Bureau of Alternative Learning System
Bureau of Alternative Learning System
Department of Education
Omnibus Policy Guidelines for ALS
Final Version
Submitted by:
Kathryn V. Pauso
Policy TA
ALS-TWG, BESRA
November 2010
Contents
1. Introduction 3
2. Background 4
2.1. Organizational Precedents of BALS 4
2.2. Legislative and Policy Frameworks of ALS 6
2.3. Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda 9
3. BALS Vision and Mission 15
4. Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Governance 16
4.1. Governance Policy Thrust 1: Policy Statement on Informal Education 17
4.2. Governance Policy Thrust 2: Re-organization of BALS 20
4.3. Governance Policy Thrust 3: BALS Human Resource Systems and Processes 29
4.4. Governance Policy Thrust 4: Human Resource Capability Building Plan 35
4.5. Governance Policy Thrust 5: Institutionalizing Network Links Between BALS and LGUs 38
Governance Policy Thrust 5: Institutionalizing Network Links Between BALS and LGUs 39
4.6. Governance Policy Thrust 6: BALS Organizational Quality Assurance and Accountability Framework 40
4.7. Governance Policy Thrust 7: Restructured Service Providers Contracting Scheme 55
5. Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Advocacy 56
5.1. Advocacy Policy Thrust 1: BALS Advocacy Framework 58
5.2. Advocacy Policy Thrust 2: BALS Communications Plan 64
6. Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluation 65
6.1. Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Thrust: Integrated ALS M&E Framework 67
7. Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Assessment and Certification 69
7.1. Assessment and Certification Policy Thrust: ALS Assessment and Certification Framework 70
8. Conclusion 74
8.1. Summary of Omnibus Policy 74
8.2. BALS Roadmap 76
9. Annexes 77
9.1. Bibliography 77
9.2. Annex 1 78
9.3. Annex 2 80
9.4. Annex 3 82
Introduction
Defining the scope and purpose of Alternative Learning System (ALS) in the Philippines is still an evolving process. According to a paper by Doronilla, there are two strands of education tradition in the Philippines – the mass-delivered national education system and the real life context-based informal education.[1] The paper argued that it is this gap between the knowledge imposed in the formal system and the lessons learned in the family and community that makes academic education irrelevant to the lives of the Filipino learners.
In this regard, both informal education and non-formal education, being sub-components of the Alternative Learning System, occupy a strategic place in the Philippine national development thrusts because they have the potential to develop a more context-appropriate and socially inclusive Filipino basic education system.
At present, capturing the nature of ALS in the country produces diverse results. Pockets of practices have been developed over time by individual communities or social organizations. The challenge now for the Philippine government and the Department of Education (DepED) is to facilitate the growth of ALS in the country by providing and strengthening the institutional support to the Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS).
The Bureau of Alternative Learning System (formerly the Bureau of Non-Formal Education) has been in place even before the 1987 Philippine Constitution. As an office, it was intended to help Filipino learners gain employment. However, with the expansion of its scope from non-formal education to alternative learning system, it becomes necessary to realign its organizational structure and systems to effectively perform its mandate.
The Omnibus ALS Policy Guidelines tells the story of the growth of ALS in the Philippines as reflected in the organizational development of BALS. Unlike other entrenched government agencies, BALS is in an exciting phase of development. Most of its concepts are still for discussion. Practices and processes are still being tested. This policy document is the intended to reflect the next steps in the institutionalization of ALS as an integral part of basic education and one that is equal and parallel to formal basic education.
The Omnibus Guidelines for ALS will serve to standardize practices, processes, and procedures in the delivery of ALS programs in the Philippines. As a background for the Omnibus Guidelines, the succeeding discussion narrates the legislative and policy frameworks that propelled the development of BALS as an organization and ALS as a legitimate learning system in Philippine basic education. The background also explains the relationship of those policy and legislative measures to the goals of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), with some detailed discussion on the ALS component of BESRA categorized as Key Reform Thrust 4.
Background
1 Organizational Precedents of BALS
1. 1936 to 1990
Commonwealth Act No. 80 of 1936 which created the Office of Adult Education under the Department of Instruction called for the inclusion of an adult education stream in the national education system. The thrust of the Office of Adult Education was vocational instruction.
In 1947, the Office of Adult Education was changed into the Adult and Community Education Division (ACED) of the Bureau of Public Schools. The Community Education component aimed at providing assistance in post-war rebuilding efforts. The Division intended to integrate the education of the child with that of the adult towards home and community betterment, as well as to utilize community resources in instruction in order to make school learning more responsive and related to the realities of life. It also sought to aid in the development of children, youth, and adults in order to become useful citizens through participation in democratic life. However, in 1969, ACED was abolished and its functions were subsumed under the National Manpower Youth Council.[2]
In 1977, the re-assimilation of the Non-Formal Education (NFE) in the education bureaucracy was again formalized through a Presidential Decree, enacting the creation of the position of the Undersecretary of Education, Culture and Sports for Non-Formal Education.[3]
After EDSA I, Executive Order No. 117 of 1987, decreed the creation of the Bureau of Non-Formal Education (BNFE). The Bureau focused on teaching-learning in non-formal settings for the marginalized sectors.
2. World Conference on Education for All, 1990 (Jomtien, Thailand)
The World Conference on Education for All held in Jomtien, Thailand in 1990 introduced a new approach to learning that focused on measurable learning achievement, rather than mere class attendance or participation. The primary purpose of the meeting was to address the basic learning needs of all children, youth, and adults. In this context, basic learning needs or competencies comprise both learning tools and the basic learning content required by the human person. As a result, the definition of literacy was expanded to go beyond the 3Rs, and encompass other knowledge, problem solving, and life skills. Education for All (EFA) aimed at promoting empowerment of learners and their access to a rapidly changing world through support of independent functioning and coping with practical problems or choices. EFA also emphasized the need to develop their ability to manage functional tasks and demands, and foster learning through personal experiences in diverse informal learning situations.
3. Philippines Non-Formal Education Project
The Philippines Non-Formal Education Project, an Asian Development Bank (ADB) supported project was implemented from 1995-2000 based on a rationale stating that there is a link between illiteracy and poverty, and that investing in NFE is imperative to enable the poor to improve their welfare and economic productivity. NFE was viewed as promoting a flexible, cost-effective and viable strategy for poor OSY to improve their educational chances and entry into the labor market.
The Philippines Non-Formal Education Project utilized an innovative implementation approach that emphasized stakeholders’ participation, decentralization of activities, and interagency collaboration among government and nongovernment stakeholders. The Project consisted of three (3) interrelated components: (i) the functional education and literacy program (FELP), (ii) the continuing education program (CEP), and (iii) the capacity-building program (CBP). FELP facilitated the support community-based literacy programs for illiterates and semi-illiterates, while CEP fostered the establishment of an alternative learning system (ALS), with an assessment scheme called accreditation and equivalency (A&E) which tested the competencies of OSY and other candidates entering the learning programs. CBP, on the other hand, helped to strengthen of the capacity of Philippine bureaucracy to implement NFE in community/village centers. For the pilot implementation, the project targeted rural areas in 24 provinces in nine regions. Provinces were selected on the basis of composite ratings of highest illiteracy rate, lowest elementary school enrollment rate, and high incidence of poverty.[4]
2 Legislative and Policy Frameworks of ALS
4. Republic Act No. 9155 of 2001
The 1987 Philippine Constitution states that it is one of the duties of the State to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education for all and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.”[5] Republic Act 9155 or An Act Instituting a Framework of Governance for Basic Education, Establishing Authority and Accountability, Renaming the Department of Education, Culture and Sports as the Department of Education and For Other Purposes was drafted to uphold that Constitutional provision by improving governance structure of basic education system in the country. RA 9155 is also known as the “Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001.”
RA 9155 states that the goal of basic education is to provide both “youth and adult learners with the skills, knowledge, and values they need to become caring, self-reliant, productive, and patriotic citizens.”[6] RA 9155 aims to contribute to achieving this goal by:
a. Providing the framework for the governance of basic education;
b. Defining the roles and responsibilities and provide resources to the field offices which shall implement educational programs in the communities served;
c. Making schools and learning centers the most important vehicle for the teaching and learning of national values;
d. Ensuring schools and learning centers receive the kind of focused attention they deserve and educational programs take into account the interests of all members of the community;
e. Enabling schools and learning centers to reflect values of the community;
f. Encouraging local initiatives for the improvements of schools and learning centers; and
g. Establishing schools and learning centers as facilities where schoolchildren are able to learn a range of core competencies prescribed or where the out-of-school youth and adult learners are provided alternative learning programs and receive accreditation for at least the equivalent of a high school education.[7]
RA 9155 also defined several critical features of ALS such as:
a. Alternative Learning System (ALS) is a parallel learning system to provide a viable alternative to the existing formal education instruction. It encompasses both the non-formal and informal sources of knowledge and skills;
b. Informal Education (INFED) is a lifelong process of learning by which every person acquires and accumulates knowledge, skills, attitudes and insights from daily experiences at home, at work, at play, and from life itself.
c. Non-Formal Education (NFE) is an organized, systematic, educational activity carried outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to a segment of the population.
d. Learner is an individual seeking basic literacy skills and functional life skills or support services for the improvement of the quality of his/her life.
e. Learning Facilitator is the key learning support person who is responsible for supervising and facilitating the learning process and activities of the learner.
f. Learning Center is a physical space to house learning resources and facilities of a learning program for out-of-school youth and adults. It is a venue for face-to-face and multi-media learning and activities and other learning opportunities for community development and improvement of the people’s quality of life.
It is shown that the first four sections of RA 9155 clearly recognizes the role of ALS as complement to the formal education system in order to achieve the stated goal of quality education for all. However, the succeeding chapters of the law delved more on the implementation and governance structures of the formal education system. It will be in the Implementing Rules and Regulations of RA 9155 where the intent to operationalize ALS was mentioned:
Section 12.1: Operationalization of Alternative Learning System. To effectively operationalize the alternative learning system in the elementary, secondary, and special needs education, the Secretary shall come up with guidelines whenever necessary.[8]
Since the discourse on ALS is still evolving and maturing at the international level, the same is true in the Philippines. This is reflected in the ‘whenever necessary’ clause in terms of policy development for ALS, indicating that its mandate, parameters, and structures are still evolving.
5. Executive Order No. 356 of 2004
The Bureau of Alternative Learning System (BALS) of the Department of Education (DepED) in its present form was created in September 2004 under Executive Order No. 356 – Renaming the Bureau of Non-Formal Education to Bureau of Alternative Learning System.
EO 356 reiterated the definition of ALS and it also directed BALS to “provide a systematic and flexible approach to reach all types of learners outside of the formal school system.”[9] More importantly, EO 365 specified the mandate for the renamed Bureau, as follows:
a. Address the learning needs of the marginalized groups of the population including the deprived, depressed, and underserved citizens;
b. Coordinate with various agencies for skills development to enhance and ensure the learners’ employability, efficiency, productivity, and competitiveness in the labor market;
c. Ensure the expansion of access to educational opportunities for learners of different interests, capabilities, demographic characteristics, and socio-economic origins and status; and
d. Promote certification and accreditation through alternative learning programs – both non-formal and informal in nature.
EO 365 is a policy initiative to address the gap in RA 9155 – the operationalization of ALS. EO 365 expanded the scope of the Bureau from only non-formal education (NFE) to include also informal education (INFed) and herein called alternative learning system (ALS). It also specified the target beneficiaries of BALS namely, ‘marginalized’ meaning those not served and not reached by the formal education system, regardless of age, gender, economic status, ethnicity, religion, etc.
6. Philippine Education For All (EFA) National Action Plan of 2006
The 2006 Philippine EFA National Action Plan was designed with the end goal of achieving functional literacy for everyone.[10] To achieve this goal the plan incorporates ALS-related commitments such as the following:
a. Develop and strengthen BALS and mandate it to serve as the government agency to guide the development of the country’s ALS.
b. Make available public funds for ALS programs of GOs and NGOs subject to the guidelines of BALS.
c. Build and develop a constituency for ALS development.
d. Conduct research and studies to test cost-effective options for delivering quality ALS.
e. Undertake an inventory of available resources in localities for literacy interventions outside the school system.
f. Ensure a vigorous and credible system for reliably assessing, measuring, validating and communicating competencies acquired through NFE and informal education.[11]
The EFA 2015 plan established the crucial role of BALS as steward in the still developing discourse on ALS. Several systemic improvements were prioritized in order to facilitate the fulfillment of that mandate.
3 Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda
In 2006, DepED formulated the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), a comprehensive package of policy reforms that are expected to create critical changes to accelerate, broaden, deepen and sustain the improvement of basic education in the country. Bautista, Bernardo, and Ocampo (2008) described BESRA as both ambitious and admirable because of its: (1) sector wide-scope, (2) extensive breadth of analysis and recommendations, and (3) adoption of good practices drawn from past and present education reform frameworks, (4) use of solid research data from previous studies and, (5) comprehensive scope of Key Reform Thrusts that indicate desire to address problem areas in a concerted manner.[12]
BESRA diverges from previous similar wide-scale initiatives like Basic Education Assistance in Mindanao (BEAM) or Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) by adopting “the shift from education as acquisition of knowledge to education as the learning of key competencies – abilities both cognitive and non-cognitive – that enable successful implementation of tasks with complex requirements.”[13] This change in direction further precluded the special attention needed by ALS.
Consequently, Key Result Thrust (KRT) 4 of BESRA was formulated to specifically focus on and address the various ALS issues and concerns. Its creation reflects the recognition of the need to address the long-standing marginalization of BALS, its programs and clients in both policies and practices of DepED.
The KRT 4/ ALS TWG chair is BALS Director Carolina S. Guerrero. It has sixteen (16) TWG members. Earlier, the BALS and the ALS-TWG conducted a series of workshops, focus group discussions, interviews, etc. intended to surface accurate information on the situation and needed policies of ALS. These are captured in the Draft Omnibus Guidelines version 4 which is presented as the output of this technical assistance.[14]
This draft document identified five key priority areas for reform. These priority areas are: (1) Curriculum and Learning Resources, (2) Monitoring and Evaluation, and Assessment of Learning and Certification, (3) Governance, (4) Advocacy, and (5) Policy and Research. Comparing these priority areas to the strategies system improvements and capital building of the Philippine EFA National Action Plan of 2015, similarities and continuing themes should be noted between the two initiatives.
By October 2009, ALS-TWG with the support from BALS Central Office undertook the procurement and selection of Technical Assistants (TA) to facilitate achievement of KRT 4. Five TAs were selected to undertake tasks as defined in the ToR drafted by the ALS-TWG. These TAs are the following:
a. Governance, Capacity Building, and Systems Improvement: Dr. Alexander Flor,
b. Monitoring and Evaluation, and Assessment of Learning and Certification: Teresita Medado,
c. Curriculum and Learning Resources: Dr. Alfredo Santos,
d. Advocacy: Adela Espina,
e. Policy and Research: Kathryn Pauso.
The BESRA ALS-TWG is another step forward in the continuing institutionalization of ALS in the country. It moves beyond macro-level legislation (RA 9155 and EO 365) and strategic planning (EFA 2015 Action Plan) as it formulates the corresponding necessary guidelines to strengthen BALS as an institution entrusted to steward the development of ALS in the Philippines and address the national goal of universal access to quality education.
7. TORs of ALS TA for BESRA
The BALS Omnibus Policy Guidelines is the result of the five areas of consultancy and policy work from October 2009 to March 2010. It contains specific program and policy recommendation surfaced from both the TAs’ work and the BALS’ earlier studies to improve the ALS implementation in the country. These policies are clustered according to the five priority areas of (1) Curriculum and Learning Resources, (2) Governance, Capability Building and Systems Improvement (3) Monitoring and Evaluation, and Assessment of Learning and Certification (4) Advocacy, and (5) Policy and Research.
8. Methodology
Cognizant of the importance of engaging various stakeholders in the entire development process of the Omnibus Policy Guidelines and aware of the wide variations of definitions and practices characteristic of ALS implementation in the country, the ALS-TAs adopted participatory strategies to generate information which were further subjected to at least three layers of drafting and validation with the following groups: (1) ALS Stakeholders, Partners, Implementers, and Beneficiaries, (2) ALS BESRA Technical Assistants, and (3) BESRA ALS-TWG members.
1. ALS Stakeholders, Partners, Implementers, and Beneficiaries
Even prior to the funding assistance from BESRA, the BALS Central Office, through its own initiative, already mobilized several workshops and produced the first drafts of the ALS Omnibus Policy Guidelines. Representatives from BALS Central Office, ALS Field Implementers and Partners (DepED and Non-DepED), ALS stakeholders and learners were invited to participate in the policy-development workshops. (List of participants in the last validation workshop, Appendix A)
The Draft Guidelines captured the current situations and challenges of ALS, and reflected the proposed solutions through appropriate standards and policies. The Draft Guidelines served as basis for the design of the terms of engagement of the ALS- TAs.
