Chapter 1

Introduction

Background
One way of knowing the progress of a school is assessing its performance. Similarly, when

performance is assessed, some other things are being looked into, such as the profile of the school

in terms of its enrollment, whether it is increasing or decreasing, the implementation of the

curriculum, whether the mandates in the curriculum are religiously followed or there are some

deviations, the instructional materials, if these are adequate or relevant to the learning needs of the

children, the teaching pedagogies, if these are appropriate, suited, and fit to the mental ability and

learning style of the children, the facilities, if these are conducive to the learning environment, and

the location of the school, this is safe, accessible, and free from intruders.

Similarly, in assessing the performance of the school, the teaching and learning are two of

the great considerations. It involves the achievement of the school, that is, how the teaching is

relevant to the learning progress and development of the children. As said by Sweet (2003),

performance assessment is an authentic for of testing designed to provide a more complete picture

of student achievement in a particular area. In other words, students are assessed through observing

their performances and examining the products they have produced throughout the lesson.

Moreover, its purpose is to evaluate the actual process of doing an object of learning. This makes

assessment of school performance mandatory.

With this, educational institution in the world adopts some trends and development for the

school’s improve performance. In the Philippines, one of the changes adopted is the compulsory

or mandatory Kindergarten Education. Republic Act 10157, or “The Kindergarten Education Law”

made Kindergarten the compulsory and mandatory entry stage to basic education. Accordingly, it

1
is the government way of moving to strengthen a kindergarten system to comply with a law making

preschool a requisite for entry to Grade 1. In fact, former President Benigno Aquino III signed the

law on January 20 and formally announced its enactment in a ceremony attended by education

officials and lawmakers in Malacañang on February 27, 2012. Moreover, the aim of the law is

stated below:

Section 2 of this Act provides that all five (5)-year old children shall be given equal

opportunities for Kindergarten Education to effectively promote their physical, social, emotional

and intellectual development, including values formation so they will be ready for school.

This was so since the Department of Education (DepEd) believes that Kindergarten is the

transition period from informal to formal literacy (Grades 1-12) considering that age five (5) is

within the critical years where positive experiences must be nurtured to ascertain school readiness.

Previously, it is understood that Kindergarten pupils belong to preschool education which

technically refer to the early childhood education for children before they begin the compulsory

education. But because of the mandatory Kindergarten Act when the K to 12 Curriculum has been

implemented in the Philippines, Kindergarten education has also become mandatory. Since this is

now a mandatory education, the performance of the Kindergarten class is essential to assess to be

able to find out if the classes met the standards of the DepEd and are aligned and adhered to the K

to 12 Curriculum and other mandates of the Department of Education to the Kindergarten Classes

in the Philippines.

Furthermore, the performance of the Kindergarten classes is essential to assess to find out

means and ways for improving the Kindergarten curriculum in terms of aspects which are within

the control of the school heads and the Schools Division Office of the Division of Marinduque.

2
Also, there is no yet studies that has been conducted that assessed the Kindergarten Education

since it has become mandatory and compulsory.

Along the implementation of the Kindergarten Education, all Kindergarten Classes are

using the Curriculum Guide for Kindergarten Education, 2016 Revised Edition. It is in this

curriculum guide, the teachers aligned the teaching of the learning competencies which are

developed along different domains such as: socio-emotional development, values development,

physical health and motor development, aesthetic/creative development, mathematics,

understanding of the physical and natural environment, and language literacy and communication.

In this background, this research will be conducted to assess the performance of the

Kindergarten classes and the school profile that offers the Kindergarten classes in the Division of

Marinduque. It will delve in knowing the profile of the school with respect to the enrollment, years

of existence, curriculum, instructional materials, teaching pedagogies, facilities, and location. The

performance of the school will deal with the activities in which the Kindergarten classes join and

participate and the performance in the learning domains of the Curriculum Guide for Kindergarten.

Results will yield to the crafting of position paper that would present some issues that beset the

performance of the Kindergarten classes and those impede the progress of some variables of the

school profile as found out in the research.

Research Questions
Generally, this research aims to assess that offers Kindergarten classes.

Specifically, it seeks answers to the following questions:

3
 1. What is the profile of the kindergarten schools in the Schools Division of Marinduque in

terms of :

1.1.enrolment;

1.1 years of existence;

1.2 curriculum implementation;

1.3 instructional materials;

1.4 teaching pedagogies;

1.5 facilities; and

1.6 location of the school?

