Challenges and Success Stories of Public Senior High School Teachers in

General Santos City in the Implementation of DORP

A Thesis Proposal Presented as a Requirement in Thesis Writing 1

Notre Dame of Dadiangas University

General Santos City

Submitted By

JANESSA RIVERA AYAON

CHAPTER I
 The Problem and Its Setting

Introduction

Over the years, the Philippines has been consistently a part of the top

performing countries in Asia in terms of functional literacy rate (FLR), or the

literacy rate of citizens in a country ageing from 15-24 years old. In 2018, the

World Atlas has ranked the Philippines as 84th in the world in terms of FLR with a

rating of 95%. This is relatively lower than the country’s FLR in 2019 at 97.95%

making the Philippines the best performing country among Southeast Asian

Countries (UNESCO, 2019).

However, it is highly remarkable that even with a higher functional literacy

rate, several of the Philippines’ students don’t have the chance to be fully literate

due to various reasons as dictated by the socio-demographic setting of the

country. According to Maluyo (2018), in her report for World Vision, although the

national rating showed an improvement, there are still seeming gaps at the

community level as to the bare literacy rate. Contributory to this is the high rate of

school dropouts where 1 out of 10 or about 4 million Filipino children and youth is

out-of-school. 22.9% decided to get married, 19.2% were financially incapable,

and 19.1% were uninterested in attending school.

Historically, the Philippines’ education sector has been devising several

reasonable mechanisms to improve the educational system up to the grassroots

level. Then, on June 4, 2010, the Dropout Reduction System (DORP) was

mainstreamed to make sure that dropout rate is reduced if not totally eliminated,
increase retention rate, and most importantly, retrieve students who have gone

out-of-school.

With this continuing systematic breakthrough all throughout the

Department of Education, significant participants in the implementation were

passively and significantly affected. These include the public-school teachers

who were primarily tasked to conduct efficient classroom-based lessons and

enable their learners be the ideal citizens in the future. Consequently, coming

along with these prime duties is making sure to provide and extend learning

capacities to those students who could not be physically present during classes

which include out-of-school youth and students-at-risks of dropping out. This

brought for different challenges and issues to the primary implementers

themselves, the public-school teachers, especially that they have to fulfill first

their immediate assignment which is to concentrate in bettering their students’

classroom performance.

The researcher, in response to these situations, would like to identify the

common grounds on which teachers are adversely affected the most in the whole

process of the implementation of DORP. Moreover, the researcher would also

like to look at the implementation of DORP in the implementers’ lenses and

enumerate probable unexplored mechanisms in the perspectives of the teachers

that would improve the implementation of the program.

Statement of the Problem

The primary objective of this study is to describe the challenges experienced

by Public Senior High School teachers in the implementation of Drop Out

Reduction Program.

Specifically, the study seeks to answer the following problems:

1. How is DORP implemented in General Santos City public schools?

2. What are the challenges and success stories of public-school teachers

in General Santos City in implementing DORP?

3. How do these challenges affect the teaching management efficiency

of public-school teachers in General Santos City?

4. Based on the findings, how may DORP be enhanced?

Significance of the Study

The result and findings of the study will give significance to the following

individuals and entities:

Department of Education. The study will be beneficial to DepEd by providing

references of real-life and field-based experiences of public-school teachers in

General Santos City in implementing DORP. This can be used as one of the

many reference points in improving the educational system in a microscopic

level;

DepEd Regional Officials. This study can provide information on the grounded

experiences of teachers in implementing the DORP that can be used in devising

more effective circulars to better its implementation, and the system itself as a

whole;

Principals. This study can be used to inform public school principals of how

DORP is implemented by their public-school teachers and could also provide

them ideas to make their own specialized implementation system that can help

the program itself;

Stakeholders. This study can give awareness to stakeholders that education is

not a uni-dimensional system influenced by the academe itself but also involves

the participation of the LGU, the community, and the parents to make sure that

DORP is practically maximized as a working system;

Teachers. This study can influence and inspire teachers on their respective

experiences, especially to advisers who have had or will be implementing DORP.

This can provide them ideations on better DORP implementation and channel it

to their colleagues in their own communities;

Students. This study can provide students the information on how DORP work in

several ways just to make sure that all members of the education sector are

given importance as part of the workforce. This can give them insights in helping

their own academic communities to become DORP-friendly;

Researcher. This study can help the researcher become a wiser decision-maker

as an aspirant school administrator in the future. This study can let her explore

on realities and circumstances that are seldom faced by teachers in general.

Moreover, this will serve as a continuing inspiration to advocate in helping to

better the educational system in the Philippines.

Scope and Delimitation

The main focus of this study are the challenges experienced by public

school teachers in General Santos City in implementing the Dropout Reduction

Program (DORP). It will also identify several augmenting mechanisms as

perceived by the teacher-respondents that could be contributory in bettering the

implementation of DORP.