2. BESRA ALS TAs
The five ALS TAs engaged were tasked to provide their expertise in order to validate the contents and proposals in the Draft Guidelines, and more importantly, to improve the Draft Guidelines. The TAs undertook their separate 6-month engagements based on their individual Terms of References designed and provided by the ALS-TWG.
The table below summarizes the deliverables, activities, content, and status of the five TAs engaged by the ALS – TWG.
Table 1.0
BESRA ALS TAs’ Engagement
|Area |Deliverables |Process |Content Description |Status |
|Governance, |Inception and Immersion |Immersion, Observation, Review of Documents, |Contains proposed policies |Done |
|Capability Building, |Report |Report Preparation |on Reorganization, Policy | |
|and Systems | | |Statement on Informal | |
|Improvement | | |Education, Networking, | |
| | | |Accountability Framework, | |
|TA: Dr. Alexander | | |Regularization of ALS | |
|Flor | | |Implementers, and Human | |
| | | |Resource Development, | |
| |Draft Report: Comprehensive |Field Work, Key Informant Interviews, Focus | | |
| |Reform and Guidelines in |Group Discussions, Agency Visit, Draft Report| | |
| |Organization and Governance |Preparation | | |
| |of ALS | | | |
| |Second Draft Report: |Validation by Online Sharing, Draft Revisions| | |
| |Comprehensive Reform and | | | |
| |Guidelines in Organization | | | |
| |and Governance of ALS | | | |
| |Final Report: Comprehensive |Regional Consultation, Presentation to BALS | | |
| |Reform and Guidelines in |and TWG members, Report Finalization | | |
| |Organization and Governance | | | |
| |of ALS | | | |
| |Draft Capability Building |Observation, Review of Documents, Field Work,|Contains Hiring/ Promotion | |
| |Program Report |Focus Group Discussions, Draft Report |Competencies, HR | |
| | |Preparation |Development Plan, Training | |
| | | |Pool Institutionalization | |
| | | |Plan, BSAE - GCALS - MCALS | |
| | | |Institutionalization Plan | |
| |Final Capability Building |Validation by Online Sharing, Regional | | |
| |Program Report |Consultation, Presentation to BALS and TWG | | |
| | |members , Report Finalization | | |
|Monitoring and |Inception Report and First |Immersion, Review of Related Literature, |Intends to facilitate the |Done |
|Evaluation, |Draft Report: ALS Monitoring|Preparation of Monitoring Scheme |building of a sound | |
|Assessment and |Scheme | |information mechanism on | |
|Certification | | |ALS through the development| |
| | | |of an integrated Monitoring| |
|TA: Ms. Teresita | | |and Evaluation scheme. | |
|Medado | | | | |
| |Draft M&E Framework and |e-Service Design Review, Review and |Utilizes logical framework | |
| |Research Design for Impact |Enhancement of Survey Forms, Drafting of the |approach to capture NFE | |
| |Evaluation |M&E Framework, Validation M&E Framework and |intervention, underlying | |
| | |Forms, Focus Group Discussions |assumptions, and the M&E | |
| | | |activities to be | |
| | | |undertaken. | |
| |Draft M&E Manual and Draft |Workshop, Write Manual and the M&E 5-year |(1) Compilation of revised | |
| |Five-Year M&E Plan |Plan |M&E Forms and (2) Provide a| |
| | | |5-year plan for BALS to | |
| | | |manage and implement a | |
| | | |nationwide M&E operations. | |
| |Draft Learning Assessment |Review of Literature, Review of Good | | |
| |Manual |Practices, Preparation of Draft Assessment | | |
| | |Manual | | |
| |Case Study Report on |Data Gathering, Validation |Contains case study on | |
| |Effective Assessment | |current best practices on | |
| |Measures | |ALS assessment in the | |
| | | |Philippines | |
| |Final M&E Assessment and |Final Report and Dissemination |Contains a compilation of | |
| |Certification Report | |finalized versions of the | |
| | | |previous deliverables | |
|Advocacy |Inception Report |Review of literature and existing materials, |Contains observations and |Done |
| | |Research—online and offline |insights on ALS operations | |
|TA: Ms. Adela Espina | |Immersion, Networking with Partners, Focus |and an initial proposal for| |
| | |Group Discussions, Informal Survey |an advocacy strategy for | |
| | | |ALS | |
| |Advocacy Plan |Synthesis of Data Gathered as inputs to |Indicates a plan on 'what | |
| | |advocacy planning, Drafting the Advocacy |to talk about, who’s | |
| | |Plan, Presentation of the Draft Advocacy Plan|talking about it, to whom | |
| | |via Forum, Revision of the Draft Advocacy |it is told, and where and | |
| | |Plan |how it is told' | |
| |Prototype Advocacy Materials|Development of prototypes for the following: |Contains a prototype print | |
| | |--Interest groups advocacy |and video advocacy | |
| | |--Media advocacy |materials | |
| | |--Bureacratic advocacy | | |
| | |Pilot-Testing of Prototype Materials and | | |
| | |Presentation of results of the pilot to: | | |
| | |--Select Interest groups | | |
| | |--Select Media persons | | |
| | |--Bureacracy | | |
| | |Finalization of Prototype Materials and | | |
| | |advocacy plan based on feedback from pilot | | |
| |Final Advocacy Report |Finalization of the Advocacy Plan and |Contains a compilation of | |
| | |Recommendation for a Legislative Agenda and |finalized versions of the | |
| | |Policy Reform |Advocacy Plan, Advocacy | |
| | | |Materials, and Legislative | |
| | | |Agenda | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
| | | | | |
|Curriculum and |Inception Report |Environmental Scanning |Engagement Abrogated |
|Learning Resources | | | |
| | | | |
|TA: Dr. Alfredo | | | |
|Santos | | | |
| |Draft Curriculum Framework |a) Review of existing ALS Curriculum (Old and| |
| | |Core) b) Review core competencies and core | |
| | |modules | |
| | |c) Determine which modules address which core| |
| | |competencies | |
| | |• Conduct Focus Group Discussions and | |
| | |workshops | |
| |Core Competencies for new | | |
| |ALS Programs | | |
| |Design for new ALS Programs | | |
|Policy and Research |Inception Report |Field visits, interviews, review of |Contains research plan, |Done |
| | |literature, planning meetings, drafting of |engagement schedule, | |
|TA: Ms Kathryn Pauso | |inception report |insights and observations | |
| | | |from the immersion, and | |
| | | |initial recommendations | |
| |Documentation of Good |Key informant interviews, focus group |Case studies of good | |
| |Practices on ALS |discussions, review of documents, case |practices on ALS | |
| |Implementation |writing, validation workshops |implementation | |
| |Documentation of Good | | | |
| |Practices on ALS Governance | | | |
| |Documentation of Good | | | |
| |Practices on ALS Contracting| | | |
| |Scheme | | | |
| |Documentation of Good | | | |
| |Practices of ALS Learners | | | |
| |Omnibus Policy Guidelines |Drafting, validation workshops, presentation |Consolidates the proposals|Done |
| | |to BALS and TWG, finalization of the Omnibus |for the ALS components | |
| | |Policy Guidelines | | |
It should be noted that several policy development methods were utilized by the different TAs, depending on the nature of their engagement. However, the Curriculum TA was unable to complete the terms of his engagement and his deliverables are left unfulfilled. In order to facilitate the technical work of the TAs, as well as to expose the BALS staff to the work processes and work ethic required in each component, Director Guerrero assigned staff from BALS to partner with the TAs aside from the two project officers from EDPITAF whose main function is to assist the TAs in their administrative needs.
3. BESRA ALS TWG
The BESRA ALS-TWG serves as the last layer in the development and finalization of the Omnibus Policy Guidelines. Each TA was required to present his/her major deliverables/outputs to the ALS-TWG for further comments and endorsement to the BESRA TCT. The ALS-TWG consisted of representatives from 16 government and non-government organizations. The ALS-TWG brings in the advantage of a macro-perspective on the BALS Omnibus Policy Guidelines. This also provides an opportunity for the members (e.g. TESDA, NEDA, and CHED) to be informed and take on a more active participation on matters involving ALS.
9. Structure of Omnibus ALS Policy Guidelines
This document contains the outcome of an iterative process of consultation and validation among the three significant groups namely: (1) the ALS Stakeholders, Implementers, and Beneficiaries (2) the BESRA ALS-TWG TAs, and (3) the BESRA ALS TWG. The programs and policies forwarded in this document are intended to strengthen BALS as an institution and ALS as a credible learning system by pushing in the reforms in the priority areas of Governance and system improvement in its identified Monitoring and Evaluation, Advocacy, and Policy.
The consolidation of this document was undertaken by the Policy TA, Kathryn Pauso, in consultation and agreement with the ALS-TWG Chair, Director Guerrero, the other ALS Technical Assistants, and the endorsement of the ALS-TWG members.
Statement of BALS Vision and Mission
Vision:
The BALS envisions itself to be the best producer of lifelong learners among Filipinos.
Mission:
In partnership with other producers of learning, the BALS will develop exemplary programs and open learning opportunities to achieve multiple literacies for all.
Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Governance
The first part of the Omnibus Policy Guidelines describes the legal and policy frameworks that shaped the development and institutionalization of BALS. RA 9155 recognized the role of the ALS as a parallel educational system that serves as another option for learners outside of the formal school system. EO 365 formalized this role by expanding the mandate of the former Bureau of Non-Formal Education from vocational and equivalency testing to include informal education. The Philippine EFA 2015 National Action Plan drafted in 2006 identified key actions that BALS has to undertake in order to meet the country’s educational thrust of universal functional literacy.
The past 6 years saw the continuing growth for BALS. As a Bureau, it is still in the process of institutionalizing its scope (ALS) as well as identifying and segmenting its target beneficiaries (out-of-school learners). This process of rapid organizational development surfaced the need for subsequent re-alignment of governance structures in order for BALS to effectively fulfill its mandate.
Currently, the organizational structure of BALS mirrors that of the formal system as defined in RA 9155. In fact, aside from the organic BALS Central Office plantilla items, most of the ALS field implementers were only designated from formal schools. The current situation wherein BALS structure and personnel are mere extension, sometimes only an afterthought, of the formal school system raises different problems in implementation.
The thrust of the Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Governance is to define the critical management and operational systems that accurately capture the unique nature of ALS and effectively support its implementation.
1 Governance Policy Thrust 1: Policy Statement on Informal Education
Rationale
Preamble
Education comes in three modes: formal; non-formal; and informal. According to Philip Coombs formal education is the established schooling system from primary, secondary, tertiary to graduate education. Non-formal education is any systematic educational activity carried outside the framework of the formal system to provide selected types of learning to a segment of the population. Lastly, informal education is the lifelong process of learning by which every person acquires and accumulates knowledge, skills, attitudes and insights from daily experiences at home, at work, at play and from life itself.
While formal basic education (FBE) is the purview of other bureaus under the Department of Education, the Bureau of Alternative Learning System has been mandated under Republic Act Number 9155 to cover both non-formal education (NFE) and informal education (InfEd).
Situating the Bureau’s Mandate
The Bureau believes that formal basic education, non-formal education and informal education are not mutually exclusive. These three modes have always interfaced with one another conceptually and operationally. Deviating from the Coombs definition, true lifelong learning is not merely confined to InfEd but encompasses all three modes.
Lifelong learning may be represented by three interfacing circles, each one representing a specific mode.
[pic]
Each mode has its own interface with the two others. The area of mutual interface may be regarded as the space where optimum learning occurs since the three modes reinforce one another.
The Bureau submits that current thinking on the philosophy of education is leading to the convergence of these three circles and enlarges areas of mutual interface. Nonetheless, the Bureau understands that its coverage is NFE and InfEd. There are areas of interfaces with other DepEd bureaus. These interfaces cannot be avoided and should not be regarded as duplications of efforts but as areas of coordination and sharing of resources.
Governance Policy Thrust: Informal Education
10. BALS Policy on InfEd
Educational experts argue that eighty percent of a person’s stock knowledge comes from informal sources. It shall then be the policy of the Bureau of Alternative Learning System to encourage and support informal education.
11. Features of InfEd
The Bureau regards the following features as features of informal education:
• Informal learning is minimally invasive and has no individual teacher.
• Informal learning is ubiquitous.
• Informal learning makes formal learning more effective.
• Informal learning is only assessed or accredited after the fact or ex-post facto.
12. BALS InfEd Mandate
It shall be the Bureau’s policy to initiate, develop, monitor and evaluate informal education programs that enable marginalized groups to access learning resources online and offline. The Bureau’s InfEd Programs may:
• develop content that will be independently accessed by learners;
• design and develop innovative courseware such as online games and wikis for informal learning;
• initiate accreditation and equivalency programs for informal learning;
• develop assessment criteria and methodologies assuring that the learner has had adequate exposure to informal learning sources to allow him/her employment or formal educational opportunities;
• make available courseware accessible for informal learning; and
• establish educational social networks for informal learning.
2 Governance Policy Thrust 2: Re-organization of BALS
Rationale
ALS follows a set of principles different from those of the formal system. This divergence in principles extends to differences in learning session design, delivery modes, and other elements. Because of this, ALS Field Implementers require different sets of competencies need different kinds of resource support in performing their job. However, the existing legal framework of BALS is still the RA 9155, which primarily designed a structure for the formal school system.
This creates conflict at all levels of the Department. Some of the problems encountered in the field (as mentioned in the Draft Guidelines) are the following:
• Some District ALS Coordinators (DALSC) are given teaching loads in the formal system
• The existing performance appraisal does not cover indicators (specific to ALS).
• ALS implementers are not treated/ recognized in the same manner as the formal education teachers.
• ALS Mobile Teachers (MT) are included in the computation of pupil: teacher ratio.
• There is no uniform standard for granting service credits to MT and DALSC for services rendered outside of official time.
• MT entry salary is low (SG 10).
• Some Principals also double as DALSC.
• Existing performance appraisal system for MT and DALSC does not capture the range of tasks they do.
• Some MTs and DALSCs are not considered for promotion.
• There is a need for continuous upgrading and professional enhancement of ALS implementers.
• There is a need to professionalize Learning Facilitators.
• No plantilla item for DALSCs
Governance Policy Thrust: Re-organization and Rationalization of BALS
13. BALS Central Office
The Bureau will be reorganized into the following divisions:
• Quality Assurance Division
o M&E
o MIS
o Assessment and Certification
• Policy, Planning & Resource Mobilization Division
o Research
o Networking
o Advocacy
• Program Development Division
o Resource Development
o Capacity Building
o Methodologies of Learning
14. BALS Manpower Requirements
Many ALS implementors are of the opinion that the ideal ratio between the number of mobile teachers and the number of barangays is 1:1. Assuming that there are 42,008 barangays in the Philippines, the Bureau requires 42,008 mobile teachers with the 1:1 ratio in mind, a little more than ten percent of the total number of public school teachers. A ratio of 10:1 FBE and ALS teachers appears to be reasonable. However, many believe that this figure is unrealistic and will never pass the Department of Budget and Management and the Civil Service Commission as well.
If we cut this requirement by half, then, with a ratio of one mobile teacher for every two barangays (1:2), the Bureau will require a total of 21,004 mobile teachers. If it will not be possible to hire the ideal number of MTs because of budgetary constraints, then their ranks should at least be increased to a ratio of 1:5 or equivalent to some 8351 mobile teachers nationwide.
There should also be at least one DALSC per education district and one ALS Education Supervisor (ES) per division which totals 80 ESs nationwide. This would result to some 10,000 regular field staff of BALS.
