learning packages produced were meant to answer the need for
knowledge in communication skills in dealing with quantitative data, positive
attitude towards self-improvement, and the like. For each participating country,
two project sites were selected: one that is typically urban and another, typically
rural. This program has been implemented in nonformal education programs in the
Philippines, Thailand and Indonesia.
7. Project IMPACT
This research and development project funded by the International
Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada is known as IMPACT, which
stands for Instructional Management by Parents, Community and Teachers. It is
an effective and economical alternative delivery system for mass primary
education. The project was conducted in the Philippines, Indonesia and Malaysia
and implemented and/or adopted in a number of countries in Asia, the Caribbean
Islands and Africa.
Specific to the IMPACT System. Before continuing on with the literature
synthesis, this researcher feels that due importance must be accorded to the
research studies done by the International Development Research Center (IDRC),
a Canadian Crown corporation that works in close collaboration with researchers
from the developing world in their continuing search for the means to build
healthier, more equitable and prosperous societies.
The IDRC funded the research work that ultimately led to the development of
the IMPACT System in the Philippines. The project officially started in February 1,
1974 with a fund source of CDN$360,000, for a duration of 36 months, officially
closing in November 11, 1977 (www.idrc.gov.ca). In February 1973, SEAMEO

INNOTECH conceptualized a radical approach to mass primary education, an
experiment targeting mostly rural schools where one-half of rural children do not
complete more than 4-5 years of school (Cummins 1986) and the incidence of
drop-outs was much higher than in the urban areas (SEAMES Report of the
Technical Committee, 1972). Known originally as the “No More Schools” concept,
it proposed to replace schools, textbooks, teachers and grades with learning
centres, self-instructional materials, peer tutors and community support and
instructors responsible for the management of learning among learner groups of as
large as 150-200 students (www.nzdl.sadl.uleth.ca). Over time, the innovation
became better known as Instructional Management by Parents, Community and
Teachers (IMPACT). With IDRC funding, the innovation began in the Philippines,
spreading further to Indonesia (where it was called PAMONG), Malaysia
(InSPIRE), Jamaica (PRIMER), Liberia (IEL) and Bangladesh (IMPACT).
IDRC funded three research studies following IMPACT’s concept: (a) Phase
1 of the Delivery System for Mass Primary Education started in February 1, 1974
and closed in November 1, 1977 with a funding of CDN$360,000; (b) Phase 2 of
the Delivery System for Mass Primary Education started in October 6, 1976 and
closed in July 6, 1980 with a funding of CDN$658,000; and (c) Study of Philippines
IMPACT and Non-IMPACT Leavers and Graduates started in June 19, 1979 and
closed in June 19, 1982 with a funding of CDN$24,500.00.

Phase 1 aimed to carry out research on a modularized learning system
designed to provide primary education in a flexible, efficient and economical way
and to develop the most cost-effective means of teaching the national language in
the early grades. The project was implemented in five schools in Naga, Cebu City,
Philippines. Instead of conventional teachers, instructional supervisors managed a
variety of modules or learning activities for as many as 200 students thereby truly
exhibiting product efficacy when it comes to teacher-pupil ratio. Skilled community
members, volunteers and older students helped with teaching to the younger
pupils and parents monitored their child’s progress. Although initially starting only
with Level IV, evaluations showed promising results. The project was replicated in
five schools in Solo, Central Java, Indonesia in 1976 and the research went on to
the second phase.
Phase 2 aimed to continue developing and testing IMPACT as an effective
and economical mass primary education delivery system based on the evaluative
results of Phase 1. Two new sites were added in the Philippines: Lapu-Lapu City,
Cebu and Sapang Palay, Bulacan. Modules were now ready for all six grade
levels. July 1978 to June 1979 was designated as a demonstration year to test all
IMPACT components in all study sites. The project was also open for observation
to the international community. Cost effectiveness analyses and evaluations were
undertaken in the Philippines and Indonesia with results showing that in the
Philippines, a cost reduction of 50% per child was possible without a loss in
educational achievement. An external evaluation of the project in Naga, Lapu-Lapu

City and Sapang Palay compared nine IMPACT schools with a control group of
seven conventional schools. Data gathered showed that IMPACT students
consistently had higher achievements in all areas of the curriculum. Project
objectives of mass primary education mode resulting in equal or better pupil
academic achievement were realized and the project was then termed to be an
effective and efficient alternative delivery mode for basic education. IDRC
produced two films about the project, and plans for further implementation of
IMPACT were initiated.
Having gathered wide international interest with its earlier two phases,
replication or adaption of the IMPACT delivery system in other parts of the
Philippines was actively pursued. A longitudinal evaluation was undertaken to
discover the difference in achievement of skills between the IMPACT delivery
system and the non-IMPACT schools, to discover which specific literary and
numeracy skills are affected most by this type of delivery system and to assess the
impact of this type of system on the attitudes of graduates and school leavers.
Aptly titled “IMPACT, and Non-IMPACT Leavers and Graduates” the study sample
consisted of 483 IMPACT graduates and school leavers in Levels V and VI in
1978, and 443 non-IMPACT graduates and school leavers in Grades V and VI
from control schools in Naga, Sapang Palay, and Lapu-Lapu City. Study
methodology involved an analysis of scores obtained on the Survey of Outcomes
of Elementary Education (SOUTELE) test administered to the study sample in
1978. Researchers also administered the Philippine Educational Placement Test

Technical/Vocational
(PEPT), and a self-concept and attitude questionnaire; collected data on student
background; and interviewed dropouts. All instruments were pretested. Cognitive
and non-cognitive outcomes showed that IMPACT school graduates compared
equally with the graduates of conventional schools in achievement, self-concept,
and in the nature of the post-school experiences. IMPACT graduates also had the
required knowledge, skills, and attitudes for further schooling. Once again,
recommendations were made for wide dissemination of research results, and
revisions to IMPACT modules according to country requirements.
This interest has put the Philippines and SEAMEO INNOTECH on the map
and many benchmarking visits by similarly situated country representatives were
received in the project sites.
Synthesis and Relevance of the Reviewed Literature and Studies
The many and varied literature and studies read about alternative delivery
modes in education have relevance to the present study. Most of the interventions
are intended for the youth in the underserved or unserved portions of society
especially those in rural and marginalized communities. The end goal is similarly
articulated, and that is for the economic upliftment of the beneficiary-students,
providing them with a better quality of life. The presence of caring, knowledgeable
adults in the intervention center who provide the children with the guidance and the
challenges they need is another similarity noted by this researcher. This is a very
important characteristic because many of the student-beneficiaries may be out-of-

school youths or may have a feeling of family only in the centers themselves. Just
like in the IMPACT system, the inclusion of the community is also another similarity
noted not just in the Philippines but also in Columbia, Honduras, Brazil, America,
Bangladesh, Malaysia, India, Cambodia, Indonesia, Thailand and others. A strong
sense of community is needed in an intervention like IMPACT because of the
community’s influence on achievement and youth development. Maximizing
community resources is also a strategy that works both ways: just like the
members of the community lend their helping hands in the smooth implementation
of the project, so too do the community leaders see the beneficiaries as assets or
social capital rather than just human flotsam that need to be swept away. Several
similarities have been noted and among these are the presence of funding
agencies who practice corporate social responsibility.
Another similarity is the interventions’ efforts to decrease dropouts and
increase school completion seen in the efforts and projects of most of the state
education agencies in the United States of America, just like the overriding
intention of IMPACT upon its conception in 1974. Likewise, evaluations done on
these programs (Lange and Slettern, 2002) also focused on its effectiveness and
efficiency components, not just the outcomes. Another very striking similarity is the
use of modularized learning so as to develop life-long learning and self-learning
skills in the students.
A difference noted is with IMPACT’s sister, the Department of Education’s
Modified In-School Off-School Approach (MISOSA) wherein half the pupils stay in
school for one week and on the next week stay out. In the IMPACT system, there
is open entry into the school but the pupils are expected to enter into a contracting
scheme witnessed by his/her parents. Another difference is that IMPACT trains
the older pupils to “program teach” the younger ones whereas in MIMOSA,
volunteer teachers are the norm which presents a possible sustainability problem.
The International Development Research Center (IDRC) of Canada funded
three earlier research studies on IMPACT in the period 1974-1982. These were in
the nature of full-blown summative evaluation, effectiveness studies, impact
studies, cost-benefit studies, cost-efficient analyses and meta-evaluation. This
present study did not have as respondents most of the pilot schools surveyed in
the evaluation done by SEAMEO INNOTECH on five IMPACT schools in 2005.
That would also be a difference between past studies and the present one.
All these local and foreign literature and local and foreign studies have
motivated this researcher to undertake this research work with the aim of testing
the theory that education, due to its very dynamism and its overall objective of
reaching all members of society, does not have to be structured nor confined by
time and space. There is a new paradigm and that is “that the world is a huge
classroom.”
All the materials read and studies reviewed are relevant to the timely
execution of this research work; however, to the researcher’s knowledge, no
similar study of this kind has yet been conducted. This study is an original concept
and is not a duplicate of any other study conducted locally or abroad.

Chapter 3
RESEARCH METHODOLOGY
This chapter presents the research method used, population and sample,
description of respondents, instrumentation, data gathering procedure and
statistical treatment of data.
Method of Research
This research study used the descriptive research design. Descriptive
studies describe phenomena associated with a subject population or to samples of
that population that have certain common characteristics (Cooper, 1993).
Descriptive research makes some kind of comparison, contrast and correlation and
at times cause and effect relationships may be established to some extent. They
involve an element of analysis and interpretation of the meaning or significance of
what is described.
This study is descriptive in the sense that the research output is a profile of 19
schools implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS), detailing their status
of implementation according to dimensions of effectiveness, efficiency and
advocacy. It is also a combination of both quantitative and qualitative research.
Quantitative data on perceptions of teachers and school heads connected with
these schools were collected to provide the picture of implementation. These were
corroborated with qualitative data from observations and informal interviews
collected by this researcher in her visits to these schools. The qualitative data
provided supplemental information on the research topic. This is important as
Patton (2008) has said, “…the qualitative method tends to be useful for describing
program implementation, studying process and participation, getting respondents’
view or opinions about program impact, and identifying program strengths and
weaknesses. Another additional strength is identifying unintended outcomes which
may be missed if the design of the study is only to measure certain objectives…”.
Population and Sample
There are twenty-one (21) elementary schools all over the country, each
island group represented, which are implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System
(EIS) as of July 1, 2009. From the population of 21 schools, nineteen (19) are
UNICEF-sponsored and have started implementation in SY 2007-2008. These
were the schools that comprised the sample of the study. Two schools have
started implementing EIS starting this SY 2009-2010, and because they are new to
the system, they have not been included in the study. Please refer to Figure 2, on
the next page, which provides the location map of the respondent schools.
The respondents to the survey questionnaire in this study are the instructional
coordinators (school heads) and instructional supervisors (teachers) of the 19 EIS
schools in the identified regions of the country. Sampling was purposive. All
concerned school heads and teachers were included in the survey.

Figure 2 below is a regional map of the Philippines showing the approximate
location of the nineteen respondent schools.
1. M.R. Espinosa Learning Center

2. Pag-Asa Learning Center
3. San Francisco Learning Center
4. San Pedro Learning Center
5. Sta. Teresa Learning Center
6. Assemblyman Segundo Moscoso

Memorial Learning Center
7. Maabay Learning Center
8. Factoria Learning Center

9. Libas Learning Center
10. Caridad Learning Center

11. Culianan Learning Center
12. Motosawa Learning Center
13. Villasis Learning Center
14. Kibenton Learning Center
15. Limatong Learning Center

16. Nabundasan Learning Center
17. Siasi I Pilot Learning Center

18. Utoh Laja Learning Center
19. Aguinaldo Learning Center
Figure 2: Location Map of the 19 Respondent Schools

Profile of Respondents
Table 1 shows the distribution of respondents by the type of involvement in
the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) schools, whether as school head or teacher.
Table 1
Population and Sample
Respondents Population Sample
Instructional Coordinators (School Heads) 21 19

Instructional Supervisors ((Teachers) 181 158
Total 202 177
The Table shows that there were 19 School Heads or Instructional
Coordinators (ICs) and 158 Teachers or Instructional Supervisors (ISs) included in
the study. Of the total sample of 177 respondents (combining both the ICs and the
ISs), the ISs comprised 89 per cent while ICs comprised 11 per cent. It is to be
noted that all school heads and teachers in the 19 respondent schools were
included. That left 23 teachers and two school heads from the two non-respondent
schools who were not included in the survey.
Table 2, on the next page, shows the distribution of respondents according to
gender. It is to be noted that Philippine schools are staffed with predominantly
female faculty. The EIS schools are similarly placed. There are more women than
men among the school heads and teachers. Table 2 shows that females totaled
157 of the total respondents, constituting 88.70 per cent of the sample. Males
totaled 19 respondents, constituting 10.73 per cent of the sample. One respondent
did not specify his/her gender.

Table 2
Distribution of Respondents by Gender
Gender Frequency Percentage
Male 19 10.73
Female 157 88.70
No response 1 0.56
Total 177 100
Table 3 below presents the distribution of respondents according to age.
Table 3
Distribution of Respondents by Age
Age Frequency Percentage
20-25 11 6.21
26-30 19 10.73
31-35 30 16.95
36-40 36 20.34
41 and up 81 45.76
Total 177 100
Table 3 shows that out of 177 respondents, 81 or 45.76 per cent are from the
age group 41 years old and up. Thirty-six (36) respondents or 20.34 per cent are
aged between 36 and 40 years; while 30 respondents or 16.95 per cent are
between 31 and 35 years. The age group 26 to 30 years old was represented by
19 respondents or 10.73 per cent, while the youngest respondents, 11 or 6.21 per
cent, are from the age group 20 to 25 years old. Data indicate that almost half of
the respondents are middle-aged, but majority are relatively young. This is a good
age mix of teachers and school heads because each age group benefits from the
other, as in the so-called “wisdom of the old” and “vibrance of the young.”
Table 4
Distribution of Respondents by Civil Status
Civil Status Frequency Percentage
Married 142 80.23
Single 34 19.21
No response 1 0.56
Total 177 100
Table 4 in the preceding page shows the distribution of respondents
according to their civil status, whether married or single. There were 142 or 80.23
per cent of the respondents who were married; 34 or 19.21 per cent who were
single. One respondent did not specify his/her civil status.
Table 5
Distribution of Respondents by Tenure or Years of Teaching Experience
Tenure (years) Frequency Percentage
Below 5 59 33.33
6 to 10 26 14.69
11 to 15 32 18.08
16 to 20 20 11.30
Above 20 28 15.82
No response 12 6.78
Total 177 100
Table 5 above presents the distribution of the respondents according to the
number of years of teaching experience, to include those years outside of their
present assignments in the EIS schools.
Table 5 shows that 59 or 33.33 per cent out of a total of 177 respondents
have teaching experience or tenure of less than five years. Thirty-two (32) or
18.08 per cent of the respondents have 11 to 15 years of teaching experience
while 28 or 15.82 per cent of the respondents have been teaching for more than 20
years. Twenty-six (26) or 14.69 per cent have been teaching from 6 to 10 years
while 20 or 11.30 per cent of the respondents have been teaching for 16 to 20
years. Interestingly, 12 or 6.78 per cent of the respondents had no response to
this query. To this researcher, this could mean one of several things: either the
teacher did not have tenure yet and so did not count his years of temporary
service; or the teacher is a volunteer, whose salary is paid for by the local
government in which case there is no regular item; or this respondent is a very new
teacher with less than one year experience.
Data-Gathering Tool
In gathering the pertinent data needed in this study, the researcher utilized a
questionnaire, drawn in great part from the validated instruments used in the 2005
study of the implementation of the EIS in the five pilot schools of SEAMEO
INNOTECH. The researcher also included additional items on each of the three
dimensions under review, gathered from the researches on school effectiveness
and efficacy by Fuller (1987), Lockheed and Verspoor (1992), Henvold and Craig
(1996), Lezotte, Edmonds, Brookeover (2008) and Townsend.
The instrument, titled “Questionnaire to Determine the Status of
Implementation of the Enhanced Instructional Management by Parents,
Community and Teachers (IMPACT),” consists of seven pages and has five parts
(see Appendix A). These are labeled: Part I - Profile of Respondent; Part II –
Review of the Effectiveness of the Enhanced IMPACT System; Part III – Review of
the Efficiency of the Enhanced IMPACT System; Part IV – Review of the Advocacy
of the Enhanced IMPACT System; and Part V – Problems and Suggested
Solutions. Part V is sub-divided into two sections. Section A asked the
respondent about problems/issues encountered in the implementation of the
IMPACT system in the school. Section B asked the respondent to choose from
among a given set of five suggested solutions and recommendations to address
the identified problems relative to effectiveness, efficiency or advocacy. Open-
ended questions followed these tickable sets of problems and suggested solutions
in order to elicit original ideas on the topic at hand.
Part I of the questionnaire is important to determine the demographics of
respondents as the primary sources of data. The demographic profile includes the
name (optional), gender, age, civil status, and years of teaching service.
Part II of the questionnaire pertains to the respondents’ perception of the
extent of implementation of the effectiveness dimension of the EIS in the school.
Data gathered from Part II is important to determine the effectiveness profile of the
school. Sections herewith included (a) school’s vision, mission, objectives and
goals; (b) curriculum; (c) teaching and learning mechanisms; (d) classroom
assessment and evaluation; (e) instructional materials; and (f) learning
environment. Each of these sections contained choices that the respondents were
to check to express their perception of the extent the items were contributing to the
effectiveness profile of the EIS in the school.
Part III looked at the respondent’s perception of the extent of implementation
of the efficiency dimension of the EIS in the school. There were four sections and
choices within this dimension: (a) organizational structure; (b) leadership with four
choices; (c) professional growth and development with five choices; and (d) school
culture with ten choices.