Moreover, the study will be just be delimited on the challenges and real-

life experiences that teachers encountered on the implementation of DORP since

it was mainstreamed in 2010.

Lastly, the scope of the study are public-school teachers in General

Santos City who have already served for more than ten (10) years.

Definition of Terms

This section shows the terms and their definitions that will be used as

reference during the collation, analyses and interpretation of results after gathering

all the necessary data.

Challenges – refers to the situation being faced by public senior high

school teachers with something that needs great mental, physical, or financial

effort in order to be done successfully during the implementation of DORP.

Drop Out Reduction Program (DORP) – refers to the intervention

program designed by the Department of Education to reduce the high dropout

rate and improve learning outcomes in public and private schools of the country
using formal, non-formal and informal approaches that may also affect the

efficiency of teachers’ teaching management.

Students at Risk of Dropping Out (SARDO) –refer to the students at

risk of dropping out in public schools and are the subject for the implementation

of DORP

Teaching Management Efficiency – refers to how teachers maximize

their inputs including lesson preparation, utilization of teaching-learning time,

evaluation strategies of students, classroom management strategies and learner-

centered teaching strategies.

 CHAPTER II

Conceptual Framework, Review of Related Literature and Studies

This chapter presents the conceptual framework and related literature and

studies that which the researcher found relevant to the development of the study.

Conceptual Framework

The focus of the study is on the challenges experienced by public school

teachers in General Santos City in implementing DORP. The researcher deem

that the implementation of DORP has significant effects leading to several

challenges – either school-based or intrapersonal-based challenges. The

implementation of DORP is not a sole resposibility of the teacher alone, but by

the student’s direct learning community which include his family, principal, and

even neighbors. However, the person who is directly and majorly administers it is

the adviser. This study, in the assumption that the implementation of DORP, and

it as an affective variable, will try to demonstrate that aside from the challenges

that teachers directly experience, the implementation of DORP can also affect

the teachers’ management efficiency as a whole.

On this note however, both the challenges and the effects to the teachers’

management efficiency can be used as benchmarks in identifying several

enhancement mechanisms that teachers deem appropriate to better DORP’s

implementation.
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework

Review of Related Literature

Dropout Reduction Program (DORP)

DORP is the initiative of the Department of Education (DepEd). It is an

intervention program to reduce high dropout rates of students in the public and

private schools in the Philippines and improve their learning. It aims to; 1)

facilitate access of every Filipino to basic education, 2) increase participation and

retention rates, 3) raise achievements of students at risk of dropping out

(SARDO), 4) retrieve out of school learners, 5) improve each school’s capability

to manage drop outs, 6) design and continuously improve DORP practices and

learning materials; and 7) benchmark the best DORP practices. All of these are

in response to the Education For All (EFA) program which aims to make every

Filipino functionally literate (DepEd, 2008).

The program assumes that if the continued increase in the rate of school

dropout is not addressed, then the EFA goal of making every Filipino functionally
literate by 2015 would not be achieved. This can only be possible if the causes of

dropout problem will be properly identified and described which will then be

removed by initiating appropriate intervention programs. Moreover, DORP

requires the active involvement of the school, the home, the community, and

most especially the students at risk of dropping out (SARDO) in planning,

developing, and implementing the program for it to succeed. It also emphasizes

that if only the students’ felt needs are being satisfied and learning experiences

are pleasurable, the likelihood of students leaving school will be reduced.

Furthermore, DORP also enforces several perspectives in the pedagogy

process as it believes that the full mastery of basic competencies could be

achieved if the instructional process has a strong remedial component. A strong

and effective DORP depends on the collaborative efforts in planning and

managing by the school head, teachers, students, parents, and other key

stakeholders. Fairly enough, the school DORP would have higher probability of

success if it is provided adequate technical and administrative support by the

Division, Regional, and Central offices.

Guiding Principles of DORP

Since it is such an ideal and gigantic program, DepEd (2008) has set its

guiding principles for implementation which are: a) DORP as an intervention

should contribute significantly to the attainment of the School Improvement Plan

(SIP) objective to reduce dropout rate and increase retention and achievement

rates; b)DORP should not merely keep the SARDO in school nor prevent them
from dropping out; it should also seek to help them master the basic learning

competencies; c) Home visit as a DORP intervention, whether scheduled or

unscheduled, focused or unfocused, should be properly planned; objectives,

expected outputs and approaches should be clear and specific; d) DORP must

educate the SARDO to be independent, critical and creative problem solvers;