15. Job Descriptions of ALS Field Implementers: Region
|Personnel |Job Description |
|A. REGION |1. Disseminate national, regional plans and special programs |
| |2. Develop and implement regional projects in the area of specialization |
|Chief |3. Monitor and evaluate regional learning outcomes in the area of specialization |
|Assistant Chief |4. Design and conduct research studies in coordination with the overall program of the region |
|Education Supervisor II |5. Disseminate research results and recommend actions on use of research and analysis of MIS |
| |regional data |
| |6. Provide technical assistance in planning and research |
| | |
| |Curriculum Implementation and Evaluation |
| |7. Provide technical assistance to Division Supervisors in areas such as curriculum, instruction, |
| |INSET, evaluation of learning outcomes and research |
| |8. Organize and conduct region wide In-Service Training (INSET) in the area of specialization |
| |9. Develop prototype curriculum guides and instructional materials |
| |10. Document, evaluate and disseminate innovations and best practices |
| |11. Develop test materials for region-wide tests |
| |12.Evaluate/recommend special programs/projects to improve teaching and learning process |
| |13. Monitor progress in learning outcomes across Divisions |
| | |
| |Human Resources Development/ Management |
| |14. Screen/nominate applicants for local and foreign scholarships and trainings |
| |15. Recommend areas for INSET and staff development |
| |16. Monitor utilization of staff trained |
16. Job Descriptions of ALS Field Implementers: Division
|Personnel |Job Description |
|B. DIVISION |1. Develop, implement and monitor Division Education Development Plan (DEDP) in the area of |
| |specialization |
|Education Supervisor I |2. Conduct action research to improve teaching and learning in the subject area |
| |3. Disseminate research results and recommend use of results |
| | |
| |Curriculum Implementation and Evaluation |
| |4. Visit CLC for curriculum supervision |
| |5. Provide technical assistance to school heads on instructional leadership in the area of |
| |specialization |
| |6.Formulate and conduct INSET programs for schools/schools clusters in the area of specialization |
| |7. Monitor usefulness of textbooks/modules and instructional materials in terms of the contents |
| |8. Adapt/reproduce curriculum guides and instructional materials for schools in the Division |
| |9. Document best practices/ introduce innovations |
| |10. Develop Division test materials |
| |11. Recommend priorities for supervision and |
| |monitor learning outcomes in the area of specialization |
| | |
| |Human Resources Development/ Management |
| |12. Screen applicants for local and foreign scholarships and trainings |
| |13. Identify training needs using test results & other measures |
| |14. Monitor utilization of staff trained |
17. Job Descriptions of ALS Field Implementers: District
|Personnel |Job Description |
|C. DISTRICT |1. Coordinate and participate in the planning for development and implementation of ALS projects |
|District ALS Coordinator |2. Prepare action plan in coordination with the ALS ES I and Public Schools District Supervisors |
| |(PSDS) |
| |3. Prepare performance targets |
| |4. Prepare project proposals to source out funds in coordination with the ALS ES I and Public |
| |Schools District Supervisors (PSDS) |
| | |
| |Advocacy & Social Mobilization |
| |5. Conduct linkaging and networking with LGUs, NGOs and other stakeholders |
| |6. Use various strategies in raising awareness on the ALS programs/projects |
| | |
| |Materials Development |
| |7. Prepare and develop community based-learning materials and other supplementary learning materials|
| |8. Adapt existing ALS materials and other supplementary learning materials by localizing them |
| |9. Adopt existing ALS materials and other supplementary learning materials |
| |10. Translate ALS learning materials and other learning materials into the local language of the |
| |learners or communities where he/she conducts learning sessions as the need arises |
| | |
| |Capability Building |
| |11. Provide technical assistance to the mobile teacher, community leaders and other stakeholders |
| |12. Serve as resource person, facilitator, and moderator during orientations, seminars, training, |
| |etc. |
| | |
| |Conduct of Learning Sessions |
| |13. Determine learning needs of learners using the Individual Learning Agreement (ILA) and |
| |then conducts evaluation to determine the entry and exit level of learners using the Functional |
| |Literacy Test (FLT) and other ALS assessment tools |
| |14. Conduct learning sessions using ALS core modules and other materials for at least 10 months in a|
| |year |
| |15. Devise plans and implements them in order to sustain gains of learners from the ALS programs |
| |16. Conduct home visits, individual tutorials, counseling and other need-driven activities in an |
| |effort to retain and win the learners back to the literacy sessions |
| |17. Assist in the preparation of learning portfolio |
| |18. Benchmark best practices of ALS Mobile Teachers in other divisions/other regions |
| | |
| | |
| |Monitoring & Evaluation (M&E) |
| |19. Monitor and evaluate ALS programs /projects within the district |
| |20. Monitor and evaluate the learners’ learning progress |
| | |
| |Research and Development |
| |21. Coordinate and conduct action research and development activities |
| | |
| |Management Information System (MIS) |
| |22. Gather data/information |
| |23. Establish a functional MIS at the District level |
| |24. Prepare status and progress report of the different ALS programs/projects |
18. Job Descriptions of ALS Field Implementers: Mobile Teacher
|Personnel |Job Description |
|Mobile Teacher |Advocacy and Community Organization and Mobilization |
| |1. Coordinate with community leaders to identify potential learners and organizes learning groups |
| |for ALS Basic Literacy Program. Accreditation and Equivalency System and other ALS projects |
| |2. Conduct literacy mapping |
| |3. Advocate ALS programs and networks with other government organizations, non-government |
| |organizations and other peoples organizations for potential support and/or partnerships; e.g. |
| |establishing a CLC |
| |3. Establish functional networking and reporting system |
| | |
| |Conduct of Learning Sessions |
| |4. Conduct learning needs of learners using the Individual Learning Agreement (I LA) |
| |5. Conduct evaluation to determine the entry and exit level of learners using Functional Literacy |
| |Test (FLT) and other ALS assessment tool |
| |6. Conduct learning sessions using ALS learning modules and supplementary materials for at least 10 |
| |months in a year |
| |7. Devise plans and implements them in order to sustain gains of learners from the ALS programs |
| |8. Conduct home visits, individual tutorials, counseling and other need- driven activities in an |
| |effort to retain and win the learners back to the literacy sessions |
| |9. Assist in the preparation of learning portfolio |
| |10. Benchmark best practices of ALS Mobile Teachers in other divisions/other regions |
| | |
| |Materials development and/or adaptation |
| |11. Prepare and develop community-based learning materials and other supplementary learning |
| |materials |
| |12. Adapt existing ALS learning materials and other supplementary learning materials by localizing |
| |them |
| |13. Adopt existing ALS learning materials and other supplementary learning materials |
| |14. Translate ALS learning materials and other learning materials into the local language of the |
| |learners or communities where he/she conducts learning sessions as the need arises |
| | |
| |Research and Development |
| |16. Conduct action-research activity to improve teaching-learning process as well as delivery of ALS|
| |programs/projects |
| | |
| |Management Information System (MIS) |
| |17. Gather data on ALS programs/projects |
| |18. Establish functional reporting system |
19. Regularization of Items for BALS Field Implementors
The regularization and reclassification of plantilla items for ALS implementers, specifically MT and DALSC, is the most obvious policy measure to address the inequities under which they are often subjected to.
The Department Memorandum on the Position Reclassification of ALS Mobile Teachers and District ALS Coordinators Items prepared by the Deputy Director of BALS provide the guidelines for this policy measure.
3 Governance Policy Thrust 3: BALS Human Resource Systems and Processes
Rationale
ALS Field Implementers deliver basic education in a variety of conditions different from those of formal school counterparts. While formal school teachers deliver instruction at the confines of a classroom, the MT or DALSC has to make do with makeshift centers, borrowed rooms from local church or barangay halls, or even their own home.
Being at the frontline of the Education-For-All mission, ALS Field Implementers penetrate barriers that formal education system cannot. ALS Field Implementers readily acknowledge that their learners are the tambays, kick-outs, drug addicts, prostitutes, teenage mothers, Jollibee crew, and a wide array of learners coming from the marginalized sectors in society. The community-related factors mentioned also overlook geographical barriers to schooling. Far-flung areas which require a half-day commute for students also tilt the odds against the Indigenous Peoples (IPs). Again, it is the MT or DALSC who trek the mountains, sometimes staying there for 2 weeks at a time to deliver instruction to IPs.
Because of the unique nature of ALS, the special conditions of their learners, and the different mode of delivery of instruction, ALS Field Implementers require different resource support or a distinct benefits and welfare package. Specifically, the Draft Guidelines emphasized the need for the following:
• Learning Aid Allowance
This is already being implemented. BALS currently allots Php5000 annual learning aid allowance to MT and DALSC to cover the differing learning needs of their learners. Some learners would require pencils or yellow paper, and the MT/ DALSC usually spend their own salaries to cover the needs of their learners. However, the Php5000 can only cover basic requirements like supplies and visual aids.
Cost of reproduction of modules (there are no more printed modules being produced for the past 10 years) for use of their learners exceed that allowance. Buying additional resources like books or educational videos is outside of that budget. In this digital age, most of the ALS learners are technologically or computer illiterate.[15] Addressing this important skills gap is also beyond the learning allowance.
• Transportation Allowance
Similar to the Learning Aid Allowance, this is also currently being implemented already. BALS programmed Php2000 monthly transportation allowance for their MT and DALSC. Distribution of both learning aid and transportation allowances are problematic in some areas since:
a. Principals designated as part-time DALSCs receive the allocation for the reproduction of learning materials but are not organizing learning sessions
b. Some Division Superintendents do not release the allowances on time (if it is released at all).
c. COA rules in some divisions are stricter in the utilization of the allowances since it is a unique provision. Certain learning aid expenses are disallowed. Receipts are being required in claiming transportation allowance even though in reality no receipts can be issued when the mobile teacher/DALSC has to walk the distance or take local rides (tricycle, habal-habal, hourseback, etc) to the learning sites.
• Hazard/ Hardship Pay
There were reported cases of MTs or Instructional Managers assigned in mountain areas who were abducted by rebels. The Policy TA also heard of incidents of miscarriages and accidents while handling learning sessions in the uplands. MTs who are assigned to teach literacy to remote areas sometimes leave their families for weeks at a time since travel back and forth takes days. There is a high concentration of school-leavers in slum areas where all sorts of danger are faced by MT and DALSC. ALS Field Implementers undergo various experiences ranging from the highly dangerous such as robberies and gang turf wars, being caught in the middle of military and rebel skirmishes, commuting using habal-habal working in densely populated jail houses, to scenarios like being chased by rabid dogs during community mapping or working in unsanitary environments. There should be a form of compensation for the difficult conditions that these educators face.
• Insurance
Corollary to the Hazard/ Hardship Pay, an insurance system is also being pushed by the implementers. Heat strokes, motorcycle injuries, and other work-related injuries are common. Currently, expenses for these are covered by the MT or DALSC from their own salaries, sometimes they pitch in for each other. A health and life insurance system would alleviate some of the fears of the ALS Field Implementers.
Governance Policy Thrust 3: Human Resource Systems and Processes
20. Recruitment on the Basis of Competencies
The recruitment, selection and induction of ALS field implementors should be based on the duties and responsibilities outlined in the preceding section as well as their core competencies.
These competencies were determined in a study conducted by De Torres (2008) entitled, Identifying Core Competencies of ALS Teachers Using the Critical Incident Technique (CIT): A Qualitative Research Study. As the title suggests, the study made use of a qualitative procedure called critical incident technique. The results and recommendations of the study were subsequently presented by Guerrero (2008).
The objectives of the study were: to investigate the holistic critical realities, issues, significant events and experiences, feelings, thoughts and situations of ALS implementers at their own workplaces; to capture the incidents critical to the respondents’ tasks behavior in the real-world job settings; to identify issues and problems met and how these were resolved; and to develop a compendium of skills/competencies that will be translated into contents requirements and ultimately facilitate in mapping a course or a profession model for the ALS.
The table below summarizes the various kind of competencies required of an ALS facilitator (De Torres, 2008).
Summary of ALS Competencies
|Table |Competencies |
|1a |Organizing: |
| |Community organizing, advocacy and social mobilization |
| |Organizing the learners |
| |Organizing learning centers |
| |Organizing lessons and teaching materials |
|2c |Teaching skills |
| |Care and concern, need to know about the learners |
| |Advocacy and social mobilization |
|3a |Life skills |
| |Technological skills |
| |Teaching skills |
| |Survival skills |
|3b |Technological skills |
| |Life Skills |
| |Teaching skills |
| |Survival skills |
| |Others ( new recommendations) |
|4a |Technological skills |
| |ALS related |
| |Teaching skills |
The researcher concludes that based on the table, the core competencies that emerged in the order of rank are:
• Organizing, advocacy and social mobilization;
• Teaching;
• Technological;
• Life Skills;
• Survival; and
• Care and concern for the learners.
Compared with the other competencies of a teacher as found in the National Competency-based Teachers Standards or NCBTS, there are two competencies not found in the NCBTS which are organizing, advocacy and social mobilization and survival skills (De Torres, 2009).
21. Career Progression.
The ALS career path begins with the assumption that the responsibilities of instructional managers, mobile teachers and district ALS coordinators demand commitment and personal sacrifice. Being a mobile teacher is not merely a means of making a living. It goes beyond a vocation or a calling. In reality, it has become more of an advocacy or a mission. This commitment and dedication should not be transformed into demoralization because of the absence of a clear career path within the parameters of ALS.
The following progression chart found in Department Memorandum dated 18 June 2009 will guide the career path of ALS implementers.
[pic]
Advocacy for the Implementation of a Career Path. An advocacy campaign on behalf of the MTs and DALSCs should be initiated and implemented vigorously to facilitate the reclassification of their items. The reclassification should be in tandem with the implementation of a Human Resource Development Plan that links positions with desired qualifications and provides for the capability building opportunities to achieve those qualifications.
22. Benefits and Welfare Package
ALS implementers–education supervisors, district ALS coordinators, mobile teachers, service providers, extension workers and volunteers -should receive the same benefits and welfare packages awarded to regular teachers and more. They should qualify for additional allowances such as hazard, transportation and representation allowances for networking purposes.
4 Governance Policy Thrust 4: Human Resource Capability Building Plan
Rationale
While the concept of ALS is still widely misunderstood or unknown in the country, BALS embeds flexibility and follows certain principles in its design and delivery of learning instruction.
• The goal of Basic Education is functional literacy. Therefore functional literacy is a right of all Filipinos regardless of age, sex, social status, race, religion, etc. (Inclusive Education).
• Mother tongue is necessary to acquire basic literacy skills (lingua franca).
• Learning acquired outside the school system is equivalent to learning acquired in the schools (recognition of prior learning).
• Learning does not only take place within the four (4) walls of the classroom (deschooling).
• Teachers and schools are not the only sources of learning (independent learning).
• Learning can take place anywhere, anytime, anyhow (lifelong learning).
• Learners must have control over their own learning. Learners must decide what they want to learn, why they will learn it, how they will learn and when they will learn.
• Learning is fun with the use of active learning strategies
• Learning is not compartmentalized into subjects but is integrative and holistic.
• Learning is enhanced when the needs, interests and experiences of the learners are considered.
• Learning is measured in terms of learning competencies acquired/mastered with use of portfolio.
• Literacy is multi-faceted (multiple intelligence).
• Lifeskills are learning competencies; functional literacy is the outcome of a lifeskills approach to learning.
• Lifeskills is best delivered through the use of the 4As of learning: Activity, Analysis, Abstraction and Application (experiential learning).
• Livelihood skills and productivity are lifeskills
These principles reflect the needs of ALS learners for a different mindset and methodology of teaching-learning from those of the formal schools. This means that ALS mobile teacher development program should be a customized and differentiated program.
23. BALS Human Resource Capability Building Plan
A. Program Components
The Bureau of Alternative Learning System capability building program should be implemented with the following provisions:
Short Term Training Courses. Competency-based short term training courses should be designed, developed and offered for BALS Staff and ALS field implementors. These short-term training courses should be offered both at the residential mode and online mode. These would include courses for non-ALS implementors that would re-orient DepEd staff members from the central, regional, divisional and district levels towards ALS, most appropriately using the immersion method.
The short term training courses will be implemented by cadres of regional trainers coming from the ranks of ALS field implementors, contractors and partner institutions such as state colleges and universities.
The following activities or tasks are identified for implementation of this component: the mobilization of a Training Management Team at the national level; the identification of a Master List of trainors at the regional level; the conduct of a National Conference of ALS Trainors; the conduct of zonal training of trainors; the design of basic, intermediate and advanced ALS training curricula; the implementation of annual training cycles; the design of specialized training courses; and the development of alternative distance, online and mentoring learning platforms.
Formal Degree Programs. Formal degree programs at the graduate and baccalaureate levels should likewise be designed, developed and offered for BALS staff and ALS field implementors. These formal programs should be offered both at the residential and online modes.
Initiatives have been taken by institutions such as Xavier University in Cagayan de Oro City to initiate a BS Alternative Education program. A proposed curriculum has already been proposed by Dean Amor de Torres of Xavier University. This will be discussed further in succeeding sections. The Commission on Higher Education has likewise established a Technical Panel for Alternative Learning System as an ALS counterpart for the FBE-centric Technical Panel for Teacher Education.