Part IV looked at the respondent’s perception of the extent of implementation
of the advocacy dimension of the EIS in the school. The four sections and choices
within this dimension were: (a) comprehensive school planning with three
choices; (b) physical facilities and resources with three choices; (c) pupil and family
involvement with five choices; and (d) stakeholders and community support with
six choices.
For Part II to IV, responses ranged on a 5-point scale where 1 was the lowest
and 5 was the highest. The following mode of interpretation guided the ranges
below:
Numerical Value Mode of Interpretation
4.21 to 5.00 = To a very large extent
3.41 to 4.20 = To a large extent
2.61 to 3.40 = To a moderate extent
1.81 to 2.60 = To a little extent
1.00 to 1.80 = Not at all
Part V looked for data on two very important aspects: (a) What are the
problems/issues that the respondent has encountered in the implementation of the
EIS in his/her school; and (b) What recommendations/suggestions can the
respondent offer to improve the EIS school’s effectiveness, efficiency and
advocacy. For (a), twenty choices were enumerated and the respondent was
requested to check all that apply to his/her particular situation. For (b) five choices
were given followed by an open-ended question for each of the three dimensions.
Data-Gathering Procedure
Since the sources of data were distributed nationwide, a local courier service
was utilized. Known IMPACT schools on record in SEAMEO INNOTECH were
first contacted through text messages using mobile phones to ascertain if they
were still implementing the system, or not, to be able to shortlist these schools as
respondents. Some mobile phone numbers were no longer updated; in these
cases, the DepED district or division office concerned were contacted. A second
round of text messages and calls was undertaken to request for the number of
respondents in each learning center to determine the total population, sample size,
and number of copies of the questionnaire to be sent. The total population was
177 and the researcher decided to include all in this research study.
A formal letter (see Appendix B) bearing the signatures of the Dean of the
Polytechnic University of the Philippines Graduate School, the Chair of the Doctor
of Educational Management Program, the researcher and her adviser requesting
for permission to float the survey questionnaires was packaged together with a
handwritten note (see Appendix C) and the survey questionnaires. A P500.00 bill
was included and sent to each of the 19 Instructional Coordinators to be used for
the return courier fee as well as other incidental expenses such as local transport
costs. Questionnaires were sent out on July 21, 2009. Continuous follow up
through text messages and calls were made to ascertain respondents’ receipt of
the survey questionnaires as well as to acknowledge eventual return of the filled
out questionnaires to the researcher. The researcher started receiving filled out
questionnaires from July 30, 2009. By August 31, 2009, all nineteen questionnaire
packages were received with 100 per cent retrieval rate.
Statistical Treatment of Data
Data analysis and interpretation for this study used both qualitative and
quantitative since these two approaches are complementary, not contradictory
(Stufflebeam, 1999.) Qualitative research was used in compiling the responses to
the open-ended questions in Sections A and B of Part V of the questionnaire.
Qualitative data investigate the whys and hows of decision making. On the other
hand, quantitative research for the other parts of the questionnaire were measured
wherein measurement is central to the research work; these data provide the
fundamental connection between empirical observation and mathematical
expression of quantitative relationships. This rounds out the research work to
answer queries on what, where and when.
The statistical tools used to test the hypotheses presented in the problems
include the following:
1. To determine the profile of the respondents in terms of age, sex and
tenure or teaching experience, frequencies and percentages were used.
% = x`
─ x 100
n
2. To determine the respondents’ perception of the extent of implementation
of the Enhanced IMPACT System’s effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy
dimensions in the school, the weighted mean was used.
_
X = ∑X
____
3. To determine the significant difference between instructional coordinators’
and instructional supervisors’ perceptions of the extent of implementation of the
Enhanced IMPACT System in terms of effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy
dimensions, the t-test for two independent samples was used:
Formula:
_ _
t = X1 – X2
1 2
Sp +
n1 n2
where:
Sp = (n1 - 1)s1 2 + (n2 -1) s22
n1 + n2 - 2
Decision Rule:
If p-value is ≤ ą , reject Ho, otherwise accept Ho.

Chapter 4
PRESENTATION, ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION OF DATA
This chapter presents data gathered, analyzed and interpreted in light of the
conceptual framework of the study. The report is divided into four parts, as follows:
Part I covers findings on the extent of implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT
System (EIS) in respondent schools, in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency and
advocacy, as perceived by Instructional Coordinators (ICs) and Instructional
Supervisors (ISs). Part II covers findings on the test for significant difference in the
perceptions of the ICs and ISs on the EIS in terms of its effectiveness, efficiency
and advocacy. Part III covers findings on the identification of problems, issues and
concerns encountered in respondent schools while implementing the EIS. And
Part IV covers the suggested solutions to address the problems identified in Part
III, with the end in view to improve the effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy
dimensions of the EIS.
Part I - Extent of Implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) as
Perceived By Instructional Coordinators (ICs) and the Instructional
Supervisors (ISs) of Respondent Schools
Data in this section of the report have been grouped according to three
dimensions, namely: effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy. ICs and ISs
indicated their perceptions of the extent of EIS implementation which could range
from a very low mean of 1.00 – 1.80, interpreted as “no implementation at all” or to
a very high mean of 4.21 – 5.00, interpreted as implementation “to a very large
extent.”
A. In Terms of Effectiveness
Tables 6 to 11 present the perceptions of the ICs and the ISs on the extent of
the implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) in the respondent
schools, in terms of effectiveness components, as follows: (1) School’s Mission,
Vision, Goals and Objectives; (2) Curriculum; (3) Teaching and Learning
Mechanisms; (4) Classroom Assessment and Evaluation; (5) Instructional
Materials; and (6) Learning Environment. Each of these components have
corresponding indicators to gauge effectiveness.
1. School’s Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives
Table 6 in the following page presents data on the perceptions of the
respondents relative to the extent of implementation of their school’s mission,
vision, goals and objectives with respect to three indicators of effectiveness.
Table 6 indicates a higher rating among ICs more than the ISs in all of the
items under review. All items were perceived implemented “to a very large extent”
with a grand weighted overall mean of 4.59, where ICs rated extent of
implementation at 4.69 and ISs at 4.58.
There were three indicators covering school mission, vision, goals and
objectives. Indicator # 1, which states that “the school’s mission and vision
effectively illustrate its goals and objectives,” received a weighted mean of 4.72 (to
a very large extent) by ICs and 4.63 (to a very large extent) by ISs and 4.64 (to a
very large extent) on the overall. Indicator # 2, which states that “the mission and
vision statements are clearly stated and posted in strategic places in the school
and surroundings,” received a weighted mean of 4.61 (to a very large extent) by
ICs and 4.50 (to a very large extent) by ISs and 4.51 (to a very large extent) on the
overall.
Table 6
Extent of Implementation of the Effectiveness Dimension of the Enhanced IMPACT System
In terms of School’s Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives
School’s Mission, Instructional Instructional

Vision, Goals and Coordinators Supervisors Overall
Objectives (School Heads) (Teachers)
Weighted Verbal Weighted Verbal Weighted Verbal

Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation Mean Interpretation
1. The school's
mission and vision To a very To a very To a very
effectively illustrate 4.72 Large 4.63 Large 4.64 Large
its goals and extent extent extent
objectives.
2. The mission and
vision statements are
To a very To a very To a very
clearly stated and
4.61 Large 4.50 Large 4.51 Large
posted in strategic
Extent extent extent
places in the school
and surroundings.
3. School programs
and activities are
focused towards
achievement of its
mission, vision, goals
and objectives.
Grand Weighted
Mean
extent extent extent
Although all indicators received a high mean rating of implementation “to a
very large extent,” the lowest mean was given to Indicator # 2 referring to the
dissemination of the school’s mission and vision, goals and objectives. It is
possible that some of the schools do not have their mission and vision statements
cascaded from top management to line and staff, nor are they boldly plastered on
school walls. It is good practice to share the school’s mission, vision, goals and
objectives to every stakeholder.
2. Curriculum
Table 7
Perceptions of Respondents on the Extent of Implementation of the EIS Curriculum
Instructional Instructional
Curriculum Coordinators Supervisors Overall
(School Heads) (Teachers)

1. The school
develops and To a very To a very To a very
implements a 4.58 Large 4.69 Large 4.68 Large
curriculum that is extent extent extent
RBEC-based.
2. The curriculum is
wholistic, child- To a very To a very To a very
friendly and involves 4.63 Large 4.60 Large 4.60 Large
community extent extent extent
resources.
3. The curriculum is To a very To a very To a very
well-planned and 4.32 Large 4.34 Large 4.34 Large
age-appropriate. extent extent extent
4. The curriculum
challenges through
questions that
develop pupils’
HOTS in all subject
areas.
Grand Weighted
Mean
Table 7 looks at the curriculum in an effective EIS school. Instructional
Coordinators (ICs) perceived curriculum implementation “to a very large extent”
with a grand weighted mean of 4.43. Instructional Supervisors (ISs) perceived the
same “to a very large extent” with a grand weighted mean of 4.49. On the overall,
both ICs and ISs perceived the effectiveness of curriculum implementation “to a
very large extent” with a grand weighted mean of 4.48.
The group of ICs rated highest at 4.63 the effectiveness indicator that “the
curriculum is wholistic, child-friendly, and involves community resources.” This is
interpreted to mean that curriculum implementation in this aspect was done “to a
very large extent” in their schools. On the other hand, the ISs gave the highest
rating of 4.68 (implemented to a very large extent) to the effectiveness indicator
that “the school develops and implements a curriculum that is RBEC-based.” It is
to be noted that RBEC refers to the revised basic education curriculum now
currently being implemented nationwide. This is an accurate observation since
EIS has actually aligned its curriculum with the DepED curriculum
The lowest ratings were unanimously accorded to item # 4 which indicates
that “the curriculum challenges through questions that develop pupils’ HOTS in all
subject areas.” HOTS referes to higher-order thinking skills. The weighted means
of the ICs (4.21 meaning implementation to a very large extent) ad the ISs (4.31
meaning implementation to a very large extent) brought about an overall mean of
4.30 (also meaning implementation to a very large extent). Clearly, all
respondents require greater understanding of the higher order thinking skills and
more training on strategies to develop these skills in their pupils. Thinking is a skill
and can be learned. Even in the conventional school, the common observation is
that teachers follow the least resistance and use the lower-order thinking skills
more than they do the higher-order thinking skills in their teaching. It is of greatest
importance to all respondents to focus on the development and use of thinking
skills in the schools.
3. Teaching and Learning Delivery Mechanisms
Table 8 below presents data on the perceptions of the respondents relative to
the extent of implementation of the EIS teaching and learning mechanisms. There
are five indicators of effectiveness under this component.
Table 8
Perceptions of Respondents on the Extent of Implementation of the
EIS Teaching and Learning Delivery Mechanisms
Teaching and Learning
Coordinators Supervisors Overall
Delivery Mechanisms
1. The learning process To a very To a very To a very
is the real essence of 4.58 Large 4.66 Large 4.65 Large
education. Extent extent Extent
2. The ability and skills to
learn individually and/or To a very To a very To a very
collaboratively with others 4.47 Large 4.43 Large 4.43 Large
are developed in the Extent extent Extent
pupils.
3. Pupils are encouraged
to become self- and life- To a very To a very To a very
long learners because 4.63 Large 4.34 Large 4.38 Large
learning is not confined in Extent extent extent
the classroom.
4. Peer learning and
peer mentoring are
important strategies to To a very To a very To a very
empower learners as 4.63 Large 4.54 Large 4.55 Large
active partners in the Extent extent extent
teaching and learning
process.
5. There is continuous
training of programmed
teachers (PTs) and peer To a very To a very To a very
group leaders (PGLs) to 4.42 Large 4.38 Large 4.38 Large
ensure mastery of the Extent extent extent
subject matter and
module content.
Grand Weighted Mean 4.55 Large 4.47 Large 4.48 Large
Table 8 on the preceding page shows the distribution of respondents
according to their perceptions of the implementation of teaching and learning
delivery mechanisms in the EIS schools. The group of ICs perceived equally item
#s 3 and 4, with the highest weighted mean of 4.63 (meaning to a very large
extent). These refer to the statements that “pupils are encouraged to become self-
and life-long learners because learning is not confined in the classroom” and that
“peer learning and peer mentoring are important strategies to empower learners as
active partners in the teaching and learning process.”
The ISs gave item # 1, which states that “the learning process is the real
essence of education” the highest rating of 4.66, meaning implementation “to a
very high extent” in their estimation. This item was second highest among the ICs,
garnering a rating of 4.58, still implementation “to a very large extent.”
Item # 5, which states that “there is continuous training of programmed
teachers (PTs) and peer group leaders (PGLs) to ensure mastery of the subject
matter and module content,” received the lowest rating of 4.42 (to a very large
extent) by ICs in this category but not by ISs (4.38 but still to a very large extent).
To the ISs, item # 3 which states that “pupils are encouraged to become self- and
lifelong learners because learning is not confined in the classroom,” was lowest,
with a rating of 4.34 (though still to a very large extent). Interestingly, the ICs
perceived item # 3 as most highly implemented, with the second highest rating of
4.63 (to a very large extent). This disparity in perception can probably be
explained by the lack of understanding of what “self- and lifelong learning” entails,
as reported by one respondent. The ICs fully understand that the IMPACT system
relies heavily on the ability of pupils to do “self-learning.” ISs probably focused
more on the concept of “lifelong learning” skills and did not see much connection to
what they were doing in school. This is worth thinking about because all school
personnel should immediately see the connection between school offerings and
school philosophy. It is also possible that not enough activities are being offered
as part of the enrichment curriculum.
On the overall, ICs perceived the extent of implementation of teaching and
learning delivery mechanisms “to a very large extent” as shown by the grand
weighted mean of 4.55; ISs perceived likewise with a grand weighted mean of
4.47.
Both ICs and ISs combine gave ratings that averaged a grand weighted mean
of 4.48 to mean that, to a very large extent, the prescribed teaching and learning
delivery mechanisms of the enhanced IMPACT system are being implemented
thoroughly.
4. Classroom Assessment and Evaluation
Table 9 in the next page exhibits the eight areas of concern related to the
implementation of classroom assessment and evaluation.
Table 9 indicates that both ICs and ISs perceived equally alike the extent of
implementation of the EIS classroom assessment and evaluation measures and
procedures in their schools. Interestingly, both groups gave an overall rating of
4.14 to mean that this aspect of the EIS is being implemented “to a large extent.” It
is to be noted that while this feature is positively implemented, still it has not
reached the ideal of being implemented “to a very large extent.”
Table 9
Perceptions of Respondents on the Extent of Implementation of Classroom Assessment and
Evaluation in the EIS Schools
Classroom Assessment Instructional Coordinators Instructional
Overall
and Evaluation (School Heads) Supervisors (Teachers)

1. Learner's progress is based on
mastery of the lesson.
2. Learners progress on their
individual learning pace.
To a To a To a
3. Posttests for all peer-group
learning modules are available.
To a To a To a
4. Item analysis on test items are
done by the Testing Teachers.
5. Continuous upgrading and/or To a very To a To a
improvement of posttest 4.32 Large 4.09 Large 4.11 Large
items are done. extent extent extent
6. Development of parallel forms To a To a To a
and establishment of item bank are 3.74 Large 3.81 Large 3.80 Large
undertaken. extent extent extent
7. The school utilizes multiple To a very To a very To a very
evaluation and assessment 4.32 Large 4.25 Large 4.26 Large
strategies. extent extent extent
8. The school continuously
modifies instruction to encourage
developing pupils’ needs and to
support proficient pupils’ work.
To a To a To a
extent extent Extent
Taking the indicators individually, the ICs gave a high rating of 4.53 to item #
5 which states that “the school continuously modifies instruction to encourage
developing pupils’ needs and to support proficient pupils’ work.” This means that
they perceived this item being implemented “to a very large extent” in their schools.
This item received the second highest for the ISs, posting a weighted mean of
4.42, which also indicates that it is being implemented “to a very large extent.”
Item # 3, which states that “posttests for all peer-group learning modules are
available” received the lowest rating of 3.58 among the ICs and 3.77 among the
ISs, indicating that it is being implemented in the schools only “to a large extent.”
The overall weighted mean for both groups is 3.75, also to a large extent. It was
reported that there were some posttests that were not readily available and that the
teachers themselves had to prepare them. In cases where tests were missing, it
was incumbent for school staff to provide these themselves in order to complete
the learning cycle. In an IMPACT learning center, all peer group modules must
have posttests since mastery of the subject matter is required before the learner
can move on to the next lesson or module. Having posttests for all peer group
modules is indeed important in an IMPACT school and clearly, both ICs and ISs
see that the absence or lack of posttests can affect the effectiveness of the
system. It is critical then that all posttests are complete, ready and available when
needed.
For the ISs, item # 1 states that “learner’s progress is based on mastery of
the lesson” the highest rating at 4.53, which is interpreted as implementation “to a
very large extent of implementation”. This item received a weighted mean of 4.42
among the ICs, its second highest rating.