hence, the SARDO should be involved actively in planning, executing and

evaluating intervention programs intended to address their problem. They must

actively participate not merely as objects but also as subjects of their own

development; e) DORP should not only prevent students from dropping out; it

should also seek to retrieve those who have dropped out; f) DORP has for its

clients, learners in disadvantaged circumstances; as such, the program must not

depend solely on formal or conventional modes of learning; it should explore

alternative modes that best meet the learning needs of its clients; g) Being in

distressed and disadvantaged situations (poverty, poor health, physical

handicap, low intelligence quotient) is not conducive to the development of a

positive self-concept; hence, DORP should endeavor to build up the self-

confidence and self-reliance of the SARDO; i)Good decisions are informed

decisions; thus, decisions on the type of intervention appropriate to an individual

should be based on a careful analysis of adequate, relevant, accurate and up-to-

date information; j)Teachers should be fully aware that fast learners who are

bored or not challenged by the mediocrity of the lessons which are generally

attuned to the average learner, can also be potential if not actual dropouts.
DORP therefore, in its zeal to focus on the SARDO must see to it that the bright

students, do not become underserved and

disadvantaged. k) DORP should not only be reactive and preventive, but should

also be proactive to cover the needs of those who dropped out and re-enrolled.

Conceptual Framework of DORP

The conceptual framework of DORP graphically represents how the

DORP supports the regular class program to attain the goal of the SIP and the

DEDP in producing a functionally literate learner/graduate. It also shows the

relationship of the DORP to the Alternative Learning System (ALS).

As stated in DORP Handbook (DepEd, 2008), the regular class program

provides the major contribution to produce the desired learner which is the goal

of the SIP and the Division Education Development Plan (DEDP). The DORP

enhances the delivery of the regular program as it prevents potential school

leavers from leaving. Furthermore, DORP seeks to retrieve those who are out of

school and who want to join the regular classes. DORP supports the regular

class program through its strategic components, namely: the Open High School

Program (OHSP), the Effective Alternative Secondary Education (EASE), School

Initiated Interventions (SII) and Other Interventions (OI).

The OHSP and EASE as strategic components of DORP are considered

ADM because students do not attend the regular class program while enrolled in

the OHSP or EASE. The OHSP as an intervention has an indirect link with the

regular class program since it is distance learning; however, the learner has the

option to join the regular class anytime during the period of his study.
 The EASE students on the other hand, are temporary leavers of the

regular class program and they re-enter the class after satisfactory completion of

the EASE modules. The SII and the OI are for the SARDO who do not qualify in

the EASE and OHSP. These students are members of the regular class program

but who participate in either of the two interventions (SII & OI) or a combination

of both to prevent them from dropping out.

As mentioned earlier, the primary objective of the DORP is to prevent

students from dropping out, at the same time, it motivates those who are out of

school to return and finish basic education. In cases where a SARDO cannot be

saved, he has the option to participate in the ALS so that he can attain functional

literacy. ALS is a parallel learning that provides a viable alternative to the existing

formal instruction. This is done through its three programs, namely: Basic

Literacy Program, Accreditation and Equivalency Program and Indigenous

Peoples Education Program. The out-of-school youths (OSYs) and adults

enrolled in the ALS program, likewise, have the option to re-enter the school to

finish basic education either through the regular class program or the OHSP of

the DORP.

Strategic Components of School DORP

DepEd (2008) had made sure that DORP will be a working statutory

program that will provide several alternatives in educating students. Thus,

strategic components were devised and were innovated and appropriated to

address various dropout problems. The Open High School Program or OHSP
is an alternative mode of secondary education that addresses learning problems

of students who cannot join the regular class program due to justifiable reasons.

These reasons may include physical impairment, employment, distance of home

to school, education design, family problems, and the like. This mode uses

distance learning and makes use of multi-media materials which the learner

studies at his own pace and consults only with teachers and capable persons

when needed. Hence, as a requisite, the learner shall undergo the Independent

Learning Readiness test (ILRT) to assess his capacity for self-directed learning

and the Informal Reading Inventory (IRI) to measure his reading level.

The learner, therefore plans and manages his own learning. This is done

through the use of a Student Learning Plan (Appendices A1 & A2). Teachers and

students together agree on the date, time, and manner of assessing learning

outcomes. The learner has a maximum of six years to complete secondary

education. He has also the option to join the regular class anytime during the

period he is in the OHSP.

While the Effective Alternative Secondary Education or EASE is an

alternative mode of learning for short-term absentees or temporary leavers of the

regular class program due to justifiable reasons: part-time job, illness in the

family, seasonal work, calamitous events, peace and order problem, and the like.

This learning mode uses modules which the student’s study while on leave of

absence.

To qualify to the EASE program, a student should pass the reading and

writing ability tests in English and Filipino and the mathematical ability test. He
should also pass the coping ability assessment. These abilities are needed

inasmuch as the program entails self-directed study, with the teacher acting as

facilitator of learning. In case the student fails to pass these requirements, the

school may still consider him in the program by considering the development

level of the student.