However, these are entry-level competencies and exclusively offered at the residential mode. To provide MTs and DALSCs with additional credentials for them to move higher up in their proposed career ladders, post-entry level formal and non-formal programs on ALS should be made available and accessible to them. Non-formal certificate programs on specific areas of ALS competencies should be drawn up and offered. Similarly, a Master of Alternative Learning Systems (MALS) should be designed and offered at the distance mode. The UP Open University can very well offer this with its well-established platforms for open and distance learning and its advocacy for eLearning.
The Master of Alternative Learning Systems program would carry a total of 30 credits, 24 units of which are coursework and six units of special project. There would be four core courses (12 units) covering alternative learning subject matter and four electives (12 units) covering general education concerns.
Within the proposed MALS program would be a pick up program –a Graduate Certificate on ALS or GCALS. GCALS is a certificate that may be awarded to a MALS student who has completed the coursework but is yet to conduct a master’s thesis. In other words, it may be an exit point for an MT or DALSC who cannot complete a thesis or special project due to work and time constraints.
The provision for the design and development of formal and non-formal programs for ALS implementors would be shouldered by the institutions offering these programs and their benefactors, not by DepEd. The programs may likewise be designed and developed through curriculum development programs financed by bilateral or multilateral funding agencies.
The following are a list of activities and tasks required for the implementation of a graduate degree program on ALS, namely: signing of a Memorandum of Understanding with the UP Open University; the design and development of the Master of Alternative Learning System and Graduate Certificate on Alternative Learning System curriculum; the development of courses under the said curriculum; the submission and processing of the curricular proposal to University officials; the conduct of writeshops for the proposed courseware; and the processing of applications from MTs and DALSCs interested to pursue the degree program.
An MOU between the Bureau and the UP Open University should be perfected. Being a signed general understanding between both parties, which may result in specific memoranda of agreement (MOAs), the MOU should cover formal, non-formal and informal, short-term and long-term, baccalaureate and graduate programs, as well as residential and online programs that would contribute to the capability building of both BALS staff and ALS implementors.
B. Scholarships
The BALS Human Resource Development Program must provide for scholarships that are synchronized with the career paths of BALS staff and ALS implementors. The TA strongly recommends that the World Bank and AusAID finance the scholarships under a BESRA ALS Teacher and Staff Development component. Additionally, the BALS HRD Plan may receive additional support from the Philippines-Australia Human Resource Development Facility or PAHRDF. The scholarships will support formal and non-formal, short-term and long-term, as well as residential and online programs.
The provision of scholarships for ALS implementors should include service providers, extension workers and volunteer teachers and may be covered by existing budgetary allotments to the Bureau. As an adjunct to BESRA, it may also be considered as an investment area by multilateral funding agencies such as the World Bank or bilateral agencies such as AusAID.
5 Governance Policy Thrust 5: Institutionalizing Network Links Between BALS and LGUs
Rationale
So far, the most common source of support that ALS Field Implementers seek is from the local government units. While the partnership between ALS and LGUs has been advantageous in many instances, several problems were also pointed out in some areas. Examples of these problems are:
• Local School Board does not consider support to Community Learning Centers as priority for funding.
• There are existing convergence groups in the locality, some of which are not oriented on ALS Programs and Projects.
• There is no provision of funds for maintenance of borrowed Community Learning Centers.
• There are disallowances from COA on the use of barangay funds for ALS Programs and Projects.
• ALS activities are done in barangay halls, chapel, and in any vacant areas.
• There is no MT item allotted by Local School Board from the Special Education Fund for ALS.
• The Literacy Coordinating Council (LCC) also implements literacy programs using ALS field implementers.
• There is overlapping of roles, functions, and responsibilities of ALS with the LCC.
Governance Policy Thrust 5: Institutionalizing Network Links Between BALS and LGUs
24. LALS Council.
If indeed the enactment of a joint bill strengthening the LCC is consummated, the ALS subsector can make the most out of a problematic situation by finding champions within the national LCC, specifically the Secretary of the Department of Education and the Director of the Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems, who sit as Chair and member respectively. Between the two of them, the operationalization of the Law can still be skewed through its implementing rules and regulations to favor the interests of the ASL subsector.
In case the Senate Bill and the House version can still accommodate changes during the 15th Congress, then it is strongly recommended that Literacy and Alternative Learning System Councils be established as formal networks for local level ALS planning and implementation. The following provisions must be inserted:
• Rename the LCC into the Literacy and Alternative Learning Systems Council (LALSC) and expand its composition and functions
o Multilevel network – national, regional, provincial, etc
o Multi-sectoral composition (the participation by NGOs)
• Establish an Undersecretary Position for ALS to serve as permanent member of the Council at the national level.
Policy Instruments
Amendments to RA 5447. The Act Creating a Special Education Fund to be Constituted from the Proceeds of an Additional Real Property Tax and a Certain Portion of the Taxes on Virginia-type Cigarettes and Duties on Imported Leaf Tobacco, Defining the Activities to be Financed, Creating School Boards for the Purpose, and Appropriating Funds Therefrom should be amended to provide for the funding of Literacy and Alternative Learning System Councils (LALSC) at the regional, division, district and community levels parallel to the local school boards of formal basic education.
Amendments to RA 7165. An Act Creating the Literacy Coordinating Council, Defining its Powers and Functions, Appropriating Funds Thereof, and for other purposes should be amended to provide for the creation of LALS Councils at the regional, division, district and community levels in lieu of the LCCs. The amendment should include the functions and roles of the LALS Councils at different levels and its budgetary provision under the General Appropriations Act.
MOUs with LGUs. Policy instruments that would address this reform initiative should include Memoranda of Understanding with local government units.
7 Governance Policy Thrust 6: BALS Organizational Quality Assurance and Accountability Framework
Rationale
ALS follows a set of principles different from those of the formal system. This divergence in principles extends to differences in learning session design, delivery modes, and other elements. Because of this, ALS Field Implementers require different sets of competencies need different kinds of resource support in performing their job. However, the existing legal framework of BALS is still the RA 9155, which primarily designed a structure for the formal school system.
This creates conflict at all levels of the Department. Some of the problems encountered in the field (as mentioned in the Draft Guidelines) are the following:
• Some District ALS Coordinators (DALSC) are given teaching loads in the formal system
• The existing performance appraisal does not cover indicators (specific to ALS).
• ALS implementers are not treated/ recognized in the same manner as the formal education teachers.
• ALS Mobile Teachers (MT) are included in the computation of pupil: teacher ratio.
• There is no uniform standard for granting service credits to MT and DALSC for services rendered outside of official time.
• MT entry salary is low (SG 10).
• Some Principals also double as DALSC.
• Existing performance appraisal system for MT and DALSC does not capture the range of tasks they do.
• Some MTs and DALSCs are not considered for promotion.
• There is a need for continuous upgrading and professional enhancement of ALS implementers.
• There is a need to professionalize Learning Facilitators.
• No plantilla item for DALSCs
Governance Policy Thrust 6: BALS Organizational Quality Assurance and Accountability Framework
25. Organizational Performance Indicators
At present, the Bureau of Alternative Learning System has adopted the following performance indicators for its MFOs :
1. Number of learners in DepEd programs
2. Number of completers in DepEd programs
3. Ratio of completers to learners in DepEd-delivered programs
4. Ratio of completers to learners in DepE-procured programs
5. Number of A&E test passers
6. Ratio of A&E test passers to the total A&E test takers
7. Number of Service Providers
8. Ratio of accredited Service Providers to the total number of ALS Service Providers.
TABLE . Major Final Outputs vs Major Final Outcomes
| MAJOR FINAL OUTPUTS |MAJOR FINAL OUTCOMES |
|Number of learners in DepEd programs |Access and Participation Increased participation of learners in: |
| |formal basic education; non-formal education programs; and in informal|
|Number of completers in DepEd programs |education programs |
| | |
|Ratio of completers to learners in DepEd-delivered programs |Retention Increased retention of learners in non-formal education |
| |programs and informal education programs |
|Ratio of completers to learners in DepEd-procured programs | |
| |Completion Increased completion of learners in non-formal education |
|Number of A&E test passers |programs |
| | |
|Ratio of A&E test passers to the total A&E |Achievement Increased achievement of learners in non-formal education |
|test takers |programs The proposed Major Final Outcomes are based on the outcomes |
| |identified by the QAAF. |
|Number of Service Providers | |
| |It should encompass the entire operations of BALS inclusive of its |
|Ratio of accredited Service Providers to the total number of |three divisions as well as its regional, divisional and district |
|ALS Service Providers. |offices. Mobile teachers, volunteer teachers, district ALS |
| |coordinators and education supervisors should likewise be evaluated on|
| |the basis of these MFOs. |
The proposed Major Final Outcomes are based on the outcomes identified by the QAAF. It should encompass the entire operations of BALS inclusive of its three divisions as well as its regional, divisional and district offices. Mobile teachers, volunteer teachers, district ALS coordinators and education supervisors should likewise be evaluated on the basis of these MFOs.
26. Division OPES: Continuing Education Division
The indicators for the Organizational Performance Evaluation System of the BALS Continuing Education Division are as follows:
1. Policy, Program and Project Formulation and Development
1. Policy Formulation/Conceptualization: Formulate policy standards/direction for various developmental/research-based projects
o No. of concept papers/ frameworks/proposals developed
o No. of DepEd memoranda/orders issued and disseminated
o No. of policies, guidelines and standards issued and disseminated
o No. of training designs and packages standardized
1.2. Planning and Design: Conceptualize program packages and work plans
o No. of relevant programs/projects conceptualized/developed
o No. of work and financial plans prepared
o No. of relevant InfEd programs for special groups adopted/adapted
1.3. Research and Development
1.3.1. Undertake various research activities
o No. of research proposals approved
o No. planning workshops/meetings conducted
1.3.2. Research instruments developed and validated
o No. of sites piloted
1.3.3. Curriculum, Instruction and Materials Development:
o Develop/adopt/adapt curriculum/program offerings and instructional materials
o No. of customized/indigenized curriculum developed for specific learning groups
o No. of learning materials and handbooks developed, validated
2. Policy, Program and Project Implementation
2.1. Program/Service Delivery/Operationalization
2.1.1. Operationalize the program plans/ designs and workplans
▪ No. of learning interventions/modalities implemented
▪ No. of beneficiaries/learners benefitted
▪ No. of service providers identified and which availed of the program
2.1.2. Utilize appropriate learning
▪ No. of appropriate learning resource and technologies resource/technologies utilized to facilitate learning
2.1.3. Develop capacities of ALS
▪ No. of trainings/orientations Implemented/ conducted
▪ No. of beneficiaries who received training
▪ No. of technical assistance provided
2.2. Networking/coordination with field partners and stakeholders: Strengthen partnership with ALS partners and other program stakeholders (international, national and local)
o No. of MOAs signed/entered into
o No. of DepEd offices & non-DepEd institutions/organizations partnered with
o No. of technical assistance & other relevant assistance & support provided/generated
2.3. Resource Generation/Management/Procurement: Outsource/co-share and manage
o No. of project activities funds co-shared and funded by donor institutions
o No. of approved budget allocations per project
o No. of regions receiving assistance
2.4. Advocacy: Promote awareness on ALS programs
o No. of IEC advocacy materials developed and disseminated
o No. of advocacy activities, i.e., launching, consultation, orientation, etc., undertaken
2.5. Social Mobilization: Organize learning community and mobilize support groups
o No. of partner agencies/groups mobilized
2.6. Data Management: Maintain functional databases
o No. of databases maintained and updated
o No. of data analysis results disseminated
3. Office/Personnel Management and Administration
3.1. Personnel Management
3.1.1. Provide equitable opportunities and incentives to all staff
3.1.2. Ensure equal distribution of tasks and responsibilities among division
o No. of staff who availed of relevant training programs
o No. of staff assigned as project coordinators/staff anchor persons
3.1.3. Evaluate performance
o No. of staff provided with appropriate mentoring and counseling to improve performance
3.2. Resource Management
3.2.1. Systematize the use and distribution of resources, such as, supplies, equipment, facilities and utilities
o No. of office resources distributed based on needs
o No. of office resources utilized according to guidelines
o No. of equipment upkept and maintained
3.3. Logistics Support: Facilitate processing of financial requirements of personnel received
o No. of personnel financial support and other welfare packages
3.4. Capacity Building: Develop/enhance the professional competencies of the staff
o No. of staff/personnel provided with appropriate training and other professional development programs
o No. of staff with increased rating
4. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
4.1. Monitoring
4.1.1. Monitor program implementation or service delivery
▪ No. of programs or services monitored for implementation
4.1.2. Develop monitoring instrument
▪ No. of monitoring instruments developed
4.1.3. Conduct monitoring
▪ No. of monitoring conducted
4.2. Evaluation
4.2.1. Process data gathered
▪ No. of sets of data processed
4.2.2. Organize data
▪ No. of sets of data organized
4.2.3. Perform statistical treatment of data
▪ No. of sets of data statistically treated
4.2.4. Analyze data
▪ No. of sets of data analyzed
4.2.5. Provide conclusion and recommendation
▪ No. of conclusions and recommendations provided
4.3. Reporting
4.3.1. Prepare detailed technical report
▪ No. of detailed technical reports prepared
4.3.2. Prepare Executive Summary
▪ No. of executive summaries prepared
27. Division OPES: Literacy Division
The verifiable indicators in the Organizational Performance Evaluation System of the BALS Literacy Division are as follows:
1. Policy, Program and Project Formulation and Development
1.1. Policy Formulation/Conceptualization: Formulates policies, standards and guidelines for various programs and projects particularly for non-literate learners
o No. of policies, standards and guidelines issued & disseminated
1.2. Planning and Design
1.2.1. Conceptualizes program packages
▪ No. of programs/projects conceptualized
1.2.2. Develop work plans
▪ No. of workplans developed
1.3. Research and Development
1.3.1. Prepare concept paper and research design
▪ No. of concept papers & research designs prepared
1.3.2. Conduct research
▪ No. of researches conducted
1.3.3. Prepare technical report
▪ No. of research reports prepared
1.4. Curriculum, Instruction and Materials Development
1.4.1. Develop/Adapt/Adopt curriculum for various types of marginalized illiterate learners adopted
▪ No. of curricula developed/ adapted/adopted
1.4.2. Develop/Adapt/Adopt instructional materials for various types of marginalized illiterate learners program developed
▪ No. of instructional materials developed/adapted/adopted
▪ No. of need-based learning materials in basic literacy reproduced and disseminated
2. Policy, Program and Project Implementation
2.1. Program/Service Delivery/Operationalization
2.1.1. Operationalize the project program plans/designs
▪ No. of activity plans conducted implemented
2.1.2. Deliver services
▪ No. of services delivered
2.1.3. Develop the KAVS of DepEd ALS implementors
▪ No. of recipients who received trainings/orientations/meetings conducted
2.2. Networking/coordination with Field Partners and Stakeholders
2.2.1. Strengthens partnership with field implementors and program stakeholders
▪ No. of DepEd offices and non-DepEd institutions/ organizations worked with
2.3. Resource Generation/Management/Procurement
2.3.1. Outsource funds for various LD programs and projects
o No. of project activities funded by donor institutions
2.3.2. Manage funds for various programs/ projects according to approved terms and conditions
o No. of approved budget allocations per project
2.4. Advocacy
2.4.1. Promote awareness on ALS to various sectors and reach marginalized
learners:
▪ No. of IEC activities conducted
2.4.2. Prepare IEC materials
▪ No. of IEC advocacy materials developed and disseminated
2.4.3. Social Mobilization: Organize learning community and support groups for BLP and other projects:
▪ No. of partner agencies/groups mobilized
2.5. Data Management
2.5.1. Install functional electronic databases for quality assurance of the ALS
implementation
▪ No. of databases installed
2.5.2. Maintain functional database
▪ No. of databases maintained and updated
3. Office/Personnel Management and Administration
3.1. Personnel Management
3.1.1. Assign work
▪ No. of works assigned
3.1.2. Distribute work load
▪ No. of workloads distributed
3.1.3. Provide technical assistance