5. Instructional Materials
Table 10 below presents the respondents’ perceptions of the extent of
implementation of instructional materials in the EIS schools. This is part of the
effectiveness dimension of the study.
Table 10
Perceptions of Respondents on the Extent of Implementation of Instructional Materials in EIS Schools
Instructional Instructional Coordinators Instructional Supervisors

Overall
Materials (School Heads) (Teachers)

1. Instructional
materials utilization
& development are
monitored to ensure To a very To a very To a very
that these are 4.47 Large 4.37 Large 4.38 Large
prepared ahead of extent extent extent
time for the proper
teaching & learning
del mechanism.
2. There are
enough available To a To a To a
learning modules Large Large Large
based on 4.00 extent 3.87 extent 3.89 extent
recommended
ratios for the pupils
in the school.
3. Preparation of
RBEC-aligned To a To a To a
instructional Large Large Large
materials & 4.37 extent 4.18 extent 4.20 extent
improvement of old
ones are constant.
4. Development of
advanced To a To a To a
instructional Large Large Large
materials for fast 4.05 extent 3.95 extent 3.96 extent
learners are
undertaken.
5. Standard
DepED textbooks &
To a To a To a
other reference or
resource materials
Extent Extent extent
are available in the
school library.
To a To a To a
Grand Weighted
Mean
Extent Extent Extent
The ICs perceived that the instructional materials were used “to a very large
extent” (highest mean of 4.47); so did the ISs with the highest mean of 4.37, also
perceived used “to a very large extent.” This is supported by item # 1 which states
that “instructional materials utilization and development are monitored to ensure
that these are prepared ahead of time for the proper teaching and learning delivery
mechanism.” It is worth noting that there is a continuing attempt to develop
instructional materials aligned with the current Basic Education Curriculum, as
indicated in the ICs’ mean rating of 4.37 (to a very large extent) and the ISs’ mean
rating of 4.18 (to a large extent). A current concern is the unmet recommended
ratios of learning modules for all pupils. That’s probably why it merited only a
mean rating of 4.00 (to a large extent) among ICs and 3.87 (to a large extent) for
ISs. Not much effort is being expended for the development of advanced materials
for advanced learners, as indicated in the mean rating of ICs of 4.05 (to a large
extent) and 3.08 (to a large extent) for ISs. The lowest rated indicator went to item
# 5 which is about the availability of standard DepED textbooks and other
references or resource materials in the school library. It got the lowest rating of
3.89 (to a large extent) among the ICs and 3.66 among the ISs. It could be that
many schools do not have libraries, or they have libraries but keep a low collection
of reference materials and other books.
The grand weighted mean of 4.16 (to a large extent) among the ICs and 4.00
(to a large extent) among the ISs is a good phenomenon, albeit not the highest
possible level. Still, it is a good sign that instructional materials are used as
planned.
Interestingly, both groups of respondents rated the five items of this
component in the same order, though with differing means, with item # 1 receiving
the highest, and item # 5 receiving the lowest.
The combined perceptions of both groups of respondents reached an overall
grand weighted mean of 4.02 for this component, meaning that the presence of
enough quality instructional materials in a school contributes (to a large extent) to
its effectiveness. This finding is in congruence with earlier findings (Tullao, et. al,
1983) that IMPACT schools are heavily reliant on the use of programmed teaching
and peer and/or self-instructional modules and instructional materials. Delays in
production, printing and transport of modules could cause problems in IMPACT
schools; therefore, it is most important for educational authorities to always keep in
consideration the essential nature of modules and instructional materials for the
IMPACT schools.
6. Learning Environment
Table 11 presents the perceptions of respondents on the extent of
implementation of the “learning environment” in the EIS schools. This is indicative
of effectiveness of implementation.
Data in Table 11 show that requisites of the learning environment as
structured in the IMPACT system are being implemented “to a very large extent.”
Both the ICs and the ISs perceived extent of implementation alive, although the
ICs rated these items a bit more highly (4.38) that the ISs (4.29).
Table 11
Perceptions of Respondents on the Extent of Implementation of the Learning Environment
in the EIS Schools
Learning
Coordinators Supervisors Overall
Environment
1. Classes are
organized into families To a very To a very To a very
comprising of levels 1 4.63 Large 4.25 Large 4.29 Large
to 6 with friends, extent extent extent
neighbors, siblings.
2. Mixing of gender in
each level is
encouraged as an
important contributor
to the socialization of
children.
3. There is free flow To a very To a To a
of pupil movement in 4.33 Large 4.08 Large 4.11 Large
the classrooms. extent extent extent
4. Classroom To a To a To a
discipline is observed Large Large Large
and practiced with 4.00 extent 4.05 extent 4.05 extent
norms visibly posted in
the classrooms.
5. The school
environment is safe, To a very To a very To a very
clean and provides a Large Large Large
4.53 4.44 4.45
good ambiance for extent extent extent
learning.
The group of ICs gave item # 1, which states that “classes are organized into
families comprising of Levels 1 to 6 with friends, neighbors, siblings belonging to
the same family,” the highest rating of 4.63 perceiving this to be implemented “to a
very large extent” in the EIS school; while the ISs gave it a rating of 4.25. On the
overall, the mean rating was posted at 4.29 (to a very large extent).
For item # 2, which states that “mixing of gender in each level is encouraged as an
important contributor to the socialization of children.” The overall mean was posted
at 4.54 (to a very large extent). For item # 3, which states that “there is a free flow
of pupil movement in the classrooms,” the overall mean was posted at 4.11 (to a
large extent). For item # 4, which states that “classroom discipline is observed and
practiced with norms/regulations visibly posted in the classrooms,” the overall
mean was posted at a low rating of 4.00 (but still to a large extent). It could mean
that the ICs believed that their ISs are already very good in classroom
management or that there is no need for discipline reminders to be posted
because the children are generally well-mannered. For item # 5, which states that
“the school environment is safe, clean and provides a good ambiance for learning,”
the overall mean was posted at 4.45 (to a very large extent).
The grand weighted mean of 4.38 posted by ICs and 4.29 posted by ISs
under learning environment drew an overall weighted mean of 4.29, which is
equivalent to implementation to a very large extent in their schools.
The ISs rated the item statement, “mixing of gender in each level is
encouraged as an important contributor to the socialization of children,” the highest
at 4.54 (to a very large extent). And just like the group of ICs, they rated the item
which states that “classroom discipline is observed and practiced with norms/
regulations visibly posted in the classrooms,” the lowest at 4.05 (to a large extent).
Clearly, both groups of respondents do not feel that discipline is an issue in their
schools.
Reynolds and Cuttance (1992) said that “schools that gave ample
opportunities for children to take responsibility and to participate in the running of
their school lives appeared conducive to favorable outcomes.” IMPACT schools
believe that education is a socializing process and a venue for leadership training.
It appears that the ICs and ISs perceive that the learning environment in their
schools embodies this principle because they gave overall grand weighted mean of
4.29 (to a very large extent) for this indicator.
B. In Terms of Efficiency
Tables 12 to 15 are four tabular presentations of the four areas of concern
that reflect the extent of implementation of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) in
terms of efficiency as rated by the instructional coordinators (ICs) and instructional
supervisors (ISs). The four areas are: (1) Organizational Structure and Support
System, (2) Leadership, (3) Professional Growth and Development, and (4)
School Culture.
1. Organizational Structure and Support System
Table 12 in the following page presents data indicative of the “organizational
structure and support system” of the EIS schools under study. The table shows
that a rating of 4.32 had been given by both groups of respondents. The rating
may be interpreted to mean that to a very large extent the organization of the
school maximizes the use of time, all available space, and other resources for the
optimal development of learning. Support is provided in the teaching and learning
episodes in order to achieve high pupil and staff performance.

Table 12
Perceptions of Respondents of the Extent of Implementation of Organizational Structure
and Support Systems in the EIS Schools
Instructional
Organizational Instructional Supervisors
Coordinators Overall
Structure (Teachers)
(School Heads)
The organization
of the school
maximizes the
use of time, all
available space
and other
resources to
maximize the
teaching and
learning
episodes to
support high
pupil and staff
performance.
2. Leadership
In an enhanced IMPACT learning center, the school head or principal is
called “Instructional Coordinator” while the teacher is called “Instructional
Supervisor”. They are both seen as leaders. Yukl (2002) said that leaders exhibit
behaviors in three related ways, and these are in a task-oriented, relations-oriented
and change-oriented manner. The EIS school setting explores these three
behaviors.
Table 13 in the following page presents data on perceptions of leadership
exemplified and exercised by the instructional coordinators and instructional
supervisors in the IMPACT schools under study.

Table 13
Perceptions of Respondents on the Extent of Implementation of Leadership in the EIS Schools
Instructional Coordinators Instructional
Leadership Overall
(School Heads) Supervisors (Teachers)

1. School district
instructional decisions
focus on support for
teaching and learning,
organizational To a very To a very To a very
direction and high 4.26 Large 4.32 Large 4.31 Large
performance Extent extent extent
expectations thereby
creating a learning
culture and developing
leadership capacity.
2. The school has
strong leaders with To a very To a very To a very
realistic expectations 4.37 Large 4.41 Large 4.41 Large
for both pupils and Extent extent extent
staff.
3. The school leaders
have the confidence to
empower their
teachers and give
them a role in decision
making.
4. School leaders are
highly visible and
available to pupils,
parents and teachers.
The group of instructional coordinators gave item # 4 which states that
“school leaders are highly visible and available to pupils, parents and teachers,”
their highest rating of 4.58 (to a very large extent). This means that the ICs in the
EIS schools are not ensconced in their offices; rather they move around to monitor
instruction. They are available for consultations with the parents and more
importantly for the teachers and pupils. Visible school heads are efficient leaders
because they are on hand to attend to any problems or issues that may arise.
Furthermore, they are highly trusted by the learning community because of their
availability and readiness to serve as resource providers. ICs who are visible
leaders are perceived to be highly supportive of the EIS. They understand the
difference between the traditional-conventional set-up and the innovative set-up
and its corresponding relational requirements. This is the relations-oriented
behavior exhibited by an IMPACT Instructional Coordinator.
On the other hand, the item that “school district instructional decisions focus
on support for teaching and learning, organizational direction and high
performance expectations thereby creating a learning culture and developing
leadership capacity” was given the lowest rating of 4.26 (to a very large extent) in
this category. In converting to an IMPACT school, officials from the region, division
and district were also trained so that they would be ready to support the innovative
approaches of the IMPACT system. This rating may mean that not all instructional
coordinators are happy with the degree of support they are receiving from their
district supervisors especially since the instructional coordinator’s task-oriented
behavior can be influenced by the educational supervisors’ behavior at the district,
division or regional level.
The group of instructional supervisors gave the highest rating of 4.42 (to a
very large extent) to the item that “the school leaders have the confidence to
empower their teachers and give them a role in decision making”. Clearly this is
one of the more popular characteristics of an IMPACT school and welcomed by the
instructional supervisors. This also corresponds to the change-oriented behavior of
the instructional coordinator in IMPACT schools and is not just limited to the
teachers but also to the pupils. Lowest rated at 4.32 was the item that “school
district instructional decisions focus on support for teaching and learning,
organizational direction and high performance expectations thereby creating a
learning culture and developing leadership capacity.” Just like with the group of
instructional coordinators, the group of instructional supervisors may have felt that
support from the school district, though still “to a very large extent” was not
enough. Overall grand weighted mean for this characteristic is 4.39 which
illustrates that both instructional coordinators and instructional supervisors gave
great weight to leadership, and that it must be “to a very large extent” present in all
aspects of an efficient IMPACT school.
3. Professional Growth and Development
Table 14 on the following page presents data on the “professional growth and
development” of the teachers and staff of the EIS schools under study. Results
show that among the five items, the school heads rated highest the component
that “IC and IS are continually looking for more effective ways to teach pupils and
each other”, a rating of 4.58. This could mean that instructional coordinators are
committed to mentor and coach their instructional supervisors for the benefit of the
pupils. Such coaching and mentoring commitment contributes to the professional
growth and development of both groups of respondents.
The ICs gave their lowest rating of 4.05 (to a large extent) to the item that “the
school district provides research-based, results-driven professional development
opportunities for the staff”. This researcher realized that not all school districts
have the resources to send instructional coordinators and instructional supervisors
for professional growth and development opportunities.
Table 14
Perceptions of Respondents of the Extent of Implementation of Professional Growth and
Development in EIS Schools
Professional Growth Instructional Coordinators Instructional

Overall
and Development (School Heads) Supervisors (Teachers)

1. The school district
provides research- To a To a To a
based, results-driven Large Large Large
professional 4.05 extent 4.06 extent 4.06 extent
development
opportunities for the
staff.
2. The school
personnel (IC, IS, RT
and ET) continue to To a To a To a
attend enhancement Large Large Large
trainings such as 4.11 extent 4.08 extent 4.08 extent
classroom
management,
facilitating skills, action
research and others.
3. IC implements
performance
evaluation procedures
in order to improve
teaching and learning
practices.
4. IC and IS are
continually looking for To a very To a very To a very
more effective ways to 4.58 Large 4.42 Large 4.44 Large
teach pupils and each extent extent extent
other.
5. The school
personnel are fully To a very To a To a
trained on how to Large Large Large
4.21 3.99 4.02
implement the Extent extent extent
IMPACT system.
To a very To a To a
However, it must also be stated herein that the developmental opportunities
that do exist in the public school sector are relatively more numerous than those
that are available for the private school sector.
The grand weighted mean given by the ICs was 4.28 signifying that
professional growth and development is being implemented “to a very large extent”
implemented in an efficient EIS school.
The ISs, just like the ICs, gave the highest rating of 4.42 (to a very large
extent) to the item that states: “IC and IS are continually looking for more effective
ways to teach pupils and each other.” To the researcher, this is a very good
finding because it illustrates that the bond between instructional coordinator and
instructional supervisor is strong and the motivation for continuous learning is
great. This is as should be in efficient EIS schools.
The instructional supervisors gave the item which states that “the school
personnel are fully trained on how to implement the IMPACT system,” the lowest
rating of 3.99 (to a large extent). This validates in some way their having given the
highest rating to the item that “ICs and ISs are continually looking for more
effective ways to teach pupils and each other”. This finding could mean that many
instructional supervisors would welcome additional training and look to their
instructional coordinators to provide such development opportunities through
formal or informal means. Grand weighted mean given was 4.17 or “to a large
extent” of implementation, lower than what the group of instructional coordinators
gave to this particular indicator.

All the respondents gave this characteristic of efficient EIS schools the grand
weighted mean of 4.18, which illustrates to the researcher that the respondents are
merely being realistic in knowing that professional growth and development
opportunities for them are being implemented (to a large extent) and that they
should exert more effort to find more informal sources for their professional growth.
As Hanushek (2005) said, “the most direct path to upgrading classroom instruction
and improving student learning is through systematic programs of professional
development.”
4. School Culture
Table 15 in the next page presents data on perceptions of respondents with
regard to “school culture.” There are ten indicators to this component.
Table 15 looks at “school culture” and all its ten indicators. The ICs gave the
item which states that “pupils know that courtesy and respect are expected in
interpersonal relationships” and the item which states that “the school has a safe
and orderly environment” their highest rating of 4.56. This indicates their
perception that the statements above are characteristics of efficient EIS schools. A
fine school culture supports learning. Group learning is a primary mode of
learning. Children learn together in mutual activities. Older ones act as tutors or
programmed teachers for the younger one, and in peer groups children assist each
other. Socialization, therefore, is not only with teachers but also between peers
and among levels of classes. Respect, honesty and other values are integrated
early on into the curriculum of an EIS school so that learning resources are
efficiently and equitably shared.
Table 15
Perceptions of Respondents of the Extent of Implementation of School Culture in the EIS Schools
Instructional
Instructional Coordinators
School Culture Supervisors Overall
(School Heads)
(Teachers)

1. Everybody in the school
has a clear understanding of To a very To a very To a very
the school’s mission and 4.26 Large 4.42 Large 4.40 Large
vision and their individual Extent extent extent
roles to accomplish these.
2. Academic excellence is To a very To a very To a very
clearly valued and standards 4.26 Large 4.31 Large 4.31 Large
are high but realistic. Extent extent extent
3. Pupils are expected to
work hard to succeed and To a very To a very To a very
their ISs believe that they can 4.32 Large 4.38 Large 4.37 Large
succeed therefore they do Extent extent extent
succeed.
4. Communication between
IC, IS, pupils and parents are To a very To a To a
on a regular basis and Large Large Large
4.32 4.17 extent 4.19 extent
encourages sharing of Extent
information and concerns.
5. Staff are open to new
ideas and are always
searching for more efficient
ways to do things.
6. Pupils know that courtesy To a very To a very To a very
and respect are expected in 4.56 Large 4.50 Large 4.50 Large
interpersonal relationships. Extent extent extent
7. The school has a safe and To a very To a very To a very
orderly environment. 4.56 Large 4.27 Large 4.30 Large
8. The school has a climate To a very To a To a very
of high expectations and an 4.44 Large 4.19 Large 4.22 Large
school-wide achievement Extent extent extent
orientation.
9. There is purposeful
teaching and classroom To a very To a very To a very
management with 4.44 Large 4.42 Large 4.43 Large
concentration on teaching Extent extent extent
and learning episodes.
10. All school staff undertake To a To a To a
frequent monitoring, Large Large Large
evaluation and provision of 4.17 extent 4.18 extent 4.18 extent
positive reinforcement.
Lowest rated by the instructional coordinators is the item which states that “all
school staff undertake frequent monitoring, evaluation and provision of positive
reinforcement” at 4.17 or (to a large extent). Grand weighted mean given by the
instructional coordinators is 4.40 (to a very large extent) to mean that “school
culture” has a great impact on efficiency in an IMPACT school.
The instructional supervisors also gave the item which states that “pupils
know that courtesy and respect are expected in interpersonal relationships” their
highest rating of 4.50, just like the instructional coordinators. Their lowest rating of
4.17 went to the item which states that “communication between instructional
coordinator, instructional supervisor, pupils and parents are on a regular basis and
encourages sharing of information and concerns” wherein they felt that this was
implemented only (to a large extent) in their schools. Grand weighted mean for the
instructional supervisors is 4.33 also meaning implementation to a very large
extent in the school.
The overall weighted mean given by the respondents is 4.34 (to a very large
extent) for efficient school culture. To some extent, the success of the EIS
depends on the active involvement of parents and the use of community
resources. Likewise, a school culture that welcomes and safeguards the children
can act as a magnet especially in poor communities. In some overcrowded
homes, children may have no quiet place to practice their reading and other home
learning activities, which is why a nurturing school climate is a premier
characteristic of EIS schools.