The learners’ development level is indicated by their ability to solve

problems. The greater their dependency on other people for help, the lower is

their development level; the lesser their dependence on external help, the higher

is their development level.

Teachers should give more and direct assistance to students on the lower

development level, collaborative assistance to those on the middle, and

nondirective assistance to those on the high level. Teachers should locate the

actual learners’ development level and help them move up to their proximal

potential development level.

In monitoring learner’s progress and assessing performance, the teacher

ensures that quality standards are being observed. Result of the assessment

shall be used to determine if the learner is ready to go back to the regular class

program. This strategic component requires that the student signs an agreement

that details his responsibilities. The agreement is concurred by a parent or a

guardian.

School Initiated Interventions or SII are innovative and homegrown

interventions developed by schools to prevent the SARDO from dropping out and

to increase their achievement rate. The SII is based on the SARDO ‘s felt needs;
hence, they participate with the school head, DORP Council, SII Coordinator,

teachers, parents and other key stakeholders in planning, implementing,

monitoring and evaluating the program. In some instances, a combination of two

or more SIIs is implemented for an individual or a group of students. In other

instances, SII may be combined with EASE or with OHSP.

If the SARDO won’t fit on the first three components, he or she might need

Other Interventions or OI. These are interventions developed not by the school

itself but by other agencies, which also resulted in increasing the holding power

of the school. For example, the provincial LGU of Leyte, initiated ICOT-P

(Income-Creating Opportunities thru Technology Projects) which generated

income for the third- and fourth-year high school students at risk of dropping out

due to lack of financial support. The project enabled the students to convert an

idle lot in their school into a profitable vegetable farm. The provincial LGU

provided the production inputs and the municipal LGU, the technical inputs. The

income derived from the farm was used to subsidize the financial needs of the at-

risk students. In the Division of Romblon, the municipal LGU of Ferrol, Romblon

came up with “Miscellaneous Nyo, Sagot ng LGU”, which appropriated municipal

budget to pay the miscellaneous school expenses of the SARDO.

Critical Factors for a Successful Implementation of the DORP

While components and active participation of the stakeholders are

necessary elements in the successful implementation of DORP, other factors are

needed for it to be fully successful as stipulated by DepEd (2008). These include

committed leadership, trained DORP Council and implementers, availability of

materials, and participation and support of stakeholders.

Committed Leadership. This refers to the leadership of the school head,

the school DORP Council, the teachers and the Division DORP Council involved

in managing the program. The willingness to devote extra time and effort to help

the SARDO, the dropout returnees and the would-be enrollees ensures the

successful implementation of the DORP.

Trained DORP Council and Implementers. The competence to manage

is a prerequisite of the DORP. The division and school DORP Councils and all

DORP implementors should be provided with capability-building activities to

enhance their knowledge, skills and attitudes to implement the DORP

successfully.

Availability of Materials. Materials, print and non-print should be

available as needed to ensure that learning objectives are achieved.

Participation and Support of Stakeholders. The active and direct

involvement of the students and their parents/guardians is a must in all the

DORP activities. Likewise, the support of the other stakeholders – local

government, PTCA, community officials, non-government organizations and

others, is necessary inasmuch as, several risk factors are community related.

School-Based DORP

A school-based DORP is a recurring process of three major activities: 1)

planning the division and school DORP, 2) implementing the DORP plans, and 3)
evaluating the effect of the program. The cyclical processes are presented in

Figure 3 in graphic form, The “D” form of the cycle and the upward direction of

the arrows in the evaluation phase symbolize the determination of the DORP to

address the dropout problem.

The following are the specifications of each major phase.

Phase 1: Planning

On this phase there are three main stages: (1) conducting situational

analysis, (2) designing the proposed solution, and (3) appraising the proposed

solution.

Step 1. Conducting the situational analysis. This step intends to

answer the following questions: a) What is the current dropout rate of the school?

retention rate? completion rate? achievement rate? b) Are there serious gaps

between the desired and actual retention, completion and achievement rates? c)

What are the causes and effects of the gaps?

To answer the questions, data have to be gathered by reviewing school

records, conducting interviews, observing administrative and instructional

practices, and holding focus group conversations. The outputs of Step 1 are clear

statements of the dropout problems, their causes and corresponding issues.

Step 2. Designing the Solutions to the Problem. Based on the results

of Step 1, the goal and objectives are defined; and alternative solutions are

identified, analyzed for effectiveness and efficiency, and the most promising

solutions are selected. The outputs of the Design Stage is a School DORP plan

which has the following elements: Situationer (Problem statement &

Background/context of the problem), General and specific objectives,

Intervention strategies, Implementation and M & E Plans, Management Plan,

Sustainability Plan.