▪ No. of technical assistance provided
3.1.4. Evaluate performance
▪ No. of staff evaluated for performance
3.2. Resource Management
3.2.1. Conduct inventory of supplies, materials, fixtures and equipment
▪ No. of supplies, materials, fixtures and equipment inventoried
3.2.2. Monitor supplies
▪ No. of supplies monitored
3.2.3. Maintain office equipment
▪ No. of office equipment maintained
3.2.4. Maintain the general upkeep of office
▪ No. of office units upkeep maintained
3.3. Logistics Support: Request budget allocation
▪ Amount of budget allocated
3.4. Capability Building
3.4.1. Conduct training
▪ No. of training sessions conducted
3.4.2. Provide opportunities for professional development
▪ No. of staff provided with professional development
4. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
4.1. Monitoring
4.1.1. Monitor program implementation or service delivery
▪ No. of programs or services monitored for implementation
4.1.2. Develop monitoring instrument
▪ No. of monitoring instruments developed
4.1.3. Conduct monitoring
▪ No. of monitoring conducted
4.2. Evaluation
4.2.1. Process data gathered
▪ No. of sets of data processed
4.2.2. Organize data
▪ No. of sets of data organized
4.2.3. Perform statistical treatment of data
▪ No. of sets of data statistically treated
4.2.4. Analyze data
▪ No. of sets of data analyzed
4.2.5. Provide conclusion and recommendation
▪ No. of conclusions and recommendations provided
4.3. Reporting
4.3.1. Prepare detailed technical report
▪ No. of detailed technical reports prepared
4.3.2. Prepare Executive Summary
▪ No. of executive summaries prepared
28. Division OPES: Staff Development Division
The verifiable indicators in the Organizational Performance Evaluation System of the BALS SD Division are as follows:
1. Policy, Program and Project Formulation and Development
1.1. Policy Formulation/Conceptualization: Formulate policy standards and direction
for various developmental/research-based projects
o No. of concept papers/ frameworks/proposals developed
o No. of DepEd memoranda/orders issued and disseminated
o No. of policies, guidelines and standards issued and disseminated
o No. of training designs and packages standardized
1.2. Planning and Design: Conceptualize program packages and work plans
o No. of relevant programs/projects conceptualized/developed
o No. of work and financial plans prepared
o No. of relevant InfEd programs for special groups adopted/adapted
1.3. Research and Development
1.3.1. Undertake various research activities
▪ No. of research proposals approved
▪ No. planning workshops/meetings conducted
1.3.2. Research instruments developed and validated
▪ No. of sites piloted
1.4. Curriculum, Instruction and Materials Development
1.4.1. Develop/adopt/adapt curriculum/program offerings and instructional materials
▪ No. of customized/indigenized curriculum developed for specific learning groups
▪ No. of learning materials and handbooks developed, validated
2. Policy, Program and Project Implementation
2.1. Program/Service Delivery/Operationalization
2.1.1. Operationalize the program plans/ designs and workplans
▪ No. of learning interventions/modalities implemented
▪ No. of beneficiaries/learners benefitted
▪ No. of service providers identified and which availed of the program
2.1.2. Utilize appropriate learning resource and technologies
▪ No. of appropriate learning resources and technologies resources/technologies utilized to facilitate learning
2.1.3. Develop capacities of ALS implementers
▪ No. of trainings/orientations Implemented/ conducted
▪ No. of beneficiaries who received training
▪ No. of technical assistance provided
2.2. Networking/coordination with field partners and stakeholders
2.2.1. Strengthen partnership with ALS partners and other program stakeholders (international, national and local)
o No. of MOAs signed/entered into
o No. of DepEd offices and non-DepEd institutions/organizations partnered with
o No. of technical assistance & other relevant assistance & support provided/ generated
2.2.2. Resource Generation/Management/Procurement: Outsource/co-share and manage funds
o No. of project activities co-shared and funded by donor institutions
o No. of approved budget allocations per project
o No. of regions receiving assistance
2.3. Advocacy: Promote awareness on ALS programs
o No. of IEC advocacy materials developed and disseminated
o No. of advocacy activities, i.e., launching, consultation, orientation, etc., undertaken
2.4. Social Mobilization: Organize learning community and mobilize support groups
o No. of partner agencies/groups mobilized
2.5. Data Management: Maintain functional databases
o No. of databases maintained and updated
o No. of data analysis results disseminated
3. Office/Personnel Management and Administration
3.1. Personnel Management
3.1.1. Provide equitable opportunities and incentives to all staff
3.1.2. Ensure equal distribution of tasks and responsibilities among division staff
▪ No. of staff who availed of relevant training programs
▪ No. of staff assigned as project coordinators/staff anchor persons
3.1.3. Evaluate performance
▪ No. of staff provided with appropriate mentoring and counseling to improve performance
3.2. Resource Management
3.2.1. Systematize the use and distribution of resources, such as, supplies, equipment, facilities and utilities
▪ No. of office resources distributed based on needs
▪ No. of office resources utilized according to guidelines
▪ No. of equipment upkept and maintained
3.3. Logistics Support: Facilitate processing of financial requirements of personnel
o No. of personnel financial support and other welfare packages
3.4. Capacity Building: Develop/enhance the professional competencies of the staff
o No. of staff/personnel provided with appropriate training and other professional development programs
o No. of staff with increased rating
4. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting
4.1. Monitoring
4.1.1. Monitor program implementation or service delivery
o No. of programs or services monitored for implementation
4.1.2. Develop monitoring instrument
▪ No. of monitoring instruments developed
4.1.3. Conduct monitoring
▪ No. of monitoring conducted
4.2. Evaluation
4.2.1. Process data gathered
▪ No. of sets of data processed
4.2.2. Organize data
▪ No. of sets of data organized
4.2.3. Perform statistical treatment of data
▪ No. of sets of data statistically treated
4.2.4. Analyze data
▪ No. of sets of data analyzed
4.2.5. Provide conclusion and recommendation
▪ No. of conclusions and recommendations provided
4.3. Reporting
4.3.1. Prepare detailed technical report
▪ No. of detailed technical reports prepared
4.3.2. Prepare Executive Summary
▪ No. of executive summaries prepared
29. BALS Major Final Output and Outcome Indicators
The output indicators enumerated above are useful specifically for individual staff performance evaluation for organic teaching and non-teaching BALS staff. However, these should be supplemented by outcome indicators parallel to the shift from Major Final Outputs to Major Final Outcomes.
The following table provides suggestions on possible outcome indicators that may supplement the output indicators for each major function of BALS. These outcome indicators should be considered by all three divisions of the BALS as well as its field staff consisting of mobile teachers, district ALS coordinators and education supervisors:
Table: BALS Output and Outcome Indicators
|OUTPUT INDICATORS |OUTCOME INDICATORS |
| | |
|1. Policy, Program and Project Formulation and Development | |
| | |
|No. of concept papers/ frameworks/proposals developed |Increased participation of learners in |
| |formal basic education |
|No. of DepEd memoranda/orders issued and disseminated | |
| |Increased participation of learners in non-formal education |
|No. of policies, guidelines and standards issued and disseminated |programs |
| | |
|No. of training designs and packages standardized |Increased participation of learners in |
| |informal education programs |
|No. of relevant programs/projects conceptualized/developed | |
| |Increased retention of learners in non-formal education programs |
|No. of work and financial plans prepared | |
| |Increased retention of learners in |
|No. of relevant InfEd programs for special groups adopted/adapted |informal education programs |
| | |
|No. of research proposals approved |Increased completion of learners in non-formal education programs |
| | |
|No. planning workshops/ meetings conducted |Increased achievement of learners in non-formal education programs|
| | |
|No. of sites piloted | |
| | |
|No. of customized/indigenized curricula developed for | |
|specific learning groups | |
| | |
|No. of learning materials and handbooks developed, | |
|validated | |
| | |
|2. Policy, Program and Project Implementation | |
| | |
|No. of learning interventions/modalities implemented |Increased participation of learners in |
| |formal basic education |
|No. of beneficiaries/learners benefitted | |
| |Increased participation of learners in non-formal education |
|No. of service providers identified and which availed of the |programs |
|program |Increased participation of learners in |
| |informal education programs |
|No. of appropriate learning resources and technologies | |
|resource/technologies utilized to facilitate learning |Increased retention of learners in non-formal education programs |
| | |
|No. of trainings/orientations Implemented/ conducted |Increased retention of learners in |
| |informal education programs |
|No. of beneficiaries who received training | |
| |Increased completion of learners in non-formal education programs |
|No. of technical assistance provided | |
| |Increased achievement of learners in non-formal education programs|
|No. of MOAs signed/entered into | |
| | |
|No. of DepEd offices and non-DepEd institutions/ | |
|organizations partnered with | |
| | |
|No. of technical assistance & other relevant assistance & support | |
|provided/ generated | |
| | |
|No. of project activities co-shared and funded by donor | |
|institutions | |
| | |
|No. of approved budget allocations per project | |
| | |
|No. of regions receiving assistance | |
| | |
|No. of IEC advocacy materials developed and disseminated | |
| | |
|No. of advocacy activities, i.e., launching, consultation, | |
|orientation, etc., undertaken | |
| | |
|No. of partner agencies/groups mobilized | |
| | |
|No. of databases maintained and updated | |
| | |
|No. of data analysis results disseminated | |
| | |
|3. Office/Personnel Management and | |
|Administration | |
| | |
|No. of staff who availed of relevant training programs |Increased participation of learners in |
| |formal basic education |
|No. of staff assigned as project coordinators/staff anchor persons| |
| |Increased participation of learners in non-formal education |
| |programs |
|No. of staff provided with appropriate mentoring and counseling to| |
|improve performance |Increased participation of learners in |
| |informal education programs |
|No. of office resources distributed based on needs | |
| |Increased retention of learners in non-formal education programs |
|No. of office resources utilized according to guidelines | |
| |Increased retention of learners in |
|No. of equipment upkept and maintained |informal education programs |
| | |
|No. of personnel financial support and other welfare |Increased completion of learners in non-formal education programs |
|packages | |
| |Increased achievement of learners in non-formal education programs|
|No. of staff/personnel provided with appropriate training and | |
|other professional development programs | |
| | |
|No. of staff with increased rating | |
| | |
|4. Monitoring, Evaluation and Reporting | |
| | |
|No. of programs or services monitored for implementation |Increased participation of learners in |
| |formal basic education |
|No. of monitoring instruments developed | |
| |Increased participation of learners in non-formal education |
|No. of monitoring conducted |programs |
| | |
|No. of sets of data processed |Increased participation of learners in |
| |informal education programs |
|No. of sets of data organized | |
| |Increased retention of learners in non-formal education programs |
|No. of sets of data statistically treated | |
| |Increased retention of learners in |
|No. of sets of data analyzed |informal education programs |
| | |
|No. of conclusions and recommendations provided |Increased completion of learners in non-formal education programs |
| | |
|No. of detailed technical reports prepared |Increased achievement of learners in non-formal education programs|
| | |
|No. of executive summaries prepared | |
8 Governance Policy Thrust 7: Restructured Service Providers Contracting Scheme
Rationale
A whole section in the Draft Omnibus Guidelines is dedicated to propose improvements to the current Service Contracting Scheme. There is a need to clarify and improve the management relationships between ALS and the contracted service providers. Some of the proposed areas for improvement are:
• There should be a service manual for service providers covering: application, award, renewal, duties and responsibilities, and other related concerns.
• Service providers must be selected based on an objective criteria and the award shall be made covering specific contract period.
• The contract period should be not less than ten months but not more than 12 months.
• The contract amount must be used strictly by the service provider according to the breakdown of cost as stipulated in the contract.
• Out-of-school youth and adults are estimated at 3 million per year. At least 75% of this number should be covered by service providers.
• Monitor the service providers delivery
• Manage the demand for the service providers
• Review the breakdown of project costing
• Serious evaluation and accreditation of service providers
• Lessen the number of target learners per contract. Specifically, reduce to the target to 50 learners for Basic Literacy and 75 learners for A&E
• Revise the ALS Unified Contracting Scheme
30. Accreditation
|Problems in accreditation |Proposed Solutions |
|Process of accreditation is complicated |Submit all legal documents in a portfolio during the first stage, which is the|
|especially the cycle and repetitive |submission of letter of intent as part of the application as a Service |
|submission of requirements at each stage |Provider |
|of the cycle |When applying for each level (I, II, III), submit other documents as proof of |
| |performance |
| |Submit a valid SEC registration |
|Engagement period is too long |Reduce from two-years to one year |
| |Conduct a yearly evaluation |
| |Change the term validity to effectivity |
|Definition of accreditation |Accreditation in ALS means beyond recognition as a Service Provider |
|(city-accredited; province-accredited, | |
|SEC-accredited) | |
|Vague criteria |Develop more specific criteria |
| |Should be quality-based |
| |Include audited financial statement |
| |must have value-added (expertise, services) |
| |Portfolio always ready for inspection |
| |Include percentage of passers in the A&E test (in comparison with national |
| |passing percentage as benchmark) |
|Revisit rationale/guidelines |Delete the word “important bureau” |
| |Qualify far-flung areas |
|Lack of accreditation teams by level |Create accreditation teams by levels |
| |Level I (SDS, co-chaired by ALS-ES1; members: PSDS, DALSC, external |
| |(sector-based; GAs, LGU) |
| |Level II (RD, Regl ALS chief; members: ESII, external, ESI location-specific) |
| |Level III – (BALS Director, chief, external and administrative office) |
|Non-material benefits/incentives are |Increase service area beyond main campus as they are awarded a specific level |
|limited |Offer other areas of expertise |
| |Offer other modes of delivery (web-based, mobile technology, etc) |
The TWG concurred with the observation that the process of accreditation was complicated and that steps should be taken to simplify it. They agreed with the proposed solutions that all legal documents should be submitted in a portfolio during the first stage, which should be limited to the submission of a letter of intent as part of the application as a Service Provider. When applying for each level (I, II, III), the SPs should submit other documents as proof of performance. This would simplify the process. Furthermore, the SPs should submit proof of a valid SEC registration along with their portfolio.
Additionally, the TWG agreed that the current set of accreditation criteria was vague. More specific criteria should be incorporated such as financial statements and percentage of A&E passers. Likewise, the TWG concurred that accreditation teams at the local, district, divisional, regional and national levels should be established and that non-material incentives such as awards should be instituted.
However, the TWG did not agree with Observations number 2 and 3.
31. Contracting
|CONTRACTING ISSUES |POSSIBLE SOLUTION/S |NOTES/REMARKS |
|Budgetary Allotment/ Resource |Direct payment to the division |Allocation from BALS/DBM to be downloaded directly to the|
|Allocation | |division offices (not through regional); cc - regional |
| |unified training (to be managed by regional |office |
| |offices) |- budget - 2008 guidelines - should pass through region |
| | |2009 - directly to the division |
| |should set standard guidelines | |
| |(when national plans, with representation from |relation of division with the contract |
| |regional and division level) | |
| | |region - monitoring |
| |all regional directors should be fighting for | |
| |MFO33 |p.2 of the guidelines |
| | |flow and distribution |
| | | |
| | |no feedback |
| | | |
| | |budget procedure - others are not well informed |
|Penalty Clause of the Contract |keep the clause, but consider: |- what to do to enforce completion |
| |reward system in the pre-qualification of |removing non-performing |
| |contract | |
| | |100k is very little |
| |possibility of changing penalty clause to | |
| |“incentive clause” |-with mutual consent, if in the contract |
|Delayed awarding of contracts and | |SARO should be earlier than June |
|fulfillment of the terms of contract | |- cannot identify how many slots to be awarded |
| | |- cause of the delay: service provider |
|Adopt common minimum standards for |to adopt: number of learners |area-based; not barangay-based |
|service provision: learners, |to spell out minimum number of learners | |
|time-frame, venue, honorarium, |improve stipulation in the contract: accommodate |honorarium varies |
|outcomes, trainings |100 for 300,000 | |
| |outcomes - determine the success, no. of passers |DALCs - if SP does not perform, DALCs take charge |
| |in the A&E test | |
| |at least 50% of learning goals |how many modules were completed? at least 50% of |
| |trainings - unified training; no exception |completion of modules |
|Enforcement of service/ staff QS |BALS has its own standards; NGOs should be left |to enforce uniformity? |
|professionalization |with their own standards |basic literacy concerns |
| |Government - stick to your policy |consider hIgh school grads with the competence to deliver|
| | | |
| |NGOs - consider other qualifications: excellence,|-“we are teaching competencies” |
| |solid experience and distinction | |
The TWG agreed with all of the above recommendations except for the adoption of common minimum standards for service provision (Number 4).