C. In Terms of Advocacy
Tables 16 to 19 show four areas of concern with which advocacy
implementation can be rated based on the perceptions of the ICs and the ISs.
These are in the areas of: (1) Comprehensive School Planning, (2) Physical
Facilities and Resources, (3) Pupil and Family Involvement, and (4) Stakeholders
and Community Support. Each of these areas have corresponding indicators.
Table 16
Perceptions of Respondents of the Extent of Implementation of
Comprehensive School Planning in EIS Schools
Comprehensive Instructional Coordinators Instructional
Overall
School Planning (School Heads) Supervisors (Teachers)

1. The IC develops,
implements and
evaluates a
comprehensive school To a very To a very To a very
improvement plan that 4.39 Large 4.44 Large 4.43 Large
communicates a clear extent extent extent
purpose, direction and
action plan focused on
teaching and learning.
2. The IC involves the
whole school and as
many stakeholders as
possible in craft To a To a very To a very
comprehensive School Large Large Large
4.11 extent 4.32 4.30
Implementation Plan extent extent
(SIP) and Annual
Improvement Plan
(AIP).
3. The IC has a
workable or functional
school monitoring plan
for pupils, teachers,
resources and
achievements.
Table 16 above presents data on the advocacy dimension of the EIS
implementation focused on “comprehensive school planning” as a component.
There are three indicators under this component.

The group of instructional coordinators gave the highest rating of 4.44 to the
item which states that “the IC has a workable or functional school monitoring plan
for pupils, teachers, resources and achievements.” This means that the IC takes
her monitoring function to heart in an IMPACT school and undertakes such
function (to a very large extent) based on a monitoring plan she had earlier
developed with inputs from stakeholders such as the ISs, parents and other
community members.
The researcher finds contradictory to the findings the instructional
coordinators’ lowest rating of 4.11 for the item which states that “the IC involves
the whole school and as many stakeholders as possible in crafting a
comprehensive School Implementation Plan (SIP) and Annual Improvement Plan
(AIP).” In the series of training the EIS implementers have received, advocacy and
raising the community’s interests and support for the school as well as its
innovative system is an integral part of the sustainability profile of each IMPACT
school. Without community support, the school would be hard-pressed to continue
the IMPACT system. The instructional materials needed, the additional learning
kiosks and other teaching and learning activities would require community support
and resources. The involvement of stakeholders must be higher and implemented
“to a large extent” than just mere “to a large extent,” which the instructional
coordinators have rated herein. Grand weighted mean given to this characteristic
is 4.31, meaning that to the instructional coordinators’ perceptions, they have
implemented this “to a very large extent.”

The group of ISs gave their highest rating of 4.44 to mean implementation “to
a very large extent” on the item which states that “the IC develops, implements and
evaluates a comprehensive school improvement plan that communicates a clear
purpose, direction and action plan focused on teaching and learning.” They gave
their lowest rating of 4.32 to mean implementation “to a very large extent” on the
item which states that “the IC involves the whole school and as many stakeholders
as possible in crafting a comprehensive School Implementation Plan (SIP) and
Annual Improvement Plan (AIP),” similar to the rating by the group of instructional
coordinators. From this finding, all the respondents are saying that stakeholders
are involved in the development of the schools’ improvement and implementation
plans but the support they actually receive may not be as expected. Overall grand
weighted mean given by all the respondents is 4.39, meaning that to a very large
extent this characteristic is implemented in the schools.
It may be that the IMPACT schools will achieve better results in communities
which have adequate resources and where parents have a better level of
education and more time to be involved in school activities. It is also desirable to
mount a community education program in new IMPACT areas to inform the
parents and community of the needs and goals of the community learning center
and to encourage stakeholder advocacies to support the school.
2. Physical Facilities and Resources
Table 17 presents data on “physical facilities and resources” as part of the
advocacy dimension of an Enhanced IMPACT School.

Table 17
Physical Facilities and Resources in EIS Schools
Physical Facilities
Coordinators Supervisor Overall
and Resources
1. IC and IS are
joined by the
community in
activities that make
sure that there are
enough classrooms
for all the pupils,
e.g., Adopt-a-
School, Brigada
Eskwela, etc.
2. Stakeholders are
involved in the
school's day-to-day To a To a To a
activities and they Large Large Large
contribute time, 3.89 extent 3.78 extent 3.79 extent
funds and effort to
assure enough
learning space for
their children.
3. The school is the
learning hub of the
community and To a very To a To a
stakeholders can be Large Large Large
4.33 4.03 4.07
counted upon to extent extent extent
provide resources
when asked.
Grand Weighted To a very To a To a

Mean 4.22 Large 4.02 Large 4.04 Large
Both groups of respondents gave their highest rating of 4.44 and 4.23,
respectively, to the item which states that “ICs and ISs are joined by the
community in activities that make sure that there are enough classrooms for all the
pupils, e.g., Adopt-a-School, Brigada Eskwela, etc.”. Clearly community support is
to a very large extent seen in the EIS schools. On the other hand, both groups of
respondents gave their lowest rating of 3.89 and 3.78 respectively, to the item
which states that “stakeholders are involved in the school's day-to-day activities
and they contribute time, funds and effort to assure enough learning space for their
children”. Once again, this finding is confusing in light of earlier findings. A better
suggestion is to contextualize this finding before taking it to be conclusive. The
grand weighted mean given by the instructional coordinators is 4.22, which means
that this characteristic is implemented to a very large extent in their schools.
In contrast, the grand weighted mean given by the instructional supervisors is
4.02, implemented only to a large extent. The overall grand weighted mean for the
physical facilities and resources is 4.04 meaning that all respondents felt that
advocacy for this item is to a large extent implemented in their schools.
Very little change is needed to transform the conventional classroom
buildings to the specifications of an EIS community learning center. The capital
costs will be minimal because in the IMPACT concept, these structures should be
built by the community, using inexpensive local building materials which may be
donated by parents, community groups or the local school board. Clearly, the
community’s advocacy spirit must be awakened and sustained for the CLC.
3. Pupil and Family Involvement
Table 18 in the next page presents data on the advocacy dimension focusing
on “pupil and family involvement.” There are five indicators that fall under this
component.
Table 18 looks at the characteristic of “pupil and family involvement.” Both
groups of respondents (ICs and ISs) gave the highest rating of 4.11 and 3.82,
respectively, to the item which states that “members of learning families are
responsible for each other.” Since IMPACT is non-graded, the usual categories of
pupils by grade levels no longer apply. Instead, all the pupils in the school are
divided into families of at least 40 to 50 multi-level pupils. During “family”
groupings at the start of the year, priority is given to children who are siblings,
relatives, neighbors, friends, etc., so that they will be responsible for each other.
From the rating received, obviously such care in grouping is, to a large extent,
seen in the schools.
Table 18
Pupil and Family Involvement in EIS Schools
Instructional
Pupil and Family Instructional Coordinators
Supervisors Overall
Involvement (School Heads)
(Teachers)
1. Members of learning To a To a To a
families are responsible 4.11 Large 3.79 Large 3.82 Large
for each other. extent extent Extent
2. Older pupils who act
as Programmed To a To a To a
Teachers show mastery Large Large Large
and smooth delivery of 3.68 extent 3.56 extent 3.57 extent
the lessons including
proper grammar and
diction.
3. The Peer Group To a To a To a
Leader uses HOTS in 3.79 Large 3.74 Large 3.74 Large
asking questions. extent Extent Extent
4. Parents witness and To a To a To a
take part in their 3.58 Large 3.50 Large 3.51 Large
children’s contracting. extent extent extent
5. Parents are happy to To a To a To a
volunteer as Resource 3.21 Large 3.11 Large 3.12 Large
Teachers. extent extent extent
To a To a To a
Lowest ratings given by the instructional coordinators and instructional
supervisors respectively are 3.21 and 3.12, respectively, on the item which states
that “parents are happy to volunteer as resource teachers.” This may happen “to a
large extent” but not at the level, degree or incidence that the respondents like.
The grand weighted mean given by the respondents to this characteristic of “pupil
and family involvement” in the school is 3.67 and 3.55, respectively, which means
that it is being implemented to a large extent.
The maintenance of good relationships with the community is crucial to
IMPACT. As a system, IMPACT utilizes all available resources in the community,
both human and material. Older pupils function as programmed teachers for the
younger pupils and the parents act as resource teachers. Pupil and family
involvement is a must in every IMPACT school. Accordingly, the overall grand
weighted mean given by all respondents to this characteristic is 3.56, meaning that
to their perception, pupil and family involvement is to a large extent seen in their
school, also implying that advocacy has been successful in this respect.
4. Stakeholders and Community Support
Table 19 in the next page presents data on the stakeholders and community
support component of the advocacy dimension of EIS implementation. There are
six indicators under this component.
Both groups of respondents (ICs and ISs) perceived the item on
“stakeholders are fully oriented about the Enhanced IMPACT System.” Their
highest rating at 4.16 and 3.95, respectively, signifies that they believe their
advocacy efforts have succeeded to a large extent when this item is raised.
Stakeholders include the parents, community, LGUs, and the like. Both groups
also gave the item which states that “stakeholders provide kiosks for peer group
learners with chairs, benches, table and blackboard,” their lowest rating of 3.63
and 3.56, respectively, to mean that they probably believe to a large extent that
stakeholders can provide more.
Table 19
Stakeholders and Community Support in EIS Schools
Instructional
Stakeholders and Instructional Coordinators
Supervisors Overall
Community Support (School Heads)
(Teachers)
1. Stakeholders (parents, To a To a To a
community, LGUs) are fully Large Large Large
oriented about the 4.16 extent 3.95 extent 3.97 extent
Enhanced IMPACT System.
2. Stakeholders (parents, To a To a To a
community, LGUs) are fully Large Large Large
oriented about the 3.63 extent 3.68 extent 3.67 extent
3. Community resource To a To a To a
persons are encouraged to 4.00 Large 3.59 Large 3.63 Large
volunteer in the school. extent extent extent
4. Stakeholders are actively To a To a To a
participating in activities to Large Large Large
achieve the school’s vision, 3.89 extent 3.77 extent 3.78 extent
mission, goals and
objectives.
5. Stakeholders provide To a To a To a
kiosks for peer-group Large Large Large
learners with chairs, 3.63 extent 3.56 extent 3.57 extent
benches, table and
blackboard.
6. There are continuous To a To a To a
dialogs and meetings with Large Large Large
stake-holders to discuss the extent extent extent
school’s challenges and 3.89 3.73 3.75
issues such as resource
and funds sourcing.
To a To a To a
Grand weighted mean is 3.82 for the instructional coordinators and 3.70 for
the instructional supervisor to mean that advocacy for stakeholders and community
support is to a large extent implemented but more support could be provided.

The overall grand weighted mean given by all respondents to this
characteristic is 3.72, wherein their overall perception for their efforts to ensure
stakeholders and community support is to a large extent successful, although a
little more support would be most welcome.
D. Effectiveness, Efficiency and Advocacy: The Overall Picture
Table 20 shows how the instructional coordinators and the instructional
supervisors perceive the effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy dimensions of EIS
as implemented in the schools or community learning centers. The overall
weighted means were gathered to arrive at the answer (please refer to the data
below).
Table 20
Effectiveness vs Efficiency vs Advocacy Components of an IMPACT School
Component Weighted Mean Remarks
Effectiveness 4.36 Implemented to a very large
extent
Efficiency 4.33 Implemented to a very large
extent
Advocacy 3.96 Implemented to a large extent
The operational definitions for each of the components are provided below to
get a better appreciation of these items. Effectiveness is the ability of the
educational innovation to produce the intended results. Includes the school’s
vision, mission, goals and objectives, classroom assessment and evaluation,
teaching and learning delivery mechanisms, curriculum, instructional materials,
and the learning environment. Efficiency refers to the prevailing conditions that
allow the effectiveness component to prevail. It includes the organizational
structure and support system, school leadership, professional growth and

development, and school culture. Advocacy is the positive attitude towards the
educational innovation as perceived by the key informants consisting of pupils,
teachers, school heads and learning partners of the pilot schools and community.
Includes comprehensive school planning, physical facilities and resources, pupil
and family involvement, and stakeholders and community support.
As shown in Table 20 above, the respondents rated effectiveness as the
dimension that to their perception should be implemented to a very large extent in
an enhanced IMPACT school. It received the highest rating of 4.36. Looking at
the components and their corresponding indicators included in its definition, this
researcher is reminded of what How and Miskel (2008) have mentioned about the
school as a social system – people are the most important aspect in a school.
They also said that the teaching-learning process is the technical core of the
school social system and that to achieve organizational goals, the school’s
structure is the most important. Likewise, the environment is also a critical aspect
of the school because it not only provides resources for the school but also
provided additional opportunities for growth. They concluded by saying that the
more congruence of the characteristics herewith mentioned in a school system, the
more effective it is.
The dimension with the second highest rating component is efficiency
garnering 4.33 or implementation to a very large extent. There is a very slim
difference of 0.03 between the effectiveness and efficiency dimensions. If the
effectiveness components point towards structure, the efficiency components are

those that exist within the school system that makes it effective. Citing Hoy and
Miskel again, they said that “the more enabling the structure of the school, the
greater is the degree of teacher innovation. The stronger a culture of optimism in
schools, the higher the level of student achievement.” Certainly, the effectiveness
and efficiency components should go hand in hand in IMPACT schools and as
shown in the data complied, they do so to a very large extent.
The advocacy dimension received the least points at 3.96. This is not only
suprising but also logical for this researcher. With R.A. 9155 or the Governance of
Basic Education Act of 2001, there should be no problem with community linkages
if only the school head has the proper competencies and skills for such. As
mentioned under Section 7, paragraph 11-E, School Level, a basic function of the
school head is establishing school and community network and encouraging the
active participation of teachers’ organizations, non-academic personnel of public
schools, and parents-teachers-community associations. There must also be a
practical reason why advocacy rated the least. With minimal resources especially
in poorer communities where the schools are situated, there is just so much
financial inputs that a community can afford to provide the school. Many would
rather wait until there is something concrete to show for their funds. It is therefore
logical that a school must be effective and efficient so that additional resources can
be acquired through strong advocacy efforts.

Part II. Significant Difference in the Assessment Made By Instructional
Coordinators (ICs) and Instructional Supervisors (ISs) on the Three
Dimensions of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS): Effectiveness,
Efficiency and Advocacy.
Tables 21 to 23 show the summary tables that reflect the differences in the
assessments of the ICs and ISs on the effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy
dimensions of the enhanced IMPACT system as implemented in the respondent
schools. The t-test was used to determine the significance level.
A. On the Effectiveness Dimension
Table 21 below shows the mean assessment of both groups of respondents,
that is, the ICs and the ISs, with regard to their perception of the extent of
implementation of the effectiveness dimension of the EIS in their enhanced
IMPACT learning centers.
Table 21
Difference in the Assessment of Instructional Coordinators and Instructional Supervisors on
the Extent of Implementation of Effectiveness Dimension in the EIS Schools
Component Mean Mean t-computed p-value Interpretations
IC IS
School’s vision, 4.69 4.58 1.260 0.218 Not significant
mission, objectives
and goals
Classroom 4.14 4.14 0.001 0.999 Not significant
assessment and
evaluation
Teaching and Learning 4.55 4.47 0.636 0.526 Not significant
Delivery Mechanisms
Curriculum 4.43 4.49 -0.422 0.674 Not significant
Instructional Materials 4.16 4.00 0.895 0.372 Not significant
Learning Environment 4.38 4.28 0.674 0.501 Not significant
Level of significance = 0.05
Respondents’ ratings were tabulated and compared using t-test and p-values.
The results show that there is no significant difference in the assessments made
by both groups of respondents (ICs and ISs) on all six components of the
effectiveness dimension: (1) On the school’s vision, mission, objectives and goals,
differences between the ICs mean rating of 4.69 and the ISs mean rating of 4.58
were not significant. (2) On classroom assessment and evaluation, it is obvious
there is no difference between the ICs mean rating of 4.14 and the ISs mean rating
of 4.14. (3) On the teaching and learning delivery mechanisms, differences
between the ICs mean rating of 4.55 and the ISs mean rating of 4.47 were not
significant. (4) On the curriculum, differences between the ICs mean rating of
4.43 and the ISs mean rating of 4.49 were not significant. (5) On the instructional
materials, differences between the ICs mean rating of 4.16 and the ISs mean
rating of 4.00 were not significant. (6) On the learning environment, differences
between the ICs mean rating of 4.38 and the ISs mean rating of 4.28 were not
significant. Generally, the ICs placed higher ratings than the ISs on all
components of the effectiveness dimension, except on the curriculum, and all
mean ratings indicated implementation “to a very large extent.”
The null hypothesis is, therefore, accepted. There is no significant difference
in the assessments of the ICs and the ISs on the extent of implementation of the
effectiveness dimension of the EIS in the respondent schools.