Step 3. Appraising the School DORP Plan. The School DORP Plan

shall be presented to the key stakeholders for validation and improvement.

Please see (Appendix B) for an example of the criteria to evaluate a DORP Plan.

Phase II: Implementing the School DORP Plan

The implementation phase has these stages, namely: start-up, plan

execution, and progress monitoring and evaluation.

1. Start-up. The DORP Council and the school head review the plan once

more to ensure that the strategies, activities and schedule are practical and

responsive to the existing situations and acceptable to the implementors. This is

also the time to review the roles and responsibilities of the DORP implementors

and to design the management procedures.

2. Plan execution. It is the responsibility of a DORP Team to implement

the activities as planned and to make adjustments to correct plan deficiencies.

The implementors should see to it that the at-risk students are properly identified

and provided the needed assistance. One of the objectives of DORP is to keep

enrolled learners in school and improve their achievement. To help achieve this

objective, the Learning Management Program (LMP) shall be integrated into the

various DORP interventions at the school level when appropriate. the S-DORP

implementation spiral process presents how DORP is put into action. DORP
implementation at the school level which caters to the enrolled learners follows

the processes as shown in the DORP Spiral. Re-planning follows after

completing each cycle. The re-planning stage follows the same processes but at

a different level or plane, hence the spiral flow. The spiral flow enables the

planners to profit from the lessons learned and avoid repetition of the flaws in the

previous cycle.

The spiral consists of nine major activities which are the following:

1. Profile the learner. During enrollment the student shall accomplish the

Student Profile Form (Appendix C) in addition to the usual enrollment

forms. The Student Profile Form captures information on the risk factors

for dropping out.

2. Gather and Update Supporting Data. As the school year progresses, the

subject teachers and class adviser continuously gather documentary data

from DepEd Forms 1 and 2 (class register and monthly report of

enrollment, respectively) and observation data which show tendencies of

the student to drop out, such as the following: a) Absences and tardiness,

b) Declining academic achievement based on periodical exams, etc., c)

Frequent violation of school rules and regulations, d) Non-participation in

class activities, and e) Non-submission of class requirements. The subject

teachers shall furnish the supporting data to the class adviser and decide

whether the student is at risk of dropping out. If the student is not a

SARDO, he will continue with the usual class reinforcement and

enhancement activities.
3. Analyze the Problem. The class adviser, subject teachers, guidance

counselor and the identified at-risk student come together to analyze the

problem, particularly its causes and effects.

4. Conduct the Problem -Solving Conference. If the problem is serious

and are beyond the capability of the classroom stakeholders to resolve,

the class adviser may call for a case conference with the school head,

parents, subject teachers, PTCA representative, student organization and

the SARDO himself.

5. Identify and design the appropriate solution. Based on the results of

the problem- solving conference, the S-DORP Team shall identify and

design the appropriate DORP intervention.

6. Implement the Solution. In support to the regular class program

activities, the S-DORP Team Implements the intervention according to the

designed implementation plan. The class adviser monitors or tracks the

progress of the at-risk student.

7. Assess the Implementation and Results of the Intervention. The S-

DORP Team shall assess the implementation and results of the

intervention. Results of the assessment shall determine whether the

problem of the SARDO was solved or not. If the problem was solved, the

SARDO shall undergo the regular class program.

8. Replan. If the problem of the SARDO is not solved, the S-DORP Team

shall re plan and conduct another cycle until the problem is solved.
 In the case of unenrolled learners, a school dropout is a student who quits

schooling during the school year (simple dropout) or a student who completed a

year level but failed to enroll for the succeeding level. The prevention of simple

dropout is addressed by the DORP Spiral implementation processes. For the un-

enrolled learners, the school shall design and implement interventions that

encourage those learners to go back and complete secondary schooling.

Learners who no longer want to return to the formal system shall be referred to

the Alternative Learning System. The following strategies may be used to get un-

enrolled students go back to the formal or non-formal school: a) Enrollment

Advocacy Campaign - in collaboration with the PTCA, LGU and other

stakeholders, the school undertakes this intervention prior to the enrollment

period; b) House-to-House Enrollment Campaign - The LGU shall spearhead

this campaign just after enrolment when the unenrolled learners are already

known. The S DORP Team prepares a master list of probable enrollees per year

level prior to the enrollment period. Comparison of this master list with the actual

list of enrollments will determine the un-enrolled students. The S-DORP team

can also make use of the LGU spot map to validate and locate the un-enrolled

students; c) Referral to ALS- The school in collaboration with the LGU shall refer

to the ALS the un-enrolled learners who no longer desire to go back to the formal

learning.