32. Technical
|technical Issues |Observations |Recommendations |
|1. Advocacy |1. The group noted that engagement in ADSOCMOB is |Effort should be made for the sharing and |
| |already stipulated in the existing contract as part of |documenting of best practices in ADSOCMOB among |
| |accreditation. |SPs. |
| | |The DepEd RO/ DO should undertake information |
| | |campaign/ orientation / ALS Summit on the |
| | |Guidelines of the LSCS/LSDS including the contract |
| | |per se. |
|2. Service Outsourcing |The cost of monitoring is included in the contract |Multi-partite Monitoring Team (DepEd, LGU, Civil |
|Monitoring |price. |Society) |
|Instructional Services |Reinclusion of the monitoring cost in the contract | |
| |price strengthen the partnership of the DepEd and SPs. |2. The SPs should be encouraged to establish link |
| | |with TESDA programs for NC, over and above BLP and|
| | |A & E. |
|3. Engagement of Umbrella |3. Although umbrella orgs, may reduce red tape, delays |Appropriate safeguard should be instituted to |
|Organizations |of fund disbursements, they may practice |ensure local SPs participation and level playing |
| |patronization, marginalization and lack of project |field. |
| |ownership among local communities | |
|4. Training |4. The group noted that adequate provisions for |The RO will focus on Pre-contract trainings while |
| |training are already incorporated in the existing |the divisions will focus on the in-service/ |
| |guidelines. |enhancement trainings |
| | | |
| | |Increase the training budget in the Region from Php|
| | |3,000 to Php 7, 500. |
| | | |
| | |The budget should be apportioned accordingly. |
Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Advocacy
Rationale
ALS Field Implementers are used to operating with meager resources and have resorted to advocacy and social mobilization activities to compensate and to continue the delivery of their programs and projects.
The AdSocMob Framework that BALS currently uses was developed during the Asian Development Bank-assisted Non-Formal Education Project in the Philippines. The ADB NFE Project had the following objectives:
• Raising the literacy and numeracy skills of the uneducated;
• Expanding access to basic education by supporting the NFE system to reach out of school youth and adults; and,
• Building the capacity of the DepED, non-government organizations, and communities in planning, managing, and conducting NFE.
In order to achieve these objectives, the ADB NFE Project used an implementation approach that focused on stakeholders’ participation, decentralized delivery of services and inter-agency collaboration.[16] This implementation approach is still used by ALS Field Implementers in order to augment their resource requirements.
The Advocacy component in the ALS-TWG engagement is driven by the need to increase nationwide support for ALS programs and projects. While there have been pockets of good practices at the local level, a concerted effort initiated by BALS is also needed. This sentiment has been raised by ALS Stakeholders in the Draft Omnibus Guidelines workshops. Among the issues raised are:
• There is no comprehensive Communication Plan for ALS to cater to the various audiences
• In some areas, there is an ALS identity crisis, poor coordination/ partnership efforts for the implementation of activities within DepED.
• DepED officials and personnel have different views on and concepts of the ALS.
Developing an ALS Advocacy Plan would be helpful for the ALS Field Implementers who individually figure out ways to promote and garner support for their activities. The Policy TA output Documentation of Good Practices on ALS Teaching and Learning categorized the present on-the-ground advocacy practices as:[17]
The report findings demonstrate the amount of work that individual ALS Field Implementers pour in for advocacy work. The common recruitment methods also identify common partners that ALS can tap in advocating for ALS like community leaders (e.g. women leaders, homeowners’ association officers), barangay and LGU officials (e.g. barangay captain, councilors, mayors, etc.), and media (e.g. community newspapers, Church newsletters, or local radio stations). It also found that formal school system counterparts are also effective at referring potential ALS learners.
The ALS Advocacy TA, Adela Espina, probed further into these ideas by conducting a series of multi-stakeholder workshops with the intention of clarifying and specifying target audience, goals, and specific change areas that the advocacy program should address. The results of those workshops identified the following key target audience of the ALS Advocacy Plan:
• Potential ALS learners
• Current ALS learners
• Parents/ Family of target and current ALS learners
• General public
• Heads of local government unuits
• Community leaders
• Community members (e.g. media organizations, socio civic groups)
• Bureau of Elementary Education Staff and Field Personnel and Officers
• Bureau of Secondary Education Staff and Field Personnel and Officers
1 Advocacy Policy Thrust 1: BALS Advocacy Framework
|Change |Perception by ALS Learners of Themselves and by the Public |
| | |
|Goals |1. To banish the “yagit” (worthless people) self-image among learners while promoting self-worth and |
| |developing self-esteem and self-confidence |
| | |
| |2. To eliminate “yagit” perception of ALS learners by the public |
| | |
|Actor/ | The Bureau Advocacy Officers and Staff |
|Messenger |A spokesperson learner |
| | |
|Target Audience |Incumbent learners |
| |Target clients |
| |Parents/Family members of target clients |
| |The public |
| | |
|Message Point/s |For Goal 1: Kung ALS learner ka, natatangi ka. |
| | |
| |For Goal 2: We are proudly ALS-educated |
| | |
|Outcome Measures |Improved self-image, self-worth and self-esteem among learners |
| | |
| |Changed perception of ALS learners among the publics from “yagit” to “unique” (natatangi) |
| | |
|Change |Practice of choosing ALS as a real choice instead of a second choice |
| | |
|Goal | To project ALS as a good choice for an educational path |
| | |
|Actor/ |A spokesperson-learner |
|Messenger | |
| | |
|Target Audience | Incumbent learners |
| |Target clients |
| |Parents/Family members of target clients |
| |The public |
| | |
|Message Point/s | ALS: My choice. My education. |
| | |
|Outcome Measures | Changed knowledge among the publics that ALS is a personal choice for an |
| |educational path, not a last resort |
| | |
| | |
|Change |Heightened public awareness on the existence of ALS as an educational path and on BALS as an integral Bureau|
| |of DepED |
| | |
|Goal |To increase awareness of the Alternative Learning System (ALS) |
| | |
| | |
|Actor/ |BALS/Mobile Teacher |
|Messenger | |
| | |
| | |
|Target Audience |General public (may be sectoral in approach, e.g., farmers, fisher folk, drivers, carpenters, stevedores); |
| |or demographical, e.g., mothers and fathers, grannies, young adults, etc.) |
| | |
|Message Point/s, Set 1 |There is a third bureau at the Department of Education. It is called the Bureau of Alternative Learning |
| |System, the nation’s answer to Education For All. |
| | |
| |If you cannot go to the formal school for a variety of reasons, e.g., had to work at an early age, no money |
| |to go to formal school, living far from a school, etc.; then ALS is for you. |
| | |
| |The learners under the ALS of the Department of Education have a chance at a better life ahead. |
| | |
|Message Point/s, Set 2 |Mobile Teachers make education happen. |
| | |
| |“Babae Huwag Kang Papayag” teaches women their rights. ALS learning modules are relevant and up-to-date. |
| | |
| |ALS learners are enlightened, current, and imbued with heightened sense of consciousness. |
| | |
| | |
|Outcome Measures |Heightened awareness of ALS among target audience |
| | |
| |Media coverage of the ALS Caravan |
| | |
|Change |Increased awareness among heads of LGUs, as well as community leaders, on the existence of ALS as a means in|
| |achieving Education for All among their constituents |
| | |
|Goal | To increase awareness of the Alternative Learning System (ALS) |
| | |
|Actor/ |BALS/Mobile Teachers |
|Messenger | |
| | |
|Target Audience | Heads of local government units |
| |Community Leaders |
| | |
|Message Point/s |There is a third bureau at the Department of Education. It is called the Bureau of Alternative Learning |
| |System. |
| | |
| |If your people cannot go to the formal school for a variety of reasons, then ALS is a choice they can make. |
| | |
| |ALS is a solution to attaining education and gainful employment, as well as eradicating poverty. |
|Outcome Measures | Ownership and support for ALS programs in their localities |
| | |
|Change |Increased awareness among community members on their responsibility to make education a right that should be|
| |enjoyed by all |
| | |
|Goal | To increase awareness of the Alternative Learning System (ALS) |
| | |
|Actor/ | BALS |
|Messenger | |
| | |
|Target Audience |Community members, e.g., media organizations, organized citizen journalists, socio-civic groups |
| | |
|Message Point/s |There is a third bureau at the Department of Education. It is called the Bureau of Alternative Learning |
| |System. |
| | |
| |If your people can’t go to formal schools for a variety of reasons, then ALS is a choice they can make. |
| | |
| |ALS is a solution to attaining education and gainful employment, as well as eradicating poverty. |
| | |
|Outcome Measures | Ownership and support for ALS programs in their localities |
| | |
| | |
|Change |Heightened level of cooperation and support of the Bureau of Elementary Education and Bureau of Secondary |
| |Education and other Central and Field Offices |
| | |
|Goals |To create synergies among the Various Units of the Department of Education |
| | |
|Actor/ Messenger | The Bureau Advocacy Officers and Staff |
| | |
| | |
|Target Audience |DepEd Central and field offices |
| | |
|Message Point/s |BALS: Onward to DepEd’s EFA Goals. |
| | |
| |Mobile or Not: Reaching All Learners |
| | |
| |Formal and ALS: No child left behind |
| | |
| |BALS: Kaakibat ng Pormal na Edukasyon |
| | |
2 Advocacy Policy Thrust 2: BALS Communications Plan
Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Monitoring and Evaluation
Rationale
The BALS’ Monitoring and Evaluation System has been evolving since 2004. Based on the BALS 2004 Annual Report, BALS defines monitoring and evaluation (M&E) as the process of systematic collection and processing of data and information which will serve as reference for decision-makers to improve program implementation. As one of the programs of BALS where the Literacy Division, the M&E component seeks to develop and institutionalize a reporting system using specific forms, questionnaires, and other instruments.
In 2005, planning sessions with the 17 regions were conducted to develop as appropriate design and determine the program monitoring and evaluation. The first run of actual monitoring was held in 2006 when the Kumustahan sa Barangay practice began. Kumustahan is “an innovative advocacy and social mobilization, as well as a monitoring and evaluation strategy that is both non-threatening and participatory. Its goal is to “contribute to the formulation of standards, policies, and measures to improve with the adoption of Kumustahan, the practice of using performance indicators to evaluate program implementation began.
Together with the development of the BALS M&E System was the establishment of the BALS’ Management Information System (MIS). The 2006 BALS Annual Report defined MIS as “a system that serves as information resource base for disseminating technology and information and for coordinating and pooling available resources for ALS programs and projects.” Under this component, BALS developed the ALS Performance Indicators in coordination with the DepED Office of the Planning Service.
In 2007, fourteen (14) MIS forms were developed, finalized and rolled out for utilization in 17 regions. It was at this stage when the ALS M&E TA, Ma. Teresita Medado, came in. Ms. Medado and her team were not starting from scratch as BALS had already started its Kamustahan, determined the Performance Indicators, and established the MIS. The task then of the M&E TA is to establish a sound information base for BALS through the (1) development of an integrated M&E system and (2) development of an M&E manual.
As a result of the Draft Omnibus Guidelines Workshop several areas for improvement in the ALS M&E and MIS components were identified such as the following:
For Program Monitoring and Evaluation
• There should be monitoring on the access to the ALS Program.
• Learners’ performance monitoring should be done regularly.
• There must be yearly targeting of learners and updating of number of learners reached.
• M&E funds for ALS should be provided by DepED Central, Regional, and Division Offices.
• All ALS Field Implementers must use the prescribed monitoring forms in progress reports.
• Prescribed monitoring forms should also be used by ALS Service Providers for the following programs: Literacy Service Contracting Scheme for Basic Literacy Program, Learning Support Delivery System for A&E, and Balik Paaralan Para Sa Out-of-School Adults Programs.
• ALS programs implemented by non DepED groups should also be monitored by BALS.
• All ALS programs (e.g. Indigenous Peoples Education, eSkwela, AGAP – Sagip Project should be monitored by BALS.
For Facilities and Material Resources Monitoring
• Regular inventory of existing ALS resources must be conducted.
• DepED must provide one CLC per barangay
• The learner-module ratio must be on a 1:1 per learning strand
• DepED must provide computers with programs compatible to print the modules
• The eSkwela Centers must be rolled out to all divisions.
• The eSkwela Centers must have a 1:2 learner-to-computer ratio. At least three computer sets per center should be provided by DepED.
Financial Resource Monitoring
• BALS must monitor the utilization of funds downloaded from Central Office to the regions based on guidelines.
• A uniform process for financial monitoring must be observed at all levels.
• BALS must monitor the implementation of the Hazard Allowance Policy in the field.
• BALS must monitor the distribution of Learning Allowance in the field.
• BALS Regional, Division, and District Offices should monitor the use of the LGU funds formulated to ALS programs and projects.
1 Monitoring and Evaluation Policy Thrust: Integrated ALS M&E Framework
The articulation of product, performance, and feedback as M&E focus areas follows the general approaches in monitoring and evaluation:
1. Impact indicators, subsumed under PRODUCT, measures the change in conditions in the target community expressed in verifiable quantitative data on participation, achievement, and absorption rate.
a. Participation rate: population of learners, both served and unserved
b. Achievement rate: results of FLT and A&E test among served population
c. Absorption rate: how served population was absorbed in formal or higher education, employment or entrepreneurial undertaking.
2. Input and Output indicators, subsumed under PERFORMANCE, describes in a quantitative manner the resources provided for program implementation and the program activities that purportedly were practiced as a result of the resource provided. This indicator rate the efficiency of the following support structures:
a. Technical resources: all learning and instructional materials provided
b. Management and Administration support to projects
c. Cost effectiveness: measure of fund allocation and usage.
3. Outcome indicators, subsumed under FEEDBACK, is the project outcome as perceived by stakeholders generated through a process of qualitative feedback about experiences on:
a. Learning experience of learners
b. Learning management
c. Learning success.
[pic]
The framework follows the logical framework approach, a valuable tool for project design. The logical framework matrix summarizes a project’s intervention logic, its underlying assumptions and how M&E will be undertaken.
The implementation of the logical framework approach to M&E is guided by basic premises that enable management and project implementation practice:
1. M&E is a learning process and not a summative assessment of program implementation, rather, it is a continuing process for growth and improvement.
2. M&E emphasizes the value of stakeholder participation.
3. It focuses on concrete and strategic needs of ALS projects.
4. The Integrated M&E Framework is structured around stakeholders’ routine functions and tasks and integrating M&E into the project cycle.
5. There is a need to ensure that a common planning and M&E language be used;
6. Successful M&E gives value to methods and styles that work across geographic and demographic conditions.
7. The Integrated M&E Framework acknowledges the importance of institutional and human capacities for implementing M&E.
Omnibus Policy Guidelines on Assessment and Certification
Rationale
The ALS’ Assessment and Certification of Learning is a rich and varied combination of practice and context. This section will introduce a broad range of assessment practices and present a case towards performance and portfolio assessment.
The ALS Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E) Test, formerly known as the Non-formal Education A&E Test, is the primary achievement tool utilized by ALS. Currently, it is a paper and pencil test designed to measure the competencies of those who have not finished either the formal elementary or secondary education. Passers of this test are given a certificate/diploma (which bears the seal and the signature of the Department Secretary) certifying their competencies as comparable to graduates of the formal school system. Hence, they are qualified to enroll in high school (for elementary level passers) and to enroll in college (for secondary level passers).
Most assessment practices of ALS are geared to prepare the students for the A&E Examination, with the exception of the ALS Functional Literacy Test (FLT) - an initial screening assessment that will help in determining the literacy levels of potential learners. Learner assessment is comprised of the following: (1) Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL); (2) Module Pre-Test and Post-Tests; (3) Implementer-Made Assessment; (4) Practice Tests: (5) Portfolio; (6) Learner Notebooks and Journals, and other learners’ outputs.
With these practices at hand, the BESRA ALS-TA for Assessment and Certification of Learning TA, Ma. Teresita Medado, sought to identify effective assessment practices and document them and develop an integrated ALS assessment manual.
By way of background, the outputs of the Draft Omnibus Guidelines Workshop consisted of recommendations to improve the present ALS Assessment and Certification. These included the following:
On Assessment
• Standardize assessment practices across sites and implementations.
• Develop and maximize portfolio assessment as it facilitates the monitoring of the learners’ competency development.
• Develop an employability assessment test to help the learners understand their readiness and likelihood of being employed and the prospects of success in their chosen occupations, while taking the ALS program or after passing the A&E examination
On the A&E Exam
• Shorten the A&E results waiting time.
• Automate the A&E test
1 Assessment and Certification Policy Thrust: ALS Assessment and Certification Framework
ALS Assessment Objectives
The ALS Assessment and Certification (A&C) integrative processes may be classified according to objectives, all of which are directed towards learner success. It is a 3-step process intended to ensure that learners’ growth over a period of time in the instructional programs are well documented, and learning needs are addressed. Figure 1 below shows the ALS Learner Road Map.
Figure 1. The ALS Learner Assessment and Certification Road Map
The A&C road map begins with the Profiling Stage where learners are assessed according to their past experiences and at times, instructional level where they left off from formal education. Both demographic and past experience profiling is necessary to ascertain aspirations and interests of potential learners as input to developing the learning goals and paths.