B. On the Efficiency Dimension
Table 22 below shows the mean assessment of both groups of respondents
with regard to their perception of the extent of implementation of the efficiency
dimension of the EIS in their enhanced IMPACT learning centers.
Table 22
Difference in the Assessment of Instructional Coordinators and Instructional Supervisors
on Extent of Implementation of the Efficiency Dimension in the EIS in the School
Component Mean Mean t-computed p-value Interpretation
IC IS
Organizational structure 4.32 4.32 -.002 0.998 Not significant
Leadership 4.41 4.39 0.231 0.819 Not significant
Professional growth and 4.28 4.17 0.716 0.471 Not significant
development
School culture 4.40 4.33 0.552 0.582 Not significant
Table 22 shows the mean assessment of both groups of respondents with
regard to their perception of the extent of implementation of the efficiency
After respondents’ ratings were tabulated and compared using t-test and p-
values, the results were interpreted. They show that the mean assessment of both
groups of respondents on all four efficiency components had no significant
difference. Both groups of respondents were in agreement in their perceptions of
the four components, as follows: (1) On organizational structure, it is obvious there
is no difference between the ICs mean rating of 4.42 and the ISs mean ratinf of
4.42. (2) On leadership, differences between the ICs mean rating of 4.41 and the
ISs mean rating of 4.38 were not significant. (3) On professional growth and
development, differences between the ICs mean rating of 4.28 and the ISs mean
rating of 4.17 were not significant. (4) On school culture, differences between the
ICs mean rating of 4.40 and the ISs mean rating of 4.33 were not significant.
Therefore, the null hypothesis that there is no significant difference in the
assessments of the instructional coordinators and the instructional supervisors is
accepted.
C. On the Advocacy Dimension
Table 23 below shows the mean assessment of both groups of respondents
with regard to their perception of the extent of implementation of the advocacy
Table 23
Difference in the Assessment of Instructional Coordinators and Instructional Supervisors on
Extent of Implementation of Advocacy Dimension of EIS in the School
Component Mean Mean t-computed p-value Interpretations
IC IS
Comprehensive school 4.31 4.39 -0.501 0.617 Not significant
planning
Physical facilities and 4.22 4.02 0.863 0.389 Not significant
resources
Pupil and family 3.67 3.55 0.515 0.607 Not significant
involvement
Stakeholders and 3.82 3.70 0.578 0.632 Not significant
community support
Ratings were tabulated and compared using t-test and p-values and the
weighted mean assessments arrived at for both groups of respondents on all four
advocacy components show that there is no significant difference in the
assessments given by either the instructional coordinators or the instructional
supervisors. (1) On comprehensive school planning, differences between the ICs
mean rating of 4.31 and the ISs mean rating of 4.39 were not significant. (2) On
physical facilities and resources, differences between the ICs mean rating of 4.22
and the ISs mean rating of 4.02 were not significant. (3) On pupil and family
involvement, differences between the ICs mean rating of 3.67 and the ISs mean
rating of 3.55 were not significant. (4) On stakeholders and community support,
differences between the ICs mean rating of 3.82 and ISs mean rating of 3.70 were
not significant.
It is worth noting that “comprehensive school planning” was rated highly by
both groups of respondents. This is very important for the continued sustainability
of the IMPACT system. Along the same lines, “stakeholders support and
community involvement” must be gathered and inputted into the comprehensive
school plan; the more collaboration received, the higher the promise that support
would be forthcoming.
A point for concern here is that both groups of respondents rated their lowest
at 3.67 and 3.55, with the lowest weighted mean of 3.61 on ”pupil and family
involvement.” This researcher finds it worth mentioning because first and
foremost, IMPACT, as the acronym implies, should be the joint responsibility of
parents, the community and the government, not only the teachers. Older pupils
act as programmed teachers to the younger ones, and peer group leaders lead the
learning groups. Parents should exercise their children’s home school partnership,
especially when the children are away from school, so that their education
continues. The education officials and teachers concerned should do something to
encourage family involvement to a very large extent.

With the results presented above, there is no significant difference in the level
of assessment of the instructional coordinators and the instructional supervisors,
therefore the null hypothesis is accepted. Both groups of respondents are in
agreement in their perceptions implying that they have the same level of
assessment of the advocacy component to be found in their schools. Overall, the
respondents felt that their schools practice and encourage advocacies to a large
extent, and successfully in their IMPACT schools.
On the overall, all three dimensions are indeed being implemented to a very
large extent, as perceived by both the instructional coordinators and instructional
supervisors. This is a good sign in the early stages of implementation of the
enhance IMPACT system. A good system is in place the first time and in the right
time. All three dimensions are important for success. It is to the credit of the
school implementers that the system requirements are in place.
Part III – Problems / Issues / Concerns Encountered in Implementing the
Enhanced IMPACT System in Respondent Schools
The tables in the next pages seek to answer the following question: What
are some problems/issues you have encountered in the implementation of the
Enhanced IMPACT System in your school?
It will be recalled that to answer the question, the respondents were given 20
choices in the questionnaire and instructed to tick as many as would apply in their
schools. Respondents were also requested for additional inputs not stated in the
prepared choices; space was provided for these responses which was going to
form part of the tabulated qualitative responses.
Table 24 below contains a list of possible issues encountered by Instructional
Coordinators (ICs) and Instructional Supervisors (ISs) in implementing the
Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) in their schools. These 20 items were presented
to the respondents for them to choose which problems and/or issues they felt
applied to their particular schools.
Table 24
Percentage Distribution of Problems/Issues Encountered in the Implementation of the
Enhanced IMPACT System in the Respondent Schools, According to Rank
Problems/Issues Frequency Percent Rank
(%)
1. We do not have advanced instructional materials for fast learners. 90 51 1
2. We do not have enough learning modules. 78 44 2
3. Not all school personnel are fully trained on how to implement the 73 41 3
4. May parents do not want their children to be programmed teachers 72 40 5
because they feel that teaching should be the job of teachers only.
5. Instructional materials/aids are very expensive to develop. 72 40 5
6. We have no community resource persons in the school. 72 40 5
7. Parents are not interested in, or do not care about, their children’s 60 34 7
contracting.
8. Community stakeholders are not supportive of the school. 47 27 8.5
9. We do not have learning kiosks and do not have enough space for 47 27 8.5
the pupils.
10. It is very hard to train peer group leaders and programmed 46 26 10.5
teachers.
11. We do not have posttests for all the peer-group learning modules. 46 26 10.5
12. Classroom discipline is very hard to implement in an IMPACT 45 25 12
school.
13. Using multiple evaluation and assessment strategies is hard to do. 41 23 13
14. We do not know how to challenge our pupils and develop their 28 16 14
HOTS.
15. The community is not involved in the school. 18 10 15
16. Teachers are not consulted in developing and implementing the 11 6 16.5
school improvement plan.
17. The pupils do not like learning via peer group learning and 11 6 16.5
programmed teaching.
18. School head has unrealistic expectations for pupils and staff. 10 6 18
19. The school’s vision and mission statements are not clear. 4 2 19
20. School head is not approachable to pupils, parents and teachers. 2 1 20
The respondents were requested to choose as many problems as applicable,
hence, the total frequency tally of 873.
The researcher finds it interesting that all the problems were chosen; that
could mean that for the respondents this is a factual list of the problems they have
encountered in implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System.
Besides identifying which problems, issues and concerns have been
encountered by the respondents, this study also checked which of those listed
were common to all. The responses were, therefore, ranked according to
frequency, from most to least indicated.
Majority of the respondents, equivalent to 51%, felt that the “lack of learning
modules for their fast learners” was their biggest implementation problem.
Conversely, an “unapproachable school head to pupils, parents and teachers” was
the least problem as checked by only two respondents.
“Not having enough learning modules” was the second highest in rank of the
implementation problems experienced by 44% of the respondents; while the third
biggest implementation problem and posted by 41% of the respondents was that
“not all school personnel are fully trained on the IMPACT system.”
Three problems occupied equal ranking by 40% of the respondents. These
problems included the following: (1) Many parents do not want their children to be
programmed teachers because they feel that teaching should be the job of
teachers only; (2) instructional materials/aids are very expensive to develop; and
(3) there are no community resource persons in the school.

A related problem which came in close to the three above-named problems is
that of parents not interested in, or not caring about, their children’s contracting.
Problems about non-supportive community stakeholders and therefore not being
able to source learning kiosks especially needed due to space constraints tied at
rank # 8.5. Not having posttests for all the peer group learning modules and the
difficulty of training peer group learners and programmed teachers also tied at 26%
of the respondents, ranked at # 10.5. These problems are indeed experienced by
schools that are in the transition phase.
At least 25% of the respondents indicated that classroom discipline is very
hard to implement in an IMPACT school. This problem ranked # 12. Following this
closely is the problem of “difficulty of using multiple evaluation and assessment
strategies”. This was posted by 23% of the respondents, and ranked # 13. An
area of concern is the development of critical thinking skills. Ranking # 14 among
the list of problems is the ISs lack of know-how to challenge their pupils and
develop their HOTS with 16% of the respondents. Ranking # 15 is an issue as it
involves at least 10% of the respondents perceiving the lack of involvement of the
community in school activities. Occupying equal ranking at # 16.5 are the twin
problems posted by at least 6% of the respondents relative to (1) Teachers are not
consulted in developing and implementing the school improvement plan, and (2)
The pupils do not like learning via peer group learning and programmed teaching.
The last three items ranking # 18, 19 and 20, respectively, were the following: (1)
The school head has unrealistic expectations for pupils and staff; (2) The school’s
vision and mission statements are not clear; and (3) The school head is not
approachable to pupils, parents and teachers.
It should be noted that the respondents felt unable to teach and use the
HOTs. If the respondents were trained to do this, what might be the reason for
their difficulty? In like manner, the development of posttests has also been a skill
introduced to the respondents. But feedback from this survey indicates the
respondents’ difficulty to develop these tests on their own. Could it be that
Instructional Supervisors would rather rely on ready-made tests from the district,
division, region, national DepED offices rather than develop their own and show
that they have the competencies and skills to do so? Maybe this can be a query
that future researchers would like to explore further.
Part IV - Recommendations and/or Suggestions to Improve the
Effectiveness, Efficiency and Advocacy Dimensions of the Enhanced
IMPACT System
After stating the problems and/or issues that the respondents have
encountered in implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System in their schools, the
next pages show Tables 26 to 28 that rank the recommendations and/or
suggestions given by both groups of respondents with regards the effectiveness,
efficiency and advocacy components of the Enhanced IMPACT System.

A. On the Effectiveness Dimension
Table 25 below presents recommendations to improve the effectiveness
dimension of the EIS in schools.
Table 25
Recommendations/Suggestions to Improve the Effectiveness
Dimension of IMPACT Implementation in Schools
Recommendations and/or Suggestions Frequency Percentage Rank

(%)
1. Classroom discipline must be observed by everybody in the 176 99 1
school.
2. There should be continuous training and upgrading of 106 60 2
Programmed Teachers and Peer Group Leaders.
3. There should be advanced instructional materials for fast learners. 101 57 3
4. There should be enough peer group learning modules. 78 44 4
5. The school’s mission and vision statement should be clear to all 43 24 5
so that everyone knows their role towards the attainment of the
school’s goals and objectives.
Table 25 shows five recommendations and/or suggestions towards improving
the effectiveness component of an IMPACT school arranged according to
percentage distribution. The respondents were requested to choose all that apply
to their particular situations; hence, the multiple answers.
Almost all of the respondents, that is 99% of respondents, felt that for an
IMPACT school to be termed effective, classroom discipline must be observed by
everybody in the school. Sixty per cent of the respondents felt that there must be
continuous training and upgrading of programmed teachers and peer group
leaders; and 57% said that there should be advanced instructional materials for
fast learners. Forty-four per cent of the respondents said that there should be
enough peer group learning modules and 24% said that having clear mission and
vision statements will orient everyone on the roles they play towards attainment of
the school’s goals and objectives.
B. On the Efficiency Dimension
Table 26 below presents recommendations to improve the efficiency
Table 26
Recommendations/Suggestions to Improve
the Efficiency Dimension of the Enhanced IMPACT Implementation in Schools
Recommendations/ Suggestions Frequency Percentage Rank

(%)
1. School personnel should be fully trained on how to implement 103 58 1
the Enhanced IMPACT system
2. Staff should be open to new ideas and always search for more 85 48 2
efficient ways to do things.
3. Academic excellence is valued and standards are realistic so 62 35 3
that pupils can achieve them.
4. The school should have a safe and orderly environment so that 59 33 4
the pupils want to come to school.
5. The school head should be available to all teachers, parents 40 23 5
and pupils.
the efficiency dimension of an IMPACT school arranged according to percentage
distribution. Again, the respondents were requested to choose all that apply to
their particular situations; hence, the multiple answers.
Majority of the respondents, or 103 equivalent to 58 per cent, felt that school
personnel fully trained on how to implement the IMPACT system will assure the
efficiency of the school. At most, 85 or 48 per cent of the respondents felt that
these staff should be open to new ideas and always search for more efficient ways
to do things. Likewise, 62 or 35 per cent of the respondents felt that, in efficient
IMPACT schools, academic excellence is valued and standards are realistic so

that pupils can achieve them. Furthermore, 59 or 33 per cent of the respondents
reasoned that the school should have a safe and orderly environment so that the
pupils want to come to school. For 40 or 23 per cent of the respondents, another
mark of an efficient school is for the school head to be available to all teachers,
parents and pupils. All these suggestions coupled with earlier findings illustrate the
respondents’ desire to develop and sustain an IMPACT school that runs effectively
and efficiently.
C. On the Advocacy Dimension
Table 27 below presents recommendations to improve the advocacy
Table 27
Recommendations/Suggestions to Improve
the Advocacy Component of IMPACT Implementation
Recommendations / Suggestions Frequency Percentage Rank

(%)
1. More stakeholders should be involved in the School 97 55 1

Implementation Plan and Annual Improvement Plan.
2. Stakeholders should be fully oriented about the IMPACT system 96 54 2
so that they will support it.
3. Parents should witness and take part in their children’s 88 50 3
contracting.
4. The whole school should be involved in developing the School 63 36 4
Implementation Plan.
5. The school is the learning hub of the community and the 63 36 5
stakeholders should appreciate it.
the advocacy dimension of an IMPACT school arranged based on percentage
distribution. As with the other components, the respondents were requested to
choose all that apply to their particular situations; hence, the multiple answers.
In implementing a stronger advocacy program in an IMPACT school, 97
respondents or 55 per cent believe that more stakeholders should be involved in
the School Implementation Plan and Annual Improvement Plan. Ninety-six
respondents or 54 per cent believe that the stakeholders should be fully oriented
about the IMPACT system so that they will support it. To get deeper parents’
involvement, 88 respondents or 50 per cent felt that the parents should witness
and take part in their children’s contracting. In this manner, parents may become
more cooperative if they understand that ultimately their children will benefit from
such commitment. Once again 63 respondents or 36 per cent believe that the
whole school should be involved in developing the School Implementation Plan
and not just the school head. In such a manner, with more people involved in the
planning activities, another 63 or 36 per cent of the respondents are sure that the
stakeholders will appreciate the school because it is the learning hub of the
community.
All these recommendations and/or suggestions were given in light of
problems/issues and concerns encountered in the respondents’ implementation of
the EIS in their schools.