3. Monitor and Evaluate Progress of Implementation. Progress Monitoring

and Evaluation (PME) is a sub-stage of the Implementation Phase. PME is a

parallel activity with the actual plan implementation. The purpose of PME is to

track the progress of implementation to determine if the: a) DORP activities are

undertaken as scheduled, b) learning contracts are fulfilled; c) implementation

cost is according to budget; d) implementation processes and procedures are

consistent with policies set by the DORP Council; e) expected participation of

stakeholders is rendered; f) emergent problems and issues are properly

addressed; and g) feedback is immediately utilized to improve performance.

The results of the PME are management decision-making inputs to correct

and/or

improve ongoing DORP implementation.

Phase III: Evaluation

Results monitoring. The following questions shall help the implementers

determine if DORP is producing the desired results: a) Are the EASE, OHSP,

School Initiated Interventions and Other Interventions able to keep the SARDO in

school? Is there improvement in their attendance, class participation, problem-

solving competencies and learning outcomes? b) Is the School DORP Council

functioning as expected? How can it improve its performance? c) Are the

SARDO using the SLP to gain mastery of the basic learning competencies? d) Is

the SARDO tracking system at the school and classroom levels producing the

expected outputs?

The school keeps track of the monthly attendance and dropout rates

through the Monthly Attendance Report (DepEd Form 2). It is the practice of
successful schools to display in a wall chart the monthly status of attendance and

holding power of each class.

The school shall be free to devise a tracking form agreed to by the

stakeholders to meet its information needs and those of the higher authorities.

Teaching Management Efficiency

The United Nations Educational Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO, 2010) claims that despite the cost factor being a barrier to the

achievement of quality education, learning achievement can be greatly improved

at low by making best use of resources already being invested in education.

They further added that teachers are the single most important education

resource in any country and that what students achieve in schools is heavily

influenced by classroom practices and teachers’ skills.

Furthermore, teachers constitute highly relevant part of the human

resource input in the education system. They play the very crucial role of

curriculum interpretation and supervision. In planning, teachers play a key role in

the implementations function of educational planning where their inputs in the

teaching-learning process are key determinants of students’ academic

performance in whatever assessment and examinations they will take – a direct

reflection of their efficiency in work performance.

Drucker (1967) defines efficiency as to how things are done right while

effectiveness relates to doing the right things. In the context of education

however, efficient use of resources – financial or the innate ability of students,

occurs when the observed outputs from education, such as test results, are

produced at the lowest level of resource. In addition, effective use of resources

ensures that the mix of outcomes from education desired by society are

achieved.

Public teachers, on the other hand, are paid by public funds to fulfill its

primary duty – to teach and nourish children with necessary knowledge for them

to become productive citizens. However, if several tasks that are indirectly

related to the fulfilment of their tasks in general, the efficiency of public teachers

might be significantly affected.

In a study conducted on the efficiency of a group training programme on

increasing awareness towards training needs among day-care center’s female

teachers in Karek Province, South of Jordan by Billingsley (1992), and as cited

by Abderahman (2012), various aspects on the dimensions of planning, teaching,

classroom management, and evaluation reflect the extent of teachers’ efficiency.

Aspects under the planning dimension included formulation of lesson plans with

clear objectives and plan that are based on learners’ needs and individual

differences. The use of appropriate teaching methods and materials,

reinforcement, non-verbal communication, and making learning environments as

conducive as possible were identified as key aspects which determine teachers’

efficiency level.
Challenges faced by Teachers

Public teachers in the Philippines has a load of paperwork to accomplish

every school year and are not limited only to their students’ academic

performance. In a study conducted by David. C.J., Albert, J.R., & Vizmanos, J.F.

(2019) entitled “Pressures on Public School Teachers and Implications on

Quality”, teachers are given non-teaching tasks that implicated the suicide of two

public school teachers in 2018. It is worth noting that every public-school teacher

has a regular full-time teaching load and is mandated to devote a maximum of six

hours of actual classroom instruction every day under the Magna Carta for Public

School Teachers. However, several additional administrative or student support

roles are assigned to each teacher that adds to their already full workload. These

include paperwork on seminars and trainings they are tasked to attend and

additional designations in line with student guidance, budget, disaster response,

and health. Teachers are also likewise expected to participate in the

implementation of various government programs such as mass immunizations,

community mapping, conditional cash transfer, deworming, feeding, population

census, antidrug, election, among others. Consequently, these administrative

tasks are not figured into the staffing patterns in public institutions which is

completely opposite with what usually happens in private schools where

administrative staffs are being employed to do enrolment, registration, records,

etc. This means that public school teachers are doing the administrative work – a

situation that while hidden from view of the normal metrics can erode teaching

quality.
 They further discussed that while the number of dropouts is reported by

each teacher at the end of the school year, the exact dropout rate in each class

can be traced back to a teacher. That becomes the basis of the his or her

performance – not the students’ achievement test scores, neither graduation

rates nor enrolment and survival rates. With the teachers getting more intimate

knowledge of their SARDO’s personal challenges, they tend to give them plenty

of space to fail or skip school due to realistic problems that most of them can’t

solve. However, even with this case, teachers still promote them to the next

grade level to avoid any adverse effect to their incentive. In the absence of other

clearer student performance-based measure that can be traced back to the

quality of teaching, dropout rates become the metric for teacher quality.