The Assessment stage identifies a strategic and repetitive conduct of the instruments, Diagnosis, Test/Quiz and Portfolio. Certification Stage on the other hand, utilizes standardized tests. Eventually, competency-based assessment instruments will be developed and adopted as the tool to measure and present credentials of learners.
Each stage in the road map is strategically posed to achieve specific objectives. Table 1 below discusses these objectives:
Table 1. A&C Objectives
|A&C STAGES |GENERAL OBJECTIVES |DESCRIPTION |INSTRUMENTS |
|PROFILING |This is meant to place the |Profiling Stage gathers information|Personal Information Sheet (PIS) |
| |potential learner to level |about the learners including |Basic Literacy Questionnaire (BLQ) |
| |appropriate ALS Program |demographic information and prior |Functional Literacy Questionnaire |
| | |life experience |(FLQ) |
|ASSESSMENT |The objective of assessment is |Assessment Stage is a continuing |Functional Literacy Test (FLT) |
| |to quantify and qualify level of|process of monitoring and |Recognition of Prior Learning (RPL) |
| |attainment or competence within |documenting Learner Progress over a|Modular Pre and Post Tests |
| |intended and specified domain |period of time within the |Modular Quizzes |
| |expressed as indicators. |prescribed ALS Program |Individual Learning Agreement (ILA) |
| | | |Weekly Learning Logs |
| | | |Review of Learning Goals |
| DIAGNOSIS |Diagnosis is used to identify |The act of diagnosis is the |Functional Literacy Test (FLT) |
| |and analyze skills gaps that |identification of baseline |RPL |
| |have impact on the development |information on skills and | |
| |of the individual learning |competencies of individuals. It | |
| |plans. |involves making judgments as to how| |
| | |a learner is performing against a | |
| | |predetermined set of criteria. | |
|A&C STAGES |DESCRIPTION |GENERAL OBJECTIVES |INSTRUMENTS |
| TEST/QUIZ |Tests and Quizzes are meant to: |Tests and quizzes are |Modular Pre and Post Tests |
| |provide feedback to learner |teacher-made specialized |Modular Quizzes |
| |motivate learners |assessments that are limited in | |
| |diagnose learners’ strengths and |scope and focused on specific | |
| |weaknesses in a specific area of |course material. | |
| |study | | |
| |Help students to develop | | |
| |self-awareness of their achievement| | |
|PORTFOLIO |A portfolio is used to appraise |A Portfolio is a purposeful |Individual Learning Agreement (ILA) |
| |student performance over time and |collection of student work that |Weekly Learning Logs |
| |serves as evidence of : |exhibits the student's efforts, |Review of Learning Goals |
| |learners’ best work |progress, and achievements in one| |
| |the process involved in the work |or more areas of the subject or | |
| |growth and development toward |topic in the learning plan. | |
| |mastering identified outcomes. | | |
|CERTIFICATION |Certification is intended to give |Certification is as with an |Accreditation and Equivalency Test |
| |learners the opportunity to |official document provided by an |(ALS A&E Test) for Elementary and |
| |validate their knowledge and |academic institution attained |Secondary |
| |skills, helping accelerate their |through a “summative test” | |
| |entry into the real world. It is |attesting to the knowledge, |Functional Literacy Test (FLT) |
| |used to |skills and competencies acquired | |
| |pass or fail a learner |by learner. | |
| |grade or rank a learner | | |
| |allow progress to further study | | |
| |assure suitability for work | | |
| |predict success in future study and| | |
| |work | | |
| |signal employability and selection | | |
| |for employment | | |
ALS Assessment and Certification Structure
Figure 2 illustrates the detailed A&C implementing structure for every learner. Note that the learner is led from one stage to the other depending on the results of specific Accreditation and Equivalency (A&E) instruments. Likewise, the structure shows the learning programs appropriated for the learners’ as a result of Profiling.
Under Certification, note that an FLT passer has the option to undertake the A&E Elementary Program; likewise an A&E Elementary passer can opt to continue forward to study for A&E Secondary Exam.
[pic]
Figure 2. The ALS Assessment and Certification Implementing Structure
Conclusion
10 Summary of Omnibus ALS Policy Guidelines
The following table summarizes the content of the Omnibus ALS Policy Guidelines:
|Reference |Policy |Page # |
|4.1.1. |Policy on InfEd | |
|4.1.2. |Features of InfEd | |
|4.1.3. |BALS InfEd Mandate | |
|4.2.1. |Reorganization of BALS Central Office | |
|4.2.2. |BALS Manpower Requirements | |
|4.2.3. |Job Description: Region | |
|4.2.4. |Job Description: Division | |
|4.2.5. |Job Description: District | |
|4.2.6. |Job Description: Mobile | |
|4.2.7. |Regularization of BALS Plantilla Items | |
|4.3.1. |Recruitment Based on Competencies | |
|4.3.2. |Career Path for ALS Implementers | |
|4.3.3. |Benefits and Welfare Package | |
|4.4.1. |Capability Building Plan | |
|4.5.1. |LALS Council | |
|4.6.1. |BALS Organizational Performance Indicators | |
|4.6.2. |Division OPES: CED | |
|4.6.3. |Division OPES: LD | |
|4.6.4. |Division OPES: SD | |
|4.6.5. |BALS Major Final Outputs and Outcomes | |
|4.7. |Restructured Contracting Scheme | |
|5.1. |ALS Advocacy Framework | |
|5.2. |ALS Communications Plan | |
|6.1. |ALS Integrated Monitoring and Evaluation Framework | |
|7.1. |ALS Assessment and Certification Framework | |
11 BALS Roadmap
|Year 2011 |
|Goal |Functional Literacy |
|Learner |Out of school children/ youth/ adults |
|Outcome |Functionally literate learners |
|Projected Reach |5% of 45 million out of school children/ youth/ adults |
|Programs |Basic Literacy Program |
| |Accreditation and Evaluation – Non-Formal Education |
| |Informal Education |
|Year 2015 |
|Goal |IT-enabled learning paradigm |
|Learner |Community-based learners |
|Outcome |Globally competitive lifelong learners |
|Projected Reach |25% of 45 million out of school children/ youth/ adults |
|Programs |Basic Literacy Program |
| |Accreditation and Evaluation – Non-Formal Education |
| |Informal Education |
|Year 2020 |
|Goal |Lifelong Learning Paradigm |
|Learner |Community-based learners |
|Outcome |Self-sustaining ALS learning communities |
|Projected Reach |50% of 45 million out of school children/ youth/ adults |
1. Legislative Agenda
Amendments to RA 5447. The Act Creating a Special Education Fund to be Constituted from the Proceeds of an Additional Real Property Tax and a Certain Portion of the Taxes on Virginia-type Cigarettes and Duties on Imported Leaf Tobacco, Defining the Activities to be Financed, Creating School Boards for the Purpose, and Appropriating Funds Therefrom should be amended to provide for the funding of Literacy and Alternative Learning System Councils (LALSC) at the regional, division, district and community levels parallel to the local school boards of formal basic education.
Amendments to RA 7165. An Act Creating the Literacy Coordinating Council, Defining its Powers and Functions, Appropriating Funds Thereof, and for other purposes should have been amended to provide for the creation of LALS Councils at the regional, division, district and community levels in lieu of the LCCs. The amendment should have included the functions and roles of the LALS Councils at different levels and its budgetary provision under the General Appropriations Act. Unfortunately, we have been overtaken by events by the passing of Senate Bill 3573.
The previous chapter has described the existing dilemma faced by ALS supporters with the passing of Senate Bill 3573. If indeed the enactment of a joint bill strengthening the LCC is consummated then the ALS subsector can make the most out of a problematic situation by finding champions within the national LCC, specifically the Secretary of the Department of Education and the Director of the Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems, who sit as Chair and member respectively. Between the two of them, the operationalization of the Law can still be skewed through its implementing rules and regulations to favor the interests of the ASL subsector.
In case, the Senate Bill and the House version can still accommodate changes during the 15th Congress, then it is strongly recommended that Literacy and Alternative Learning System Councils be established as formal networks for local level ALS planning and implementation. The following provisions must be inserted:
• Rename the LCC into the Literacy and Alternative Learning Systems Council (LALSC) and expand its composition and functions
o Multilevel network – national, regional, provincial, etc
o Multi-sectoral composition (the participation by NGOs)
• Establish an Undersecretary Position for ALS to serve as permanent member of the Council at the national level.
Amendment to RA 9155. The Act Instituting the Framework for Governance of Basic Education, establishing Authority and Accountability, Renaming the Department of Education, Culture and Sports into the Department of Education, and for other purposes should be amended to explicitly state the accountabilities of all officers within the DepEd hierarchy for the ability or inability of ALS programs to contribute to education sector targets.
Support of Bill on SP Contracting. Lastly, a proposed bill has already been drafted by technical staff of the House of Representatives to strengthen educational service contracting in the country. Yet unnumbered and unsponsored, the proposed House bill wishes to guarantee the “widest possible access to education.” It argues that the Government need not be the exclusive maintainer, caretaker, supervisor, quality controller and manager of all of these educational schemes:
Experiments and actual program implementation in a number of developing and developed countries have clearly shown that these functions may be effectively delegated to qualified private partners and providers and other entities with better results in terms of wider outreach and better or even superior quality impact. The efficient delivery of these education services at least costs has also resulted to substantial savings on the part of the government which enable them to devote additional resources to other priority programs, deserving geographic areas and more needy groups and improve the quality and relevance of basic education.
If this bill is passed, the implementing rules and regulations (IRR) that would result from it may supersede all guidelines on the accreditation and contracting of educational service providers including those of BALS.
2. Research Agenda
Based on the foregoing discussion, the TA proposes the conduct of the following research studies:
1. Integrating Informal Education Opportunities into ALS Programs
2. Process Documentation of InfEd Activities
3. Impact study of the ALS InfEd Program
4. Design, Development and Testing of Post baccalaureate eLearning Programs for ALS Mobile Teachers
5. Design of the ALS OPIF-OPES Logical Framework
6. Policy Study on the Inclusion of ALS concerns in the QAAF
7. Process Documentation of ALS Contracting
8. Impact Study of ALS Contracting
Annexes
13 Bibliography
• Andrada, Dr. Lolita. "Reducing School Dropouts Is Not Just About Providing an Alternative Learning System." In 10th SEAMEO-INNOTECH Learning Conference: Creating Endless Possibilities in Secondary Education. Quezon City, 2008.
• "Asian Development Bank - Project Completion Report: Non-Formal Education Project in the Philippines." Asian Development Bank, 2003.
• Bautista, Ma. Cynthia Rose, Allan Bernardo, and Dina Ocampo. "When Reforms Don't Transform: Reflections on Institutional Reforms in the Department of Education." In HDN Discussion Paper Series: Philippine Human Development Report, 2008.
• Canieso-Doronilla, Maria Louisa. "A Research and Development Approach to the Delivery of Comprehensive Functional Education and Literacy in the Philippines." In Asia Literacy Regional Forum. Galleria Suites, Pasig City, 1997.
• Guerrero, Carolina S. "Philippines Non-Formal Education." In Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2008: Education For All 2015 - Will We Make It?, edited by UNESCO-EFA Global Monitoring Report, 2007.
• Pauso, Kathryn. "Documentation of Good Practices on Als Teaching and Learning." BESRA ALS-TWG, 2010.
• Soliven, Maria Preciosa S., and Marie Antoinette S. Reyes. "The Development and State of the Art of Adult Literacy Education in the Philippines." In National Report of the Republic of the Philippines, edited by UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines, 2008.
• Unwin, Tim, Mel Tan, and Kat Pauso. "The Potential of E-Learning to Address the Needs of out-of-School Youth in the Philippines." Children's Geographies 5, no. 4 (2006): 443-62.
14 Annex 1
LIST OF PARTICIPANTS
Draft ALS Omnibus Guidelines
27-28 July 2009
BESRA KRT 4 Technical Working Group (TWG)
for Alternative Learning System
Chair : Director Carolina S. Guerrero, BALS
Co-chair : Director Paraluman Giron, Region IV-A
Member : Director or permanent alternate of –
▪ Director Yolanda Quijano, BEE
▪ Director Lolita Andrada, BSE
▪ Director Milagros Talinio, OPS
▪ Director Socorro Pilor, IMC Secretariat
▪ Director Beatriz Torno, TEC Secretariat
▪ Dr. Norma Salcedo, LCC Secretariat
▪ Director Paul Soriano, Technical Service
▪ Director Lorna Dino, NEAP
Representatives from –
▪ National Statistics Office (NSO)
▪ Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)
▪ Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
▪ National Economic Development Authority (NEDA)
▪ Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)
▪ Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
▪ Nongovernment Organization (NGO)
▪ SEAMEO Innotech
▪ Congress
▪ Senate
▪ Capitol University-CDO ( Ms. Amor De La Torre)
ALS Field Implementors: (Region I, CAR, VI, X & CARAGA)
▪ (17) Regional ALS Chief
▪ (5) SDS or ASDS
▪ (5) ALS Division Supervisor
▪ (5) District Supervisor
▪ (5) District ALS Coordinator
▪ (5) Mobile Teacher
BESRA Secretariat:
▪ Edpitaf Officials and Staff
o Director Psyche Vetta Olayvar
o Ms. Merli Deri
o Mr. Leo Carpio
BALS Secretariat:
▪ Dr. Carmelita P. Joble Director III
▪ Ms. Sevilla Panaligan Asst. Chief, OIC
▪ Dr. Edel Carag SEPS, OIC
▪ Edna Gulosino SEPS
▪ Emma Gregorio SEPS
▪ Ma. Melissa Albino EPS II
▪ Cecille Nayve SEPS
▪ Mayet Publico EPS II
▪ Erlinda Angeles EPS II
▪ Mercedes Villafana EPS II
▪ Maritess Barrientos Admin. Officer II
▪ Lourdes Ramos Budget
▪ Cholita Tiong Accounting
▪ Nilva Jimenez Disbursing Officer
▪ Roberto Santos Chauffer II
▪ Richard Ulep Admin. Asst.