2. What is the status of performance of the Kindergarten class in the Schools Division of

Marinduque in terms of the following:

2.1 contest participation;

2.2 classroom evaluation;

2.3 overall performance of pupils in terms of the following domains:

2.3.1.socio-emotional development;

2.3.2 values development;

2.3.3 physical health and motor development;

2.3.4 aesthetic/creative development;

2.3.5 mathematics;

2.3.6 understanding of the physical and natural environment; and

2.3.7 language literacy and communication?

3. Is there a significant difference on the profile of the Kindergarten classes in the Schools

Division of Marinduque in terms of:

4
 3.1.enrolment;

3.2.years of existence;

3.3.curriculum implementation;

3.4.instructional materials;

3.5.teaching pedagogies;

3.6.facilities; and

3.7.location of the school?

4. Is there a significant relationship on the profile of the Kindergarten schools and the status of

the performance of the Kindergarten classes?

5. What policy paper can be crafted as an output of the study?

Research Hypotheses
This research sets the following hypotheses for proving:
There is no significant difference among the profile of the Kindergarten classes and in the

Schools Division of Marinduque.

There is no significant relationship between the profile of the Kindergarten schools and the

performance of the Kindergarten classes in the Schools Division of Marinduque.

Significance of the Problem

The common core standards in the kindergarten in the Philippines follows the Universal

Kindergarten Act and its curriculum which was recently revised in 2016. The research study data

will benefit teachers because their profile may be shared with local, county, and state

administrators and thus may improve future K-12 professional development regarding the teaching

of the Kindergarten Curriculum. In addition, study results may increase the financial support

5
allocated to assist teachers in implementing the standards. The findings may influence the teachers

and others on whatever resources administrators may make available to teachers. Those resources

may include items for the classrooms to help teachers better implement the standards or additional

professional development that may be needed. Generally, the research study data will assist the

181 schools in the Division of Marinduque in planning and implementing its curriculum to prepare

teachers to effectively use the content of the curriculum in their respective schools. Finally, the

findings may provide educators with information to better serve learners including the

development of differentiated instruction and developmentally appropriate strategies and content.

One example may include greater focus on the increased use of informational text in kindergarten.

Limitations and Delimitations

The study covers the profile of the Kindergarten schools and status of the performance of

Kindergarten classes in the Schools Division of Marinduque. Specifically, the profile will delve

into some variables such as: enrolment, years of existence, curriculum implementation,

instructional materials, teaching pedagogies, facilities, and location of the school.

In the addition, the status will focus on the contest participation, classroom evaluation, and

overall performance of pupils in the Kindergarten classes in the Schools Division of Marinduque.

The significant difference among the profile of the kindergarten schools and the significant

relationship between the profile of the Kindergarten schools and the performance of the

Kindergarten classes. Results will yield to the crafting of position paper.

It involves the 127 Kindergarten teachers who will be randomly chosen from the total of

181 teachers in the nine districts namely Boac North, Boac South, Buenavista, Gasan, Mogpog,

6
Santa Cruz East, Santa Cruz North, Santa Cruz South, and Torrijos District in the Schools Division

of Mariduque.

Definition of Terms

To give shed to the variables of the research, these are hereby either conceptually or

operationally defined as follows:

Aesthetic/Creative Development. This measures the children ways of develop their

aesthetic sense and creative expression through drawing, painting, and manipulative activities.

Aesthetic development involves the love and pursuit of beauty in art, music, and movement, and

creates opportunities for the creative expression of emotions, thoughts, feelings, and ideas.

Curriculum Implementation. It refers to the extent of implementation of the curriculum

with regard to the learning domain, performance standards, and content standards mandated to the

Kindergarten classes by the Department of Education.

Enrolment. This is the number of the enrolled children aged five (5) in the 127 selected

Kindergarten classes in Schools Division of Marinduque.

Facilities. In this study, these refer to the physical plants which are required to be in the

Kindergarten classroom such as Kindergarten chair, modular Kindergarten table, teacher’s table,

teacher’s chair, indoor play house, model house, functional toilet for learners, hand washing

facilities, and the like.

Instructional Materials. These are the teaching and learning materials used by the

Kindergarten teachers in developing the performance of the Kindergarten pupils in the 7 domains.

7
 Language, Literacy, and Communication. This domain provides opportunities on early

literacy learning for self-expression through language using the mother tongue or