Review of Related Studies

In a study conducted by Tancinco, N.P. (2016) on the implications to

educational management of teachers’ workload, teachers agree that generally,

overloading increases their income. However, more than half of the respondents

are negatively inclined to thinking that overloading make them ineffective in the

classroom due to the reasons: a) they have lesser time preparing for their

lessons, b) they are overburdened, c) lot of paper works, d) it hampers them from

meeting deadlines of passing/finishing requirements, e) they overlook some

essential things related to their job as a teacher. Moreover, overloading also let

them be emotionally affected by getting angry easily, haphazard outputs,

diminishing of professional growth and lesser time cultivating deep relations with
colleagues. Most importantly, half of the respondents believe that overloading

interferes some of their family duties and affairs.

On the other hand, Ulla, M.B., Barrera, K.I., & Acompanado, M.M. (2017)

conducted a study on the teachers’ perceptions, motivations, and challenges in

the Philippines as researchers, and at the same time classroom teachers. Their

findings show that although they have identified that the teacher-respondents

were positive on the benefits of research to their teaching practice and to their

students’ learning process, they still have several problems to be hurdled to be

more efficient. These include their lack of research knowledge and skills, heavy

teaching loads, and lack of financial support from the school. More so, research

trainings , incentives, and lighter teaching timetable were identified to be what the

teachers’ need instead.

 CHAPTER III

Methodology

This chapter deals with the methods of research that will be used during

the course of the study. It discusses the research design, research locale,

research respondents, and research procedure.

Research Design

In this study, the researcher will use Qualitative Research Method as this

paper will involve identifying and understanding the experiences of public-school

teachers in General Santos City in implementing the Dropout Reduction Program

(DORP).

Specifically, among all various methods in conducting qualitative research,

this study will use Phenomenological methodology. According to Welman and

Kruger (1999), phenomenology is concerned with understanding social and

psychological phenomena from the perspectives of people involved. This is

further supported by Gubrium & Holstein (2000) who stated that

phenomenological design is leaning toward explaining the ways in which ordinary

members of society attend to their everyday lives and their lived experiences.

Moreover, Holloway (1997) remarked that researchers who use phenomenology

are reluctant to prescribe techniques and that (Hycner, 1999) there is an

appropriate reluctance on the part of phenomenologists to focus too much on

specific steps. Hycner goes on to say that under phenomenology, one cannot

impose method on a phenomenon since it would do a great injustice to the

integrity of that phenomenon. Thus, this method is highly appropriate in

conducting a study on identifying the experiences of public-school teachers in

implementing DORP. Moreover, this method could also help qualify each

respondent’s perspectives with others’ which consequently gives the researcher

a deeper analyses, comparison, and evaluation collectively.

To verify the data that will be gathered for analysis, methodological

triangulation will also be used that will involve interview method and focus group

discussions to understand and explain the phenomenon’s components,

antecedents, corollaries, and consequences if there are any. Triangulation, in

whatever form, is based on the assumption that using several data sources,

methods, and even investigators will obviate any bias in a data set or

methodological approach. Thus, by using several different methods in

investigation of a phenomenon, we can increase confidence the researcher will

have in her conclusions (Bryman, 1988), consequently raising the spectre of

confirmation of bias of the paper.

To accomplish this, the researcher will have to use the interview method

and focus group discussions to gather the respondents’ insights using a set of

questionnaires. Furthermore, to ensure reliability, the researcher will be guided

by the ethical considerations as enumerated and explained in the latter part of

this chapter.
Respondents of the Study

The respondents of the study will be sixteen (16) Junior High School

public-school teachers in General Santos City who have ten (10) years of

experience in teaching. The respondents will be chosen using maximum variation

sampling among all the public schools in General Santos City. The public schools

in General Santos City will be divided according to the urbanity of barangays –

urban and non-urban barangays. Eight (8) respondents will come from the public

schools located in non-urban barangays and another eight (8) will come from the

urban barangays.

Research Locale

The study will be conducted in selected public high schools in both the

non-urban and urban barangays in General Santos City. General Santos City has

fifteen (15) urban barangays and eleven (11) non-urban barangays. All of these

barangays were installed with public high schools.