15 Annex 2
ALTERNATIVE LEARNING SYSTEM – TECHNICAL WORKING GROUP
Chair : Director, BALS
Co-Chair : Director, Region IV-A
Members : Director or Representative from BEE
Director or Representative from BSE
Director or Representative from OPS
Director or Representative from IMCS
Director or Representative from TEC Secretariat
Director or Representative from LCC Secretariat
Representative from NSO
Representative from DSWD
Representative from TESDA
Representative from NEDA
Representative from DILG
Representative from CHED
Representative from NGO
Representatives from SEAMEO-INNOTECH and Congress
Secretariat : BALS
16 Annex 3
ALS OMNIBUS GUIDELINES
A. GOVERNANCE
|A. Governance | | | |
| |1. Central Office | | |
| | |1.1. BALS Rationalization |BALS Central Office is regorganized into the following divisions: Planning, |
| | | |Policy, and Resource Mobilization (PPRMD), Programs Development Division (PDD), |
| | | |and Quality Assurance Division (QAD) |
| |2. Region | | |
| | |2.1. Region monitors and evaluates implementation at |Region must integrate ALS programs and projects in the Regional Education |
| | |district and division level |Development Plan with the corresponding budget allocation for monitoring and |
| | | |evaluation of ALS programs implementation |
| |3. Division | | |
| | |3.1. No appropriation for ALS at division office |There must be an allocation of a certain percentage of MOOE funds for ALS in |
| | | |every division. |
| | |3.2. Construction of CLCs not included in Building |DepED must request for allocation for CLC operations for inclusion in the |
| | |Program |regular LSB program priority |
| | |3.3. Barangay halls, chapels, and other vacant spaces are|Division office must designate CLCs for ALS for safety and security of learning |
| | |used for ALS activities |materials through MoA with Local Government Officials |
| | |3.4. Some divisions grant service credits for MT and |DepED BALS must set standardized guidelines for the granting of service credits |
| | |DALSC services rendered on Saturday, Sunday, and after |for DALSCs for compliance by all divisions |
| | |official time on weekdays | |
| | |3.5. Lack of M&E mechanism to measure quality of services|BALS must standardize the guidelines on accreditation of services rendered by |
| | |delivered by service providers. |service providers. |
| | |3.6. There are disallowed expenditures as claimed by COA |BALS must orient the CoA officials to provide the knowledge on how the funds are|
| | | |being utilized |
| | |3.7. Some regions/ divisions adopt the performance rating|Establish a separate Performance Rating for ALS teachers/ DALSCs based on their |
| | |of classroom teachers for ALS implementers |prescribed tasks |
| | |3.8. Some SDS are not supportive of ALS programs/ |ALS programs and projects must be an essential part of the Division Education |
| | |projects |Development Plan and their performance rating |
| |4. District |4.1. Some principals were designated as part-time DALSC |There should be strict observance of DepED Order #60 s. 2003 |
| | |receiving the amount for learning materials but they are | |
| | |not organizing learning sessions | |
| | |4.2. Some DALSCs are given teaching loads in the formal |Follow DepEd Order on Designation and Functions of DALSC |
| | |system. | |
| | |4.3. The existing performance appraisal system for DALSCs|BALS must establish performance evaluation standards intended for mobile |
| | |does not cover the necessary indicators. |teachers and DALSC |
| | |4.4. ALS implementers are not treated or recognized in |Revisit RA 5447 guidelines and strengthen ALS program implementation and |
| | |the same manner as the fomal education teacher. |mobilization |
| |5. Community Learning |5.1. Local School Board does not consider establishment |BALS must develop guidelines reiterating the inclusion of CLC operation as |
| |Center |of CLCs as priority for funding. |priority in the allocation of SEF fund |
| | |5.2. Convergent groups in the locality. |DepED in coordination with the DILG issue guidelines to include ALS in the LSB |
| | | |fund |
| | |5.3. There is no provision of funds for maintenance of |Provide fund allocation for the maintenance of CLC coming from the LSB-SEF |
| | |borrowed CLCs. | |
| | |5.4. Existing convergent groups in the locality are not |Intensify Advocacy and Social Mobilization in every barangay |
| | |oriented on ALS programs and projects. | |
| | |5.3. There are disallowance from COA on the use of |Coordinate with DILS and LGU to standardize guidelines on Barangay Funds |
| | |barangay funds for ALS programs and projects |allocation in support to ALS programs and projects |
| | |implementation | |
| | |5.4. There is no provision for the construction of ALS |To provide allocation for the operations/ construction of ALS community |
| | |CLC in the DepEd building program |olearning centers in the DepED building program and Adopt-a-School program |
| | |5.5. ALS activities are done in the barangay halls, |DepED in coordination with the barangay officials identify the site of ALS |
| | |chapels, and other vacant spaces. |Community Learning Centers in every barangay, then sign MoA |
| | |5.6. Local School Board does not prioritize establishment|Create Municipal ordinance to prioritize construction of Barangay Community |
| | |of CLC in the barangay |Learning System |
| | |5.7. There is no item allotted by LSB on SEF for ALS |Deped set guidelines on fund allocation of Special Edcation Fund |
| |6. Other Stakeholders |6.1. Convergence mechanisms exists between and among |Strengthen coordination mechanisms between DepED and relevant agencies |
| | |agencies such as NEC, LCC, NEDS, SDS, NGAs, NGOs, |particularly on the following: social mobilization, resource mobilization, and |
| | |Congress, CSOs, private/ business sectors |collaborative planning |
| | |6.2. The LCC caters to literacy program. There is |Creation of a Local ALS Council or expand LCC scope to include ALS |
| | |overlapping of roles, functions, and responsibilities of | |
| | |ALS with the LCC. | |
| | |6.3. LCC has to focus its programs and mandate | |
| | |6.4. Not all barangays have LCC | |
| |7. ALS Implementers |7.1. ALS MTs/ DALSCs are included in the computation of |ALS MT/DALSC must not be included in the computation of pupil:teacher ration |
| | |pupil: teacher ratio |since they handle children, out of school youth, and adults |
| | |7.2. DALSC is a formal school teacher designated by the |DepED must provide DALSC permanent item in the plantilla particular for ALS |
| | |SDS to coordinate ALS implementation at the district | |
| | |level and conduct learning session to illiterate OSY, | |
| | |children, adults | |
| | | |DepED to lobby with DBM for additional mobile teachers item. |
| |8. Welfare Package for ALS |8.1. MT/DALSC receive yearly teaching aid and monthly |DepED in coordination with DBM must issue policy that MT/DALSC as learning |
| |Implementers |ransportation allowance |facilitators must receive yearly teaching aid and monthly transportation |
| | | |allowance on time |
| | |8.2. MT/ DALSC receive hardship allowance when assigned |DepED must issue policy that the MT/DALSC receive hardship allowance and |
| | |to risky areas |insurance when assigned in risky areas |
| | |8.3. The Welfare Package funds are part of ALS field |The Welfare Package funds are part of ALS field implementation funds and must be|
| | |implementation and are transferred to Regional Offices |transferred to Regional Offices, Division Offices down to District Offices |
| | |and Division Offices | |
| | |8.4. SEF does not include ALS Mobile Teachers in the |DepED must coordinate with LGUs to include ALS in the Special Education Fund |
| | |provision of items and allowances |provision of MTs, Ims, facilitators item and allowances |
| | |8.5. Some Divisions grant service credits to MT and DALSC|DepED must improve welfare benefits of ALS field implementers with proper |
| | |for services rendered outside of their official time |coordination with DBM |
| |9. Promotion and Career | | |
| |Pathing for MT and DALSC | | |
|B. Systems |1. OPES |1.1. Use of old appraisal system | |
|Improvement | | | |
| |2. Learners |2.1. ALS learners are OSY and Adults | |
| | |2.2. BALS to issue guidelines regarding completers of the| |
| | |program | |
| | |2.3. Learners who pass the A&E are called graduates | |
| | |2.4. Completers have the option to continue with A&E | |
| | |class in preparation for A&E test | |
| | |2.5. Completers have the option to take skills training | |
| | |and join world of work | |
| |3. Service Providers |3.1.Service providers are private organizations, | |
| | |registered with SEC and are awarded the funds to deliver | |
| | |BLP and A&E programs. | |
| | |3.2. Service providers must be selected based on a | |
| | |standard criteria and the award shall be made covering | |
| | |the specific contract perios. | |
| |4. DepED Delivered |4.1. Mobile teachers and DALSCs undergo the following: | |
| | |data collection, data processing, management of | |
| | |operations, and management of service providers | |
| |5. Other partners |5.1. Networking with other partners | |
| | |5.2. ALS Service Contracting Scheme amounts to | |
| | |Php300,000/ year at Php 100,000 per program | |
| | |5.3. Lack of synergy/ orchestration of government and | |
| | |non-government and civic/ private partners | |
| | |5.4. Actual accomplishment is 150-200 per year for urban | |
| | |and 50-80 per year for rural | |
| | |5.5. Mobile teachers and service providers are catering | |
| | |to the same learners. | |
| | |5.6. Lifeskills learning materials are not available for | |
| | |BL and A&E | |
| | |5.7. Number of contact hours with learners and | |
| | |facilitators is not enough for facilitation purpose | |
| |6. Flow of funds |6.1. Project funds from Central Office are transferred to| |
| | |Regional Office, which in turn, distributes the funds to | |
| | |Division Offices | |
| | |6.2. Field Operations Fund is provided to support UCS. No| |
| | |M&E funds for ALS in Region | |
| | |6.3. Each region receives Php 300,000 for LSCS, LSDS, and| |
| | |BPOSA. | |
| | |6.4. The contract period shall not be less than 10 months| |
| | |but not more than 12 months | |
| | |6.5. The contract amount shall be used strictly by the SP| |
| | |according to the breakdown of cost stipulated in the | |
| | |contract. | |
| | |6.6. Number of contact hours with learners and | |
| | |facilitators is not enough for teaching and learning | |
| | |purposes. | |
|C. Capability | | | |
|Building | | | |
B. CURRICULUM AND LEARNING RESOURCES
|A. Curriculum |1. Development |1.1. What are the bases and who determines curriculum? |Adopt curriculum suitable to the needs of the learners |
| | |1.2. Who develops curriculum? |More capability building program for ALS implementers to be able to develop |
| | | |learning materials at the local level |
| | |1.3. How do we develop curriculum? |Conduct of TNA, workshops, development, validation, finalization, reproduction |
| | |1.4. What resources are being used? | |
| | |1.5. Who funds for reproduction of learning materials? | |
| | |1.6. How long should the curriculum be utilized? | |
|B. Learning Resources|1. Development |1.1. What are the bases for development of learning |NFE A&E Curriculum and InfEd Conceptual Framework |
| | |resources? | |
| | |1.2. Who develops learning materials and at what level? | |
| | |1.3. How do we develop learning materials? | |
| | |1.4. What is the medium of instruction policy in learning |Multi-lingual instruction |
| | |resource development? | |
| | |1.5. What are the formats of learning resources? | |
| | |1.6. What resources are being used? | |
| |2. Production and |2.1. Who funds reproduction and distribution of learning |LGU, NGO, Teaching Aid Allowance |
| |Distribution |resources? | |
| | |2.2. How to mobilize resources for reproduction of |AdSocMob |
| | |learning materials? | |
| |3. Utilization |3.1. How long should the learning resources be used? |Three to five years |
| |4. Maintenance |4.1. Who are responsible for storage and maintenance of |ALS field implementers |
| | |the learning resources? | |
| | |4.2. Who conduct inventory of learning resources? |ALS field implementers |
| |5. Evaluation |5.1. Who gathers feedback or who evaluates learning |ALS field implementers |
| | |resources? | |
| |6. Revision/ Updating |6.1. What is the revision process of the learning | |
| | |resources? | |
C. MONITORING AND EVALUATIO N
|A. Program M&E | | | |
|Human Resource |1. Learnrs |1.1. BALS monitors once a year |Integrate proposed BALS Monitoring and Evaluation to include MIS to determine |
| | | |and relate key success indicators of M&E and MIS. |
| | |1.2. Region monitors the number of learners vis-à-vis the | |
| | |mapping results using ALS For 1A and Form 1B | |
| | |1.3. The RO, Div O, and Dis O monitors access of learners | |
| | |to ALS Programs | |
| |2. Implementers (DepED |2.1. The BALS monitors once a year |Utilize improved M&E Forms in the conduct of BALS annual monitoring of |
| |Delivered) | |implementation to enable better accountability and aid in decision-making. |
| | |2.2. RO monitors quarterly | |
| | |2.3. DO monitors bi-monthly | |
| | |2.4. PSDS monitors monthly | |
| | |2.5. DALSC monitors SALSC | |
| |3. Implementers (DepED |3.1. BALS monitors SP once a year. | |
| |Procured) | | |
| | |3.2. RO monitors IM quarterly or as need arises |Utilize developed Kumustahan Form during quarterly monitoring visits at the CLC |
| | | |level to generate feedback from stakeholders. |
| | |3.3. DO monitors IM weekly | |
| | |3.4. District monitors IM once a month | |
| | |3.5. School heads with ALS monitors weekly |Implement streamlined MIS Forms in gathering demographic data for targeted|
| | | |DepED-BALS learners’ to determine participation rate, achievement rate and |
| | | |absorption rate. |
| |4. Other Programs |4.1. BALS monitors once a year | |
| | |4.2. RO monitors quarterly and semi annually | |
| | |4.3. DO monitors monthly | |
| | |4.4. District monitors monthly | |
| |5. Facilities/ CLC |5.1. BALS monitors once year | |
| | |5.2. RO monitors CLC | |
| |6. Learning Resources |6.1. All levels monitor ideal ratio of learning materials |Updating of MIS Forms at the CLC level should be conducted monthly. |
| | |vis-à-vis learners | |
| | |6.2. ALS Field Implementerers cannot open CDs | |
| | |6.3. Digitized modules are used in pilot sites only. | |
| | |6.4. Due to inadequate number of computers, shifting of | |
| | |classes is adapted. | |
|B. Monitoring of Funds | | | |
|Utilization | | | |
|C. Assessment and | | | |
|Certification System | | | |
| | |Assessment and Certification process is defined but not |Integrate ALS Assessment and Certification Implementing Structure for process |
| | |clearly articulated documented. |orientation among stakeholders. |
| | |Existing portfolio assessment and authentic assessment |Emphasize the necessity of implementing portfolio and authentic assessment. |
| | |instruments are not fully maximized. | |
D. RESEARCH, POLICY , ADVOCACY
|A. Research | | | |
| | |1.1. There are limited researches or studies being | |
| | |conducted for the ALS by its implementers at all levels. | |
| | |1.2. Some researches are undocumented, unpublished, or | |
| | |outdated. | |
| | |1.3. Some researches are outdated | |
| | |1.4. Some ALS interventions conducted by NGOs are | |
| | |unrecognized by DepED | |
| | |1.5. There is a dearth of well-researched good practices | |
| | |disseminated | |
| | |1.6. There is inadequate data on Ips | |
| | | | |
|B. Program Development| |2.1. Potential models for replication | |
| | |2.2. R&D funded by Ad Hoc grants | |
|C. Policy Formulation | |3.1. Policies are misunderstood at all levels. | |
|Advocacy | | | |
| | |1.1. There is no comprehensive Communications Plan for ALS| |
| | |to cater to the various audiences | |
| | |1.2. Encouraging support from LGUs is a common practice | |
| | |1.3. In some areas, there is an ALS identity crisis, poor | |
| | |coodination/ partnership efforts for implementation of | |
| | |activities within DepED | |
| | |1.4. Some DepED officials and personnel have different | |
| | |views and conceptions on ALS | |
| | |1.5. Current legislations for the promotion of ALS are | |
| | |scarce. | |
| | |1.6. Not all barangays have established CLCs | |
| | |1.7. Some ALS grassroots workers lack coordination and | |
| | |networking skills | |
-----------------------
[1] Maria Louisa Canieso-Doronilla, "A Research and Development Approach to the Delivery of Comprehensive Functional Education and Literacy in the Philippines," in Asia Literacy Regional Forum (Galleria Suites, Pasig City1997), 1-2.
[2] Ibid.
[3] Ibid.
[4] "Asian Development Bank - Project Completion Report: Non-Formal Education Project in the Philippines," (Asian Development Bank, 2003).
[5] Section 1, Article 14, 1987 Philippine Constitution
[6] Section 2, RA 9155
[7] Section 3, RA 9155
[8] Section 12.1, Rule XII of RA 9155
[9] Carolina S. Guerrero, "Philippines Non-Formal Education," in Education For All Global Monitoring Report 2008: Education For All 2015 - Will We Make It?, ed. UNESCO-EFA Global Monitoring Report (2007), 3.
[10] Maria Preciosa S. Soliven and Marie Antoinette S. Reyes, "The Development and State of the Art of Adult Literacy Education in the Philippines," in National Report of the Republic of the Philippines, ed. UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines (2008), 6.
[11] Guerrero, "Philippines Non-Formal Education," 4.
[12] Ma. Cynthia Rose Bautista, Allan Bernardo, and Dina Ocampo, "When Reforms Don't Transform: Reflections on Institutional Reforms in the Department of Education," in HDN Discussion Paper Series (Philippine Human Development Report, 2008), 35.
[13] Ibid., 36.
[14] Draft Omnibus Guidelines v.4 is included in the Appendix.
[15] Tim Unwin, Mel Tan, and Kat Pauso, "The Potential of E-Learning to Address the Needs of out-of-School Youth in the Philippines," Children's Geographies 5, no. 4 (2006).
[16] "Asian Development Bank - Project Completion Report: Non-Formal Education Project in the Philippines," 10.
[17] Kathryn Pauso, "Documentation of Good Practices on Als Teaching and Learning," (BESRA ALS-TWG, 2010), 9.
-----------------------
Methods of Learner Recruitment
House-to-House Recruitment. Based on the interviews with ALS implementers, learner recruitment is primarily done through the house-to-house approach of visiting households in the communities. Penetrating these communities usually require close coordination with barangay officials and community leaders like purok leaders, women leaders, or homeowners’ association officers. ALS implementers who worked with barangay or other LGU officials found their support beneficial in giving credibility to the programs of ALS.
Information Dissemination. Another method for recruiting learners has been through information dissemination about the ALS programs. The ALS implementers make use of any available resources to make the information regarding ALS available such as speaking in any public assembly (e.g. mass, PTA meetings), mobilizing strategic networks (e.g. tricycle drivers, former ALS learners), or using any form of media.
Formal School as Recruitment Channel. The third method for learner recruitment is through coordination with formal schools. Since ALS caters to formal school dropouts, this arrangement is a proactive action in capturing those who drop out of formal school.
Integrated ALS M&E Framework
[pic]
................
................
In order to avoid copyright disputes, this page is only a partial summary.
To fulfill the demand for quickly locating and searching documents.
It is intelligent file search solution for home and business.
Related searches
- us department of treasury bureau of fiscal
- bureau of teacher certification florida
- bureau of fiscal service letter
- bureau of fiscal service scam
- bureau of the fiscal service dmsc birmingham
- bureau of the fiscal service
- department of the treasury bureau of fiscal
- nevada bureau of licensure and certification
- nevada bureau of health care compliance
- us department of treasury bureau of fis
- commonwealth of pennsylvania bureau of state employment
- department of labor bureau of statistics