Chapter 5
SUMMARY OF FINDINGS, CONCLUSIONS
AND RECOMMENDATIONS
This chapter presents the summary of findings of the study, the conclusions
that were drawn from the findings and the recommendations which were based on
the conclusions.
Summary of Findings:
The following findings are the results of the survey conducted among the
instructional coordinators (school heads) and instructional supervisors (teachers)
of the 19 UNICEF-sponsored EIS schools in the identified regions of the country.
Sampling was purposive. All concerned school heads (19) and teachers (158)
were included in the survey, totaling 177 respondents.
A. On the Perceptions of Instructional Coordinators (ICs) and Instructional
Supervisors (ISs) on the Extent of Implementation of the Enhanced
IMPACT System (EIS) in Respondent Schools
The study of the extent of implementation focused on three dimensions,
namely: on effectiveness, on efficiency and on advocacy. A 5-point scale was
used to measure perceptions; extent of implementation was expected at any level
ranging from a low “not at all” to a high “to a very large extent.”
The review yielded the following results.
1. On Effectiveness
There were six components reviewed under this dimension:
1.1 School Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives
The overall ratings of respondents in their perceptions of each of the three
indicators under this component ranged from 4.51-4.64. This range is covered by
the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a very large extent.”
The grand weighted mean of the ratings given by the instructional
coordinators was 4.69, indicating implementation “to a very large extent.” The
instructional supervisors assessed implementation at 4.58, meaning
implementation “to a very large extent.” The overall grand weighted mean was
4.59, also meaning implementation “to a very large extent.”
1.2 Classroom Assessment
The overall rating of respondents in their perceptions of each of the
eight indicators under this component ranged from 3.75-4.52. This means that
perceptions went from a high 3.75 (to a large extent) to a very high 4.52 (to a very
large extent). Perceptions varied from indicator to indicator but only slightly, as
perceptions varied from “large extent” to “very large extent.”
However, the grand weighted mean of the ratings given by the
instructional coordinators was 4.14, indicating implementation “to a large extent.”
The instructional supervisors likewise assessed implementation at 4.14, also

meaning implementation “to a large extent”. The overall grand weighted mean was
of course 4.14, also meaning implementation “to a large extent.”
1.3 Teaching and Learning Delivery Mechanisms
The overall ratings of respondents in their perceptions of each of the
five indicators under this component ranged from 4.38-4.65. This range is covered
by the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a very large extent”.
implementation “to a very large extent”. The overall grand weighted mean was
4.48, also meaning implementation “to a very large extent”.
1.4 Curriculum
four indicators under this component ranged from 4.30-4.68. This range is covered
by the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a very large extent.”
coordinators was 4.43, indicating implementation “to a very large extent”. The

1.5 Instructional Materials
five indicators under this component ranged from 3.69-4.38. This means that
perceptions varied from “large extent” to “very large extent”.
instructional coordinators was 4.16, indicating implementation “to a large extent.”
The instructional supervisors assessed implementation at 4.00, meaning
implementation “to a large extent”. The overall grand weighted mean is 4.02, also
meaning implementation “to a large extent”.
1.6 Learning Environment
instructional coordinators was 4.38, indicating implementation “to a very large
extent.” The instructional supervisors assessed implementation at 4.29, meaning
implementation “to a large extent.” The overall grand weighted mean was 4.29,
also meaning implementation “to a very large extent.”

2. On Efficiency
There were four components reviewed under this dimension.
2.1 Organizational Structure and Support System
The overall rating of respondents in their perceptions of this single
indicator under this component was 4.32. This means that implementation was
perceived “to a very large extent.” The overall grand weighted mean for both
groups of respondents was 4.32, meaning implementation “to a very large extent.”
2.2 Leadership
four indicators under this component ranged from 4.31-4.42. This range is covered
by the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a very large extent”.
2.3 Professional Growth and Development
perceptions varied from “a large extent” to “a very large extent.”

extent”. The instructional supervisors likewise assessed implementation at 4.17,
also meaning implementation “to a large extent.” The overall grand weighted
mean is 4.18, also meaning implementation “to a large extent.”
2.4 School Culture
ten indicators under this component ranged from 4.18-4.50. This means that
extent.” The instructional supervisors likewise assessed implementation at 4.33,
also meaning implementation “to a very large extent”. The overall grand weighted
mean was 4.34, also meaning implementation “to a very large extent.”
3. Advocacy
3.1 Comprehensive School Planning
three indicators under this component ranged from 4.30-4.43. This range is
covered by the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a very large
extent.”
implementation “to a very large extent.” The overall grand weighted mean is 4.39,
also meaning implementation “to a very large extent.”
3.2 Physical Facilities and Resources
three indicators under this component ranged from 3.79-4.25. This means that
3.3 Pupil and Family Involvement
five indicators under this component ranged from 3.12-3.82. This range is covered
by the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a large extent.”
coordinators was 3.67, indicating implementation “to a large extent”. The
also meaning implementation “to a large extent”.

3.4 Stakeholders and Community Support
The overall rating of respondents in their perceptions of each of the six
indicators under this component ranged from 3.57-3.97. This range is covered by
the interpretation that extent of implementation was “to a large extent”.
coordinators was 3.82, indicating implementation “to a large extent.” The
also meaning implementation “to a large extent.”
B. On the Significant Differences in the Assessments Between the
Instructional Coordinators and Instructional Supervisors
The perceptions of both groups of respondents were tested for significant
difference using the t-test. These were on the dimensions of effectiveness,
efficiency and advocacy. The following are the results of the test.
1. On Effectiveness
There were six components under review.
1.1 School’s Mission, Vision, Goals and Objectives
There is no significant difference between the perceptions of the
instructional coordinators (overall mean = 4.69) and the instructional supervisors
(overall mean = 4.58) with regard to the extent of implementation of the mission,
vision, goals and objectives of the EIS schools. Both groups have the same level
of assessment of this effectiveness component.

1.2 Classroom Assessment and Evaluation
(overall mean = 4.14) with regard to the extent of implementation of requirements
on classroom assessment and evaluation in the EIS schools. Both groups have
the same level of assessment of this effectiveness component.
1.3 Teaching and Learning Delivery Mechanisms
There is no significant difference between perceptions of the
on teaching and learning delivery mechanisms in the EIS schools. Both groups
have the same level of assessment of this effectiveness component.
1.4 Curriculum
on the curriculum in the EIS schools. Both groups have the same level of
assessment of this effectiveness component.
1.5 Instructional Materials

on instructional materials in the EIS schools. Both groups have the same level of
assessment of this effectiveness component.
1.6 Learning Environment
on the learning environment in the EIS schools. Both groups have the same level
of assessment of this effectiveness component.
2. On Efficiency
There were four components under review.
2.1 Organizational Structure
of assessment of this efficiency component.
2.2 Leadership

2.3 Professional Growth and Development
2.4 School Culture
on the school culture in the EIS schools. Both groups have the same level of
assessment of this efficiency component.
3. On Advocacy
There were four components under review.
3.1 Comprehensive School Planning
on comprehensive school planning in the EIS schools. Both groups have the same
level of assessment of this advocacy component.

3.2 Physical Facilities and Resources
on the physical facilities and resources in the EIS schools. Both groups have the
same level of assessment of this advocacy component.
3.3 Pupil and Family Involvement
on the pupil and family involvement in the EIS schools. Both groups have the
same level of assessment of this advocacy component.
3.4 Stakeholders and Community Support
on the stakeholders and community support in the EIS schools. Both groups have
the same level of assessment of this advocacy component.

C. Problems/ Issues/ Concerns Encountered by the Schools Implementing
the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)
A list of 20 different problems were ticked off as having been manifested in
the EIS schools. The first three problems considered most pressing represent
inadequacies that affect the effectiveness of implementation. Occupying highest
frequency is the “lack of advanced materials for fast learners,” followed closely by
the “lack of enough learning modules,” and third, by the “lack of training of
implementers on the EIS itself.”
D. Recommendations and Suggested Solutions to Address the Problems/
Issues/ Concerns Encountered by the Schools Implementing the
Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)
It is interesting to note that at least five recommendations were given at
random. These are summarized and presented in the order of their frequency,
from highest to lowest, as follows: (1) Classroom discipline must be observed by
everybody in the school. (2) There should be continuous training and upgrading
of programmed teachers and peer group leaders. (3) There should be advanced
instructional materials for fast learners. (4) There should be enough peer group
learning modules. And (5) The school’s mission and vision statements should be
clear to all so that everyone knows their role towards the attainment of the school’s
goals and objectives.

Conclusions
In light of the findings obtained in the study, the following conclusions were
drawn, focusing on the three dimensions of the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS)
being implemented in the respondent schools:
1. Schools implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System are faithful to the
instructional system requirements of the innovation and are working within the
parameters of effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy dimension.
2. Components of the effectiveness dimension of implementation work well
together to bring about instructional success. Components of the efficiency
dimension of implementation work well together to bring about administrative
success. Components of the advocacy dimension of implementation work well
together to bring about success in community participation. Of the three
dimensions, advocacy is the least implemented, although on a positive note, still to
a large extent.
3. Positive perceptions are deemed credible with both groups of respondents
expressing no significant difference in their assessments in all aspects of the
study.
4. Most pressing of problems encountered in the implementation of the
Enhanced IMPACT System include the lack of pertinent instructional materials
which are requisites to effective implementation, as well as the lack of the
corresponding training for the nitty gritty details of system implementation. The
instructional system is an innovation that needs a thorough grounding of

philosophy, delivery mode, methods and procedures, and other system
requirements.
5. Recommendations provided by the school implementers themselves help
to reduce the challenges in implementation articulated herein. They are practical
solutions worth looking at and address majority of the problems/ issues/ and
concerns of the EIS schools.
Recommendations
Based on the foregoing findings and conclusions, the following
recommendations are being proposed:
1. It is highly recommended that UNICEF continue to sponsor all schools in
the country that are implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) since there
is empirical data that support the effectiveness and efficiency of the system.
2. All stakeholders of the EIS should put in more interest, money and effort
into the advocacy dimension of this educational innovation.
3. Intrinsic as well as other rewards for the EIS implementers are in order.
Such zeal and faithfulness to the mission, vision and goals of education are
commendable.
4. Immediate attention should be given to the lack of resources and
corresponding training articulated by the school implementers in delivering basic
education in the EIS schools.

5. Suggested solutions coming from the implementers themselves are worth
listening to, as they represent the practitioners’ practical view. Care must be taken
to dialogue regularly with the instructional coordinators and instructional
supervisors on their needs and wants.
Other Recommendations
1. To the instructional supervisors who have mentioned that they do not feel
very confidently to teach their programmed teachers and peer group leaders higher
order thinking skills (HOTS) to be used during their lessons, additional training on
this strategy is recommended. To address the observation of both groups of
respondents on the negative attitudes of some parents with regards to their
children being tapped as programmed teachers or peer group leaders, additional
training on how to develop and sustain advocacy relations with parents and other
significant learning partners is also recommended. And to assist the instructional
supervisors who have said that they do not have enough learning modules and
posttests, another training on module and posttest development is likewise
recommended. A training workshop on how to develop pedagogically-appropriate
instructional materials making use of indigenous and inexpensive materials is also
recommended so that the IMPACT schools can have a bank of instructional
materials.
Another recommended training that the instructional supervisors can undergo
is on how to develop and sustain the motivation of programmed teachers and peer
group leaders. All these trainings can be done individually in an enhancement
session with the IMPACT schools. Alternatively, convening and holding an
IMPACT summit can best address the concerns of the instructional coordinators
and supervisors as well as be a forum for an exchange of best practices and
implementation how-to’s.
2. Just like the instructional supervisors, the instructional coordinators also
need to have enhancement trainings on coaching and mentoring their school staff;
on creating and holding stakeholders’ interests in the school; on resource
allocation and sourcing; school-based management with R.A. 9155; and a better
appreciation of their role in the IMPACT system. These topics can be discussed
during enhancement trainings for the IMPACT implementers.
3. This researcher recommends that a monitoring system with continuous
enhancement training sessions be instituted in the IMPACT schools so that the
staff do not feel isolated and their concerns immediately addressed before
implementation of the IMPACT system in their schools suffer. Holding an IMPACT
Summit is one way of gathering all IMPACT implementers to develop their pride
and ownership in IMPACT. There should also be accreditation of IMPACT schools
so that continuous quality improvement of the system’s instructional delivery
modes, the learning modules and posttests and the over-all management
processes can be assessed, evaluated and gathered as benchmarks. Likewise
the planned IMPACT Summit should take place so that the many improvements
brought about by the educational innovation can be presented to other educators
to attract national and international audiences.
4. Curing the financial ills and lack of facilities of schools may not be an
option for IMPACT proponents at this time. However, it is recommended that
IMPACT proponents advocate for policy reforms within the Department of
Education to refrain from transferring trained Instructional Supervisors and
Instructional Coordinators. Necessary promotions must be awarded but should be
within the IMPACT school for project continuity and sustainability.
5. Project proponents should also invest in an external, and if possible,
international evaluation of the enhanced IMPACT system. The evaluation should
look at all aspects of the system to include pupils’ perception of their roles in the
system, not just confined to records of their academic achievement. A strong
research-based portfolio for IMPACT will go a long way towards recognition of its
effectiveness and efficiency as an alternative delivery mode of basic education
whose time has come. It could be that the result of the evaluation will recommend
the institutionalization of IMPACT in the Philippines. IMPACT should be present
not just in multi-grade schools as recommended by some of the respondents but
more for schools in communities where drop-out rates are high and a scarcity of
teachers and school facilities prevalent.
6. Advocacy with business and industry should also be undertaken by the
project proponents so that additional sources and funds can be tapped for an
educational innovation such as the Enhanced IMPACT System (EIS) that this
study has proven is perceived to be truly effective and efficient by its implementers.
7. The Enhanced IMPACT System has survived sporadically in our nation’s
schools since 1974. Yet it is a mature technology that is backed by researches
done locally and internationally. With the state of our schools’ physical plant and
facilities and the ever-growing population, alternatives must be found to be able to
provide quality education at least cost to our children. This was IMPACT’s
founding objective in the early 1970s and is still IMPACT’s mission up to the
present time. Maybe all that is needed is for additional studies to prove that such
is still IMPACT’s reason for being now into the twenty-first century.
8. For future researchers, this researcher suggests that the pupils, parents
and stakeholders, and the community be part of their studies’ respondents. The
IMPACT system is not solely composed of the effectiveness, efficiency and
advocacy components studied here; the instructional delivery system and the roles
that the different categories of teachers, especially those of the resource and
examination teachers, should be studied too. The role the community may play in
IMPACT was not studied in this paper; it is recommended that a study be made on
this, too. The personality of the researcher may have also been a factor in the
overwhelmingly positive response of the respondents; a different manner of
floating the instrument may be in order.

This researcher hopes that the policy recommendations listed in this study
can come into fruition. Likewise, the recommended future directions can hopefully
be acted upon, especially the recommendation for policy formulation on non-
transfer of trained instructional coordinators and instructional supervisors to allow
the technology the time to grow and bear fruit in the communities they serve.
Expanding to a secondary school IMPACT system is also highly
recommended. Admittedly this will take much time and effort, possibly more than
what was experienced in the birthing years of IMPACT. But if the experiment
proves to be worth it, then another educational innovation will be added to the
growing alternatives to the conventional school system. One note of caution
though: an innovation will necessarily entail great initial outputs at least in man
hours and effort, if not in finances. Community support, dedication of school staff
and project proponents’ vision will carry the innovation through to its maturity if only
all components will work together. Nothing worthwhile happens overnight.
May this researcher quote in closing the words of Dr. Josefina Lacastesantos,
Elementary School Principal III and Instructional Coordinator “extraordinaire” of
the Culianan Learning Center in Mercedes District, Zamboanga City, adjudged
by the Department of Education as a Center of Excellence in the IMPACT
system…
“…There is no need to choose among any of the 20 problems listed here, we

have encountered them all. We have been there…we have done that…and
IMPACT is here to stay in Culianan Learning Center. We invite you all to see
how much change in the community IMPACT has wrought. If we can, since
1981, implement it successfully, when we did not have the supportive
project proponents now present to aid us, so much more you, the new
IMPACT educators, can make it work. All that is needed is faith in the system
and in each other: the school, the community and God.”
Such faith and belief in the system, commitment to education and dedication
to work all work together to produce a successful educational plan. Such is indeed
what makes an educational innovation fly off, get implemented effectively and
efficiently, and institutionalized soon after. Given the findings in this study, there is
substantial proof of the soundness of the Enhanced IMPACT System as a mature
technology for the delivery of basic education, not only here in the Philippines, but
also in other similarly placed countries in the world.

BIBLIOGRAPHY
BOOKS
R. W. Chediel. Private and Community Schools in Tanzania. International

Institute for Educational Planning, Paris, France, 2000.
Peter Cuttance, David Reynolds. School Effectiveness Research, Policy and

Practice. Cassell, England, 1992.
Richard Michael Cyert and James G. March. A Behavioral Theory of the Firm.
With contributions by G. P. E. Clarkson (and others), Englewood Cliffs,
Prentice-Hall, 1991.
J.V. Dempsey, et.al.. Interactive Instruction and Feedback. Educational

Technology Publications, Inglewood Cliffs, New Jersey, USA, 1993.
R. D. Goddard. Collective Teacher Efficacy: Its Meaning, Measure and Impact on

Student Achievement . University of Michigan, Michigan, USA, 2003.
Wayne K. Hoy, Cecil G. Miskel. Educational Administration Theory, Research and

Practice, 8th ed., McGraw-Hill International Edition, 2008.
Maralee Mayberry, Jean Stockard. Effective Educational Environments, Sage

Publications, Inc. 1992.
P.J. McEwan, Primary School Reform for Rural Development: An Evaluation of

Colombia New Schools. Inter-American Development Bank-IDB, Washington
D.C. 1995.
Joseph Slabey Roucek. Programmed Teaching: A Symposium on Automation in

Education, Philosophical Library, New York, 1965.
Project IMPACT: The Curriculum and the Delivery System, SEAMEO INNOTECH.
Manila, Philippines, March 1980.
E. Schiefelbein. In Search of the School of the XXI Century. UNESCO-UNICEF,

Santiago, Colombia, 1991.
Sheldon F. Shaeffer. A Framework for Collaborating for Educational Change,

International Institute for Educational Planning, Paris, France, 1990.
Louis M. Smith and B. B. Hudgins. Educational Psychology: An Application of

Social and Behavioral Theory. New York, 1994.
Sheila Wolfendale. Parental Participation in Children’s Development and

Education. Gordon and Breach, New York, 1993.
JOURNALS
Continuing Challenges in Basic Education. NEDA Development Pulse, Vol. XI, No.
7, June 15, 2007, pp 1&2.
D.G. Ellson. Educational Technology as an Alternative, pp. 84-86, INNOTECH

Practicum on Alternatives in Education (1972: Innotech Center), 24-28 April, 1
972.
M. Michael. The Programmed Instruction Era: When Effectiveness Mattered.