Research Instrument

The research instrument that will be used in the study is a semi-structured

questionnaire. Semi-structured questionnaires will allow the research to ask more

open-ended questions which are rich in detail. In this type of research instrument,

some of the questions and their sequence are determined in advance, while

others evolve as the interview proceeds. Basically, the questionnaire will involve

several main questions that will tackle- 1) the process of DORP implementation,
2) the challenges faced by public-school teachers in implementing DORP, 3) the

effects of implementing DORP to their teaching management efficiency, and 4)

the enhancement mechanisms they think that DORP must be accompanied with

for better implementation. Additional leading questions will be asked during the

interview to make sure that all necessary information is gathered.

The research instrument will be duly validated by a Master Teacher that

has majored in Educational Management and has already 5 years of experience

in educational management.

Furthermore, to ensure the reliability of the data gathering procedure, the

researcher will use a recorder to document the interview that will later on be

transcribed for better reference.

Sampling

To identify the respondents, the researcher will employ maximum variation

sampling. It is a sampling method that seeks to include a wide range of extremes

in a small number of population. Through this, the researcher aims to deliberately

interview a very different selection of people wherein their answer can be close to

the whole population’s. Their responses, sampled in extremes, may serve as

representative of the average respondent. This technique will ensure that only

the qualified participants in a limited population will be part of the study.

The qualified respondents for sampling are those public senior high school

teachers in General Santos City Division who have been teaching for at least five

(5) years since DORP was implemented.

Data Gathering Procedure

Upon gathering and analyzing a substantial number of necessary

literatures on the implementation of DORP and teaching management efficiency,

the research will create a set of questionnaires that will help her gather the data

of the study. Then, the researcher will write an official letter addressed to the

principals of all the chosen respondents for their cooperative participation.

Importantly, to ensure the security of tenure of the teachers, no information will

be disclosed during the analysis of data up to its publishing. In lieu of, the

researcher will let each respondent sign a Respondent Confidentiality

Agreement.

When all are set, the researcher will arrange a schedule for interview for

each public-school teacher. During the interview, the researcher will let the

respondents know that the whole interview process will be documented with the

use of a recorder to sustain the validity of the data.

Data Analysis

The data that will be gathered after the interview will be transcribed with

the aid of a digital recorder. The transcription will then be analyzed using

triangulation method. Since the researcher will use interview method and focus

group discussions, both data sets will be analyzed independently, and then will

be compared to find out the existing relative themes and concepts. To address

problem number one, the researcher will look for the means and ways of

implementation of DORP by the teachers in the transcription. Then, the

challenges and success stories of the teachers will also be identified based from

the interview. To answer problems number three and four, the researcher will find

answers related to the effects of the implementation of DORP to the teaching

management efficiency of teachers and how DORP can be improved. Even

though the questionnaire will be semi-structured, the researcher will ask the

questions in a logical manner for easier analysis and review.

 BIBLIOGRAPHY

Abderahman, M.A. (2012) “The Efficiency of a Group Training Programme on

increasing awareness towards training needs among Day Centres’ female
teachers” in Al-Karak province, south of Jordan. European Journal of
Social Sciences Vol. 28 (4) pp. 452 - 464

Bryman, A. (1988). Quantity and quality in social research. London: Unwin

Hyman.

DepEd (2008). Dropout reduction program handbook. Bureau of Secondary

Education, Department of Education, Philippines

Drucker PF (1967). The Effective Executive. Heinemann: London.

Gubrium, J. F., & Holstein, J. A. (2000). Analyzing interpretive practice. In N. K.

Denzin & Y.S. Lincoln (Eds.), Handbook of qualitative research (2nd ed.,
pp. 487-508). Thousand Oaks, CA: Sage.

Holloway, I. (1997). Basic concepts for qualitative research. Oxford: Blackwell

Science.

Maluyo, F.J., 2019. Improving functional literacy in the Philippines. World Vision.
First Published July 16, 2018/ Updated January 24, 2019

Tancinco, N.P., 2016. Status of teachers' workload and performance in state

universities of Eastern Visayas: implications to educational management.
College of Education Naval State University-Main Campus, P.I, Garcia St.
Naval, Biliran Province 6560, Philippines

Turner, P. & Turner, S., 2007. Triangulation in practice. Center for Interaction
Design, School of Computing, Edinburgh Napier University, Edinburgh,
United Kingdom.

Ulla, M. B., Barrera, K. B., & Acompanado, M. M. (2017). Philippine Classroom

Teachers as Researchers: Teachers’ Perceptions, Motivations, and
Challenges. Australian Journal of Teacher Education, 42(11). Retrieved
from http://ro.ecu.edu.au/ajte/vol42/iss11/4
UNESCO, 2019. http://uis.unesco.org/country/PH

UNESCO, 2010. Reaching the Marginalized EFA/Global Monitoring Report

2010. Paris: UNESCO

Welman, J. C., & Kruger, S. J. (1999). Research methodology for the business
and administrative sciences. Johannesburg, South Africa: International
Thompson.