Beruflich Dokumente
Kultur Dokumente
b. Performance Indicators
INDICATORS 2009 - 2010 2011 - 2011 2011 2012
1. Completion Rate 96% 64% 64%
2. Drop-out Rate 3% 0% 0%
3. Retention Rate 91% 91% 91%
4. Repetition Rate 3% 3% 3%
5. Promotion Rate 90% 90% 91%
6. Graduation Rate 100% 100% 100%
7. Failure Rate 8% 8% 8%
8. Cohort-Survival Rate 53% 52% 55%
c. Intermediate Indicators
1. School Nutritional Status
Grade Severely Wasted Wasted Normal Overweight
Grade I 10 23 31 1
Grade II 8 9 39 0
Grade III 6 9 22 0
Grade IV 9 12 23 0
Grade V 6 4 24 0
Grade VI 11 12 27 0
TOTAL 55 87 191 1
2. Textbook-Pupil Ratio
Grade 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Grade I 1:2 1:2 1:2
Grade II 1:2 1:2 1:1
Grade III 1:2 1:2 1:1
Grade IV 1:2 1:2 1:2
Grade V 1:2 1:2 1:2
Grade VI 1:2 1:2 1:2
TOTAL 1:2 1:2 1:2
3. Teacher-Pupil Ratio
Grade 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012
Grade I 1:28 1:26 1:25
Grade II 1:34 1:51 1:45
Grade III 1:56 1:38 1:45
Grade IV 1:38 1:52 1:34
Grade V 1:35 1:40 1:49
Grade VI 1:39 1:36 1:37
TOTAL 1:36 1:37 1:42
A. EQUITABLE ACCESS
1. Personal
P-4 P-3 P-2 P-1 HT-III HT-II HT-I TIC MT-2
M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T M F T
0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
B. Textbooks( Elementary)
GRADE
I II III IV V VI
Actual Needs Actual Needs Actual Needs Actual Needs Actual Needs Actual Needs
English 40 29 119 0 73 0 35 9 35 0 32 18
Mathematics 38 10 51 0 63 0 61 23 61 0 7 43
Science 42 0 28 21 28 18 63 0
Sibika/HKS 50 20 29 39 0 43 0 43 0 35 15
EPP 4 22 4 32 5 45
IA 0 44 0 36 0 50
MSEP 0 44 0 36 6 50
CE/sP 6 6 38 6 30 8 42a
3. Physical and Ancillary Facilities
a. ICT Facilities
1. Learner Performance
GRADE III
Grade VI
Subjects 2009-2010 2010-2011 2011-2012 Intervention Done to Raise
Academic Standards
English Reading ABRC, story books
Mathematics Reinforcement Activities
Science Remedial Classes
Filipino Remedial Classes
Hekasi Reciting Multiplication Table
Average
b. Periodic Test Result Use another Sheet for the result of and item analysis by subject area)
c. NCBTS/TSINA
2. Stakeholders Contribution/Assistance
STAKEHOLDERS NATURE OF CONTRIBUTION EXTENT OF INVOLMENT
P S VS O
h. Did the use of SBM grant for school project improve the SBM practice of the school? If yes/no state why.
___________________________________________________________________________________.
D. Research Conducted
Outcome Hindering Factor/s for not
Research Title Conducted By Expected Actual achieving
N/A N/A N/A N/A N/A
2. Best Practices/Awards
A. Reviewing of NAT
B. Peer-Teaching
C. Peer-Reading
D. MTAP Classes
Prepared by:
AL EUSEBIO L. JONSON
Head Teacher III
Noted:
LORETA S. ESGUERRA
District Supervisor