TechTrends: Linking Research and Practice to Improve Learning, v. 52, No.
2, pp 52-58, Mar-Apr 2008.
R. Wong. Evaluation of Alternatives in Education, pp. 76-78, INNOTECH

Practicum on Alternatives in Education (1972: Innotech Center), 24-28 April,
1972.
INTERNET RESOURCES
“An Analysis of the President’s Budget for Fiscal Year 2006”.

www.geocities.com/cpbo_hor
Retrieved August 21, 2008.
“Angelicum College”.
www.angelicumqc.edu.ph/system/htm
“Asia and the Pacific Education for All Mid-Decade Assessment, Final Draft Sub
Regional Synthesis Report”. UNESCO Bangkok, Thailand.
www.unescobkk.org
Retrieved September 9, 2009.
“Constructal Theory: Sustainability”. Tim McGee.

www.learning_theories.com
“Education at a Glance” World Bank

www.worldbank.org/education
“Education for All Youth.” Carmen Siri, Director, Latin America Portfolio, Global
Education Center, Academy for Educational Development, March 9, 2004.
www.equip123.net/docs/AltEd_Siri.pdf
“IMPACT Project Brief.”

International Development Research Center (IDRC) website
www.idrc.gov.ca
Retrieved January 15, 2009.
“Issues in Basic Education in Developing Countries: An Exploration of Policy

Options for Improved Delivery” by Joseph P. G. Chimombo, Center for Educational
Research and Training, University of Malawi.
“NEDA Development Advocacy Fact Sheet”, Vol. XI, No. 7, June 15, 2207, p. 2.
www.neda.gov.ph/devpulse
“Programmed Instruction”, T. Anderson

www.bfskinner.org
Retrieved January 15, 2009.
“Research Design and Mixed Methods Approach: A Hands-on Experience.”

John Sydenstricker-Neto.
www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/Sydenstricker/bolsa.html
“Research Methods Tutorial.”

www.socialresearchmethods.net/tutorial/tutorial.htm
“Self-Efficacy Theory”.
http://www.uiowa.edu
“Shaping the Future of American Youth: Youth Policy in the 21 st Century.”

www.aypf.org
“Sustainable School Effectiveness and Improvement: Multiple Thinking and

Creativity”. Cheng Yin Cheong, April 2005.
http://rieea.com
“UNESCO IBE World Data on Education”, 6th edition, World Bank Education page,
www.worldbank.org/education
REPORTS:
APEID Research in Basic Education and Literary: Report of a Regional Seminar

on Educational Research. Quezon City, Philippines, 22-29 July 1991.
Bangkok UNESCO Principal Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific, 1992.
Cost Effectiveness of Education Programs to Prevent and Eliminate Child Labor.

Schiefelbein, Ernesto, J. Swope, S.J. and P. Schiefelbein, 2000.
Design of Basic Education Programmes and Projects: Report of a Sub-regional

Intensive Training Course. Genting Highlands, Malaysia, 1-17 November
1993. Andre Magnen, Lars Mahick, Jorge Sequeira. Paris: UNESCO
International Institute for Educational Planning, 1995.
Essential Learning Competencies (ELC) for the Alternative Learning System. A

Research Report by the Bureau of Nonformal Education, 1995.
Models of Equivalency Programs in the Philippines, A Research Report by

UNESCO NFE.
Policy Notes on A Study on Alternative Learning Systems for Developing and

Upgrading the Communication, Math and Science Skills of Out of School
Youths Ages 12 to 18. UNESCO, 1999.
Programmed Teaching: Effective Teaching by Unqualified Teachers: Final Report

by SEAMEO INNOTECH, Quezon City, Philippines, 1983.
Successful Experiences in Non-formal Education and Alternative Approaches to

Basic Education in Africa. A discussion paper presented at the 2001 Biennial
Experience of the Association for the Development of Education in Africa
(ADEA) in Arusha, United Republic of Tanzania, 7-11 October 2001, by

Ekundayo J. D. Thompson.
Synthesis of Outputs of the Consultative Workshop on Policy Initiatives for

Alternative Learning Systems and Alternative Delivery Modes. SEAMEO
INNOTECH publication, March 2005.
Appendix C
The EIS -- “Enhanced Instructional Management by PArents,

Community and Teachers” System
The beginnings of IMPACT
In the early 1970s, most member countries of the SEAMEO (South East
Asian Ministers of Organization) had one thing in common: they had all experienced
being a colony of another nation, and having the colonizing nation’s educational
system implemented in their country. It must be said though that the educational
systems laid down by the colonizers were perhaps the best possible at the time. In
the Philippines, substantial and useful gains in the academic and professional fields
was experienced then.
But as countries developed, their population grew though not at par with
resources. The capacity of the country’s educational system to cope with increasing
demands for quality education became severely taxed. The Philippines, previously
known to have the best educational system in Southeast Asia, eventually lagged
academically behind its neighboring countries like Japan, Singapore, Malaysia, and
even Thailand.
Today, the Philippines is a strong advocate of the “Education for All”

(EFA) global movement and is undertaking significant initiatives to implement
programs and projects to achieve the EFA goals. These initiatives have for
the most part -- and for good reason -- been focused on improving the quality
of education being provided through conventional means in the formal school
system. Despite these efforts, national achievement as measured by the
yearly national achievement tests show that there have been no significant
improvements in the quality of education. A more embarrassing situation is
that in international science and mathematics tests the Philippines rank either
second or third to the lowest among the countries that participated.
Another consideration is that despite the resources being poured into

education, not just by the government but by other external funding/loan
granting agencies, there remains a considerable fraction of Philippine society
today who come to school only to later drop-out and stay-out. Some never
even came to school at all either by choice, by economic considerations and
life conditions, or by circumstances in the school setting that made education
a low priority. DepED basic education statistics for SY 2003-2004 show an
overall participation rate of 90.05 per cent for the elementary level which
means that some ten percent of elementary-age children are out of school.
Many live in far-flung and still isolated communities of the country. But a
significant number who have access to public elementary schools continue to

stay out of school either because their families are too poor to pay for the so-
called “hidden costs” of schooling or the children themselves must “earn” for
the family or both.
The State has made it a national goal to achieve universal access to
elementary education. Towards this end DepED through BESRA (Basic
Education Sector Reform Agenda) has made a priority concern the
implementation of mature and tested technologies that would improve quality
and access to basic education. A concrete action taken was the consolidation
and packaging of these technologies and innovations into one menu from
which private organizations and corporations, such as the League of
Corporate Foundations (LCF), could choose the innovation to fund. e-IMPACT
is one among the programs being endorsed by DepED for support by LCF
under the “Adopt-a-School Program”.
Benefits of Implementing e-IMPACT in Schools
In 1984, scientific studies were conducted to evaluate the effectiveness of the

IMPACT Learning System in terms of quality and cost from the time it was
developed in 1972. The following findings were derived:
· IMPACT pupils consistently achieved higher levels of cognitive skills

compared with pupils in conventional schools particularly in Languages
(Filipino and English), Science and Mathematics;
· The IMPACT system tends to help the average and slow learners achieve
more in comparison with those in the conventional system;
· Quality education can be attained at a lower cost to the government by up to

50% without sacrificing quality; and
· Savings up to millions of dollars per year can be gained if the e-IMPACT

system is widely used.
Other benefits of e-IMPACT System
e-IMPACT schools consistently developed among its pupils “concomitant

learnings” which can be termed as even more significant than the resulting
increments in cognitive knowledge and understanding. These “concomitant
learnings” can be traced to the three main components of the instructional
management system and the their character building dimensions: programmed
teaching, peer-group learning, and individualized learning. Research has shown
that the following concomitant learnings are more pronounced in pupils under the
e-IMPACT system:
· Social Sensitivity. Children in the e-IMPACT system are reported to be more

spontaneous, even uninhibited in their activities and expressions. They work
and communicate equally well among themselves as well as with parent
groups, and visitors.
· Motivation to Learn. The system has helped develop among the children an
intrinsic desire to learn. As a programmed teacher or peer group leader
stands before a younger group of learners, or among his/her peers, he/she
would want to assure himself/herself of some mastery of his or her
assignment. Thus, children become more motivated to learn inspiring other
learners as well.
· Self-Confidence. Children under the system are more confident particularly in

taking tests, and in interacting with visitors.
· Skill in Self-Study. As children are exposed to modular learning, their skill for
self-study is enhanced that even when they are absent from class due to
unavoidable reasons, the children make up for it through self-study.
· A Sense of Responsibility and Commitment. The system has developed in

the pupils a strong sense of responsibility and commitment through the
group- contracting scheme. In group-contracting, a peer group signs out a
number of modules to be finished at a specified time and for which they are
responsible for monitoring the progress of the members in the group. The
peer group members take it upon themselves to assist an absent member, to
tutor the slow pupil, and to visit and help the sick classmate.
· Development of Leadership. As children are given the chance to become

programmed teachers or peer group leaders, they experience being looked
up to, and being obeyed and respected. These opportunities make them
stand tall in the eyes of the younger children. Thus, the desire to excel as a
group leader enters consciously or unconsciously in the mind of the young
Programmed Teacher, and the Peer Group Leader. In the process, he/she
nurtures those qualities of leadership which in time will be his/her asset in the
adult world.
The Role of the School Under the e-IMPACT Learning System
Based on the acronym, e-IMPACT (enhanced Instructional Management by

Parents, Community and Teachers) is an instructional delivery in which the parents
and the community collaborate and cooperate with the school toward the education
of the child. It is also an instructional management system aimed at reducing the
total costs of education without sacrificing quality.
The School as a Community Learning Center
Under the 8th and 9th principles of the e-IMPACT Learning system, the
parents and the community own the school as it is converted into a Community
Learning Center (CLC), not just for the children, but also for out-of-school youth and
adult who also have access to the learning resources. In the e-IMPACT system, the
school or the Learning Center opens its doors to the community. At the same time it
reaches out and seeks knowledge from the community. Thus, the entire community
becomes a learning center where there can be a variety of learning venues; where
there are unlimited available resources for learning; where there is a place for the
learners to congregate. The nucleus of this learning center is the school.
The Learning Resource Center
The Learning Resource Center (LRC) is multi-purpose, but it is used mainly

as a library and testing center. It is also used as a storage area for the modules and
other learning materials. It is best that it is located centrally as possible. In a small
school, the LRC is also where the IS and the IS Aide would have their desks and
working area. Space should be provided for them.
In the absence of an appropriate room, knocking down at least one partition

between two adjacent rooms can create the LRC. Some buildings, which have
“accordion” or removable partitions, lend themselves easily for this purpose.
To store modules and other devices, shelves may be constructed along the
walls. Posttests must be stored beyond the reach of the pupils. Part of the LRC is
the testing area. Since progress in IMPACT is self-paced, testing is generally
individual, but in most cases, it is by learning group. Experience will show the
number of pupils reporting for testing. On this basis, the area for testing can be
adjusted accordingly.
Spaces for Small Group Learning
Normally, the size of a classroom is 63 square meters. In the e-IMPACT set-

up, the classroom is used for programmed teaching as well as for peer-group
learning. A table for the IS should also fit into the room. However, in the setting-up
of small groups, the IS should see to it that there is enough space between learning
groups and that discipline and classroom management is well maintained for
maximum learning. Should there be a need for additional learning space, peer
group learners can utilize corridors outside the classroom and other open space
close enough for the IS to supervise.
Kiosks
Peer-learning groups that cannot be accommodated in the classroom or in

the corridors will need learning spaces. In e-IMPACT, small sheds called kiosks fit
this purpose. Each kiosk should have a chalkboard and enough seats, or better
still, kiosks should have permanent benches to relieve the children of having to
carry their seats to the kiosks every time they have peer group learning sessions.
As with the conventional school, the e-IMPACT school also has need for
space and facilities for skills training. Thus, a home economics room, shop for
handicrafts, and space for nursery and garden are also part of the CLC structure. In
the absence of a regular shop and home economics room, the children can utilize
any available and appropriate space.
Roles and Functions of School Staff in the e-IMPACT System
The smooth and successful implementation of the e-IMPACT system in a

school depends greatly on efficient supervision and administration. Each staff is
involved in the program and is delegated definite roles to perform. The following are
the roles and functions of school staff in the e-IMPACT system:
The Instructional Coordinator (IC)

The Instructional Coordinator corresponds to the school principal in the

conventional system. He/She works with and through other people. The term
“people” include the subordinates and superiors and also the pupils, parents, local
officials, and the community members. He/She coordinates with anyone at any level
within or outside the school who can help achieve unity or organizational goals. In
cooperation and collaboration with school staff, he/she works with them to provide
one another with accurate information needed to perform tasks. Together, they
provide the necessary networking mechanism for everyone. Thus, the Instructional
Coordinator acts as the channel of communication within the organization.
Roles of The Instructional Coordinator

The role of the Instructional Coordinator is no different from the role of the
principal in the conventional school set-up. He/She plans, designs, arranges, directs,
executes, monitors, controls, and oversees the implementation of the system and all
its activities in the learning center ensuring that all the components of the system
which are the: Instructional Supervisors, Programmed Teachers, Itinerant Teachers,
Peer-Group Leaders, Tutors, and Community Resource Persons, perform their
functions in accordance with expectations.
The first main role of the IC is to implement the system. In the implementation
of the system, these are the roles the IC is expected to perform:
a. At the start of the school year, he/she assists the Instructional

Supervisors in grouping the pupils into smaller groups called families.
Each family is to be composed of the Programmed Teaching Group
and the Peer-Learning Group.
b. Having done the grouping into families, the IC assigns the teaching
staff to their various roles. He/She assigns the Instructional
Supervisors to handle the families. He/She also assigns teachers to
handle Music, Arts, P.E. and Computer Education. The teachers
assigned in these subjects are called Itinerant Teachers.
c. The IC assists the Instructional Supervisors in preparing the schedule

of classes taking into consideration the different modes of learning
such as programmed teaching, peer-group learning, itinerant teaching,
skills training, practice drills, and others. It is important that there
should be no overlapping of activities in the preparation of schedules.
d. The IC also schedules training of the Instructional Supervisors,

Programmed Teachers and Peer-Group Leaders, as the need arises.
This is particularly important in the case of Level IV (Grade IV) pupils,
as it will be their first time to become programmed teachers. They are

given orientation on the different item programs and lesson programs.
e. The IC monitors the teaching-learning process as she also monitors

the performance of Instructional Supervisors. The behaviors of
programmed teachers, peer-group leaders and the families as a whole
are also being monitored. Below are sample questions that may guide
the IC in his/her conduct of monitoring:
· Does the IS go around the classroom to monitor pupil

activities?
· Is the IS sensitive to the errors committed by the pupils?
· Are the Programmed Teachers trained before they do
programmed teaching?
· Does the IS provide intervention/remediation after the
lessons?
· Do the Peer-Group Leaders follow the steps in leading the
peer group?
· Are the groups practicing effective peer-group techniques?
The results of the monitoring activities become the basis for the help and
guidance the IC extends to the Instructional Supervisors. He/She also
determines the instructional interventions, which could be implemented not only
to help the pupils but also to improve teacher’s skills and competencies in the
following areas:
· Peer Tutoring – a slow learner is paired to a fast learner who

serves as the tutor.
· Study Periods – a thirty (30) minute-period before or after the
class to enable the pupils to further study the lessons that they
have failed to master.
· Special Remedial Reading Class – a special remedial reading
class for the slow and non-readers are provided. These pupils
stay with the remedial teacher in the morning.
f. The IC reviews pupils’ records. There is a need to check the progress

of the pupils. It is necessary to examine the learners’ performance so
interventions can be given.
g. The IC also notes problems in the different learning modes so as to

alert the Instructional Supervisors. Early detection of these problems
will greatly help lesson classroom tension and create a desirable
learning climate.
h. The IC identifies community members with specialized skills and

arranges the schedule as to when they can be tapped as resource
persons. The e-IMPACT system invites members of the community
with specialized skills as resource persons. These are usually in peer-
group learning activities where applied skills can be taught to the
pupils. The IC schedules meetings between the learners and the
resource persons.
i. The IC is also responsible for maintenance of buildings, facilities and

availability of instructional materials like modules, worksheets and
posttests.
j. The IC is also the lead person in disseminating information about any

activities or programs in relation to the e-IMPACT system. Like any
other innovations, the e-IMPACT is not spared from the negative and
hostile attitudes of some educators not knowledgeable about the e-
IMPACT system, some teachers, parents and some community
members. It is important that correct information is disseminated to the
parents and the community to gain their support and acceptance of the
system. Favorable achievement of learners in the e-IMPACT system
should always be disseminated to the school’s community
stakeholders.
In all of the above roles and functions, it is expected that the Instructional
Coordinator display the kind of leadership that motivates the members to get
moving towards the realization of the school’s goals.
The Instructional Supervisor
In the e-IMPACT system, the teacher takes on a different role, that of an

Instructional Supervisor. The teacher, either in the conventional system or in the e-IMPACT
system, should at least have the skill, knowledge and attitude of being able to manage
instruction and the learning process.
In the conventional system, the traditional role of the teacher is that he/she is the
knowledge provider. By standing up front in class, he/she is expected to provide lectures,
discuss the topics specified in the lesson plan and initiate activities in order for the pupils to
learn.
In the e-IMPACT system, the role of the teacher has been changed to that of one
who manages, facilitates and supervises the learning activities of the pupils in a multi-
grade/level set-up. He/She no longer conducts direct teaching; rather, he/she becomes the
manager of the learning process. Management refers to maintaining discipline in the
classroom, seeing to it that correct programmed teaching and peer-group learning is going
on. It is expected then that he/she goes around the several groups of learners to
monitor/check whether learning is progressing among the groups. Her going around the
different groups enables her to determine which among the group of learners, and who
among the learners, needs remediation of special help.
Below are some of the main functions of the IS which could be used as guide for
monitoring and providing guidance.
1. Observe Programmed Teachings conducted for Levels 1 to 3 pupils to note the following:
· Children who appear to be having difficulties
· Sufficient readiness of the group for the lessons
· Deficiencies of program teaching methods
· Preparedness of the programmed teachers
· Progress and improvement of individual learners
2. Observe peer-group learning for pupils in Levels 4 – 6 at least once each period to
determine the following:
· Children with difficulty in learning the modules
· Group leaders having difficulty in explaining to the group
· Group and group leaders practice effective peer-group techniques in order to provide
necessary corrections and guidance
3. Aside from doing direct observations, the IS also needs to do the following:
· Determine adequacy of the learning materials, and inform the IC for any deficiency.
· Provide positive reinforcement on performance and behavior of children.
· Manage time efficiently. The IS’s efficiency in maximizing time for learning will be
helpful in determining expected results.
Itinerant Teachers
Itinerant teachers handle Physical Education, Scouting, Arts, Music, and other special
subjects. These teachers spend one-half day each week at each Learning Center and
conduct large group mode activities. The itinerant teachers may also demonstrate the
performance modules in Practical Arts and supervise the school beautification activities of
the children.
IS Aide
The IS Aide is a non-professional who attends to the routinary activities in the school.
He/She should at least be an elementary school graduate. A parent volunteer can be tapped
as an IS Aide. The following are the tasks that can be delegated to the IS Aide:
· Keep record of the pupils’ attendance and inform the IS of pupils who are absent.
· Keep records of instructional materials, facilities and equipment delivered to the
Learning Center and to keep them within easy access of the children.
· Help the IS prepare worksheets.
· Help keep discipline inside the classroom.
· Keep attendance records of outside tutors.
Tutors
If the e-IMPACT school is situated where there is a public high school nearby,
fourth year students can be tapped as tutors. These graduating students tutor
higher-level pupils (Level IV, V and VI).
Community Resource Persons
Completing the team of school personnel in the e-IMPACT system are the
community resource persons. As the need arises, and as resource persons are
available, the e-IMPACT school invites these resource persons to assist based on
their specific skills and expertise.
e-IMPACT Learning Processes and Learner Assessment
Learning Processes
In the e-IMPACT system, the learning processes are based on the three main
modes of delivery of instructions. These are the Programmed Teaching, Peer-Group
Learning, and Individualized Study.
A. Programmed Teaching
Programmed teaching is a kind of instruction where the “programmed

teacher” or PT strictly follows prearranged lessons which do not only present what
are to be taught but also how they are taught. This means that the PT follows a set
sequence of steps in presenting the lesson (hence the term programmed teaching)
to Levels 1-3 pupils. The pre-arranged lessons are already prepared and presented
in Programmed Teaching Modules. This mode of delivering instruction is used for
Levels 1, 2 and the first semester of Level III pupils.
The programmed teachers (PT) are the brighter pupils in Levels IV, V and VI
who are willing to be trained as programmed teachers. Level VI pupils teach Level I,
Level V teach Level III, and Level IV teach Level II. A PT is assigned only one-half
hour (1/2) per day of programmed teaching and another one-half hour of tutorial
session for the slow learners. In effect, a pupil assigned to do programmed teaching
only does it in one hour per day in one class day.
The IS makes ready all the necessary instructional materials needed by the
Programmed Teachers before the programmed teaching schedule. He/She also has
to train the Programmed Teachers on the correct way of following the different item
programs as stated in the module. Before classes end for the day, the IS sees to it
that the assigned PT for the next day’s lessons is ready and has been trained. All
the needed instructional aids should also be ready before the actual program
teaching session.
B. Peer Group Learning
Pupils starting at Level III second semester, Levels IV, V and VI use the peer-
group learning mode for instructional delivery. These pupils are grouped into peer-
learning groups of 5 to 6 pupils per group, heterogeneous in ability but are studying
the same peer-group learning modules. Each member of the group takes turns in
acting as group leader with usually the best pupil in the group becomes the first peer
group leader. As other members in the group become acquainted and familiar with
peer group learning and being a group leader, they will also be given the opportunity
to become peer-group leaders. Thus, leadership in a group is rotated to allow all
members in the group the experience to become peer-group leaders.
In setting up peer groups, heterogeneity is a necessary criterion so that

children of different ability levels can learn from each other. The difficulty with
homogenous grouping is that the slower students would fall farther and farther
behind, lose their self-respect, and eventually drop out.
Each family has at least three peer groups: first, level VI, second, level V, and
the third, level IV. Each peer group spends no less than three hours each day for
peer group learning. However, the slower learners are given an additional hour to
complete the activities on the core module, while the fast learners spend their hour
on the advanced modules.
Contracting is an integral part of peer group learning. Responsibility is

developed in a group through a system of contracting. The group promises in writing
to complete a number of modules for the week. The IS goes over the contract
proposal of each peer group to determine if the targets they have set for themselves
during the week are within the group’s capabilities and abilities.
Group completion of contracts is recorded in the contract progress chart,

which is conspicuously hung in the Learning Resource Center. In addition to this
display of progress, the members of the peer group are given positive
reinforcements by the IS Aide and the IS.
Contracting is the means by which the IS can pace learning to challenge all
students to do their best without, at the same time, overloading any pupil. This
judgment of the IS requires an intimate knowledge of the individual capabilities of all
students under her care.
In addition to peer group contracts, a number of students will enter into

individual contracts. Individual students who contract for advanced modules sign
separate contract with the IS.
The educational value of contracts is that 1) each student is challenged to

achieve at his or her ability; and 2) all students have periodic (weekly) goals toward
which to work. They are able to judge their progress toward their goals each day as
a basis for allocating their efforts. This knowledge of progress toward mutually
agreed goals is in itself, an extremely strong incentive for achievement.
Incentives such as these are usually group rather than individual rewards.
The individual is usually rewarded simply by 1) knowing that he or she is progressing
faster than the norm; 2) realizing that advanced module achievement leads to high
school entry; and 3) receiving personal encouragement from the IS.
Giving encouragement to groups is also of utmost importance. Children in a

group should feel a responsibility toward each other so that all can achieve group
goals, and they should feel this responsibility strongly enough to take upon
themselves the return of absentees to the Center and the acceleration of learning for
those who have been absent. The IS will determine when the absentee can return to
the group such that the group will not be unduly penalized because of absences of
one member.
C. Individualized Study / Self-Instruction
Majority of the learning time for Levels IV to VI is allotted to peer-group

learning. This is to enable the children to help each other. The e-IMPACT system,
however, recognizes individual difference in ability and speed in learning, thus one
period each day is allotted for “individual pursuits.” This is the hour during which the
more able students study enriched or advanced modules (alone or in small groups).
If the school has access to the Internet, this is also the opportunity when children
can access this technology for additional learning. This is also the period during
which the less able members of the peer groups review and study the core module
which the whole group had been studying the previous three periods.
The IS will have to set up and maintain this type of schedule to insure that
both kinds of learning occur during the one hour of individual pursuits. Most
importantly, the IS should make herself or himself available to tutor and assist the
less able members of the group during the individual pursuit period.
Self-learning and hence self-pacing in the e-IMPACT system is based on the

following principles:
· It is possible to design primary school learning materials based on the current

curriculum in such forms to serve effective self-learning with minimum
guidance by teachers and assistance by older children.
· It is possible to entrust responsibility to children to do self-paced learning

without being rigidly tied up to time, place and teacher’s supervision.
· It is possible to administer the principle of self-learning in certain grades of

primary school.
· Self-instruction is allowed among elder pupils who have attained literacy skills
in the media of instruction under any of the following conditions:
· When the learner has been absent due to illness or other legitimate reasons
and want to catch up with his group.
· When the learner has to stay away from the Learning Center to help his
parents at work and he wants to keep pace with his group through self-
instruction during his free time at home.
· If the learner is an out-of-school youth who wishes to continue with his

elementary education.
· For the fast learner or the more able student who studies the advanced
module while waiting for his peer group to finish the core module being
studies by their group.
D. Other Modes of Learning
Aside from the three main modes of learning, e-IMPACT utilizes other modes
of learning for specific purposes.
Transition Learning
Transition learning is for Level III pupils who have completed their
programmed teaching modules allotted for the first semester’s work. They use
simplified peer group learning modules with a Level V pupil monitoring their peer
group learning activities and providing them guidance and support.
Since this mode of learning serve as a bridge between structured

programmed teaching modules and peer group learning modules, this is then called
transition learning. Grouping is heterogeneous as much as possible. Thus even
groupings during programmed teaching is encouraged to be heterogeneous to avoid
having faster groups being ready for transition learning than others.
Learning through Tutors
In a traditional classroom, one teacher handles as many as 40 pupils and the

teacher usually directs her attention and teaching to only a few or some impersonal
“average” students. In the e-IMPACT system, tutorials form one major component of
the instructional delivery system. Levels IV to VI pupils are tutored by high school
students in nearby public high schools, parents, relatives, and neighbors at the
Learning Resource Center and at home. Levels I to III pupils are given one-half hour
tutorials for each subject by programmed teachers after every 30 minutes of
programmed teaching. The IS also provides tutoring to less able students during the
individual pursuit period.
Itinerant Teaching
In the e-IMPACT system, there are two types of professional teachers: the
Instructional Supervisors and the Itinerant Teachers. Itinerant teachers handle
special subject areas such as Physical Education, Music and Arts. The itinerant
teachers may also demonstrate the performance modules in practical arts and
supervise the school beautification activities of the children.
In a cluster of e-IMPACT schools located within the community, the itinerant
teachers can handle the special subjects in these schools. A regular period is
allotted for these special subjects so as not to disturb the learning of basic core
modules.
Basic Skills Practice
Learning of basic skills requires repetitive practice and drill for students to
become proficient. These skills are in Mathematics and Language. In the e-IMPACT
system, 10-15 minutes daily is given to drills in three subjects:
Mathematics (practice of addition, subtraction, multiplication, division)

English (vocabulary and usage)
Filipino (vocabulary and usage)
These practice drills are primarily for peer groups and are intended to be used
during breaks between periods. The content of the drills are made appropriate to the
learning levels reached by peer groups.
Skills Training by Community Resource Persons
The e-IMPACT system provides for active participation of the parents and the
community in the education of their children. Thus, the parents particularly are
expected to monitor the day-to-day activities of their children.
To enable the parents to carry out this responsibility, it is necessary to expose

them to a regular education program through frequent meetings. Among the points
taken during the meetings are:
· The role of the parents in encouraging their children to study

· Encouraging them to report to the Learning Center
· Informing the IS of the pupil’s absence
· Visiting the Learning Center for conference with the IS whenever requested
· Attending parent education sessions
· Parents’ assistance in the physical environment of the Learning Center and

the construction of the Learning Kiosks
· The need for some parents who are knowledgeable on certain topics
concerning world events, and/or who possess certain skills which can be
shared with the learners
· The purpose and content of the monthly report card
· The school’s system of incentives and rewards
· Educational policies which define the role of parents toward their children
· The meaning of self-pacing and mastery learning in the e-IMPACT system
· Other matters, such as IMPACT festivals, community surveys, etc.
Learner Assessments
Assessments of student learning under the e-IMPACT system follow the

prescribed system of the Department of Education of rating students. At the start of
classes, diagnostic tests are also conducted to assess students’ learning needs and
to identify their weaknesses and difficulties. Each module ends with a posttest that
the learner must take, these are the equivalent of quizzes in the conventional
system. The Testing Teacher administers the posttest after the Instructional
Supervisor has given the oral test and has ascertained that the learners are indeed
ready to take the test. As a group, the learners proceed to the testing room to take
the test. Mastery of the subject matter is the yardstick of the posttests.
Periodical tests are commonly administered in conventional schools to

measure mastery of competencies for a prescribed period are also administered to
students under the e-IMPACT system for the same purpose. Other requirements
such as recitations, home-works, and projects are also given to students in the e-
IMPACT as additional measure of achievement. For students who become
programmed teachers, additional points are given to them for their efforts. The
quality of how these programmed teachers conduct their programmed teaching is
also monitored and evaluated by the Instructional Supervisors (Teachers) for
additional points. Likewise good peer-group leaders are also given additional points.
This merit system under e-IMPACT provides the motivation for students to study
hard.
Co-curricular activities such as joining in academic, cultural and sports

competition are also participated in by students in e-IMPACT. As proven by schools
implementing the IMPACT system in their schools for some years, students under
the system have proven to excel as well in these fields of endeavor.

An Assessment of The Effectiveness Effic PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

An Assessment of The Effectiveness Effic PDF

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

An Assessment of The Effectiveness Effic PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY OF THE PHILIPPINES

AN ASSESSMENT OF THE EFFECTIVENESS, EFFICIENCY

ROSALIE AMADOR CORPUS

This dissertation entitled “An Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency

JOSEPH MERCADO, DEM

VICTORIA C. NAVAL, DEM MARIETTA P. DEMELINO, Ph.D, SFCC

Approved by the PANEL OF EXAMINERS on Oral Examination on

SAMUEL M. SALVADOR, Ed.D

VICTORIA R. NAVAL, DEM FR. MARIO EVANGELISTA, OFM

MARIETTA P. DEMELINO, Ph.D, SFCC CARMENCITA CASTOLO, DEM

Accepted in partial fulfillment of the requirements for the degree Doctor in

AMALIA C. ROSALES, DPA

Date of passing the Comprehensive Examination: September 13-14, 2007

“An Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency and Advocacy Dimensions

of the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional Management by Parents, Community

and Teachers) System” for the award of Doctor in Educational Management

higher education institutions, except where proper referencing and

acknowledgement were made.

ROSALIE AMADOR CORPUS

JOSEPH MERCADO, DEM

Title: An Assessment of the Effectiveness, Efficiency and Advocacy

Researcher: Rosalie Amador Corpus

Degree: Doctor in Educational Management

Institution: Polytechnic University of the Philippines

Adviser: Dr. Joseph Mercado

The main problem of the study is to evaluate the extent of implementation of

the Enhanced IMPACT (Instructional Management by Parents, Community and

Teachers) System on its effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy dimensions as

perceived by the instructional coordinators (school heads) and instructional

supervisors (teachers) in their schools.

The study utilized the descriptive-evaluative research design. The

supervisors of nineteen identified Enhanced IMPACT Learning Centers in eight

validated, standardized instrument used to arrive at both qualitative and

2009 for tabulation.

In terms of the respondents’ perception of the extent of implementation of the

and objectives; classroom assessment and evaluation; teaching and learning

delivery mechanisms; curriculum; instructional materials and the learning

In terms of the respondents’ perception of the extent of implementation of the

following characteristics were examined: organization structure; leadership;

professional growth and development; and school culture.

In terms of the respondents’ perception of the extent of implementation of the

following characteristics were examined: comprehensive school planning; physical

1. Schools implementing the Enhanced IMPACT System are faithful to the

parameters of the effectiveness, efficiency and advocacy dimensions.

2. Components of the effectiveness dimension of implementation work well

together to bring about instructional success. Components of the efficiency

dimension of implementation work well together to bring about administrative

success. Components of the advocacy dimension of implementation work well

together to bring about success in community participation. Of the three

dimensions, advocacy is the least implemented, although on a positive note, still to

3. Positive perceptions are deemed credible with both groups of respondents

expressing no significant difference in their assessments in all aspects of the

4. Most pressing of problems encountered in the implementation of the

Enhanced IMPACT System include the lack of pertinent instructional materials

which are requisites to effective implementation, as well as the lack of the

instructional system is an innovation that needs a thorough grounding of

philosophy, delivery mode, methods and procedures, and other system

5. Recommendations provided by the school implementers themselves help

to reduce the challenges in implementation articulated herein. They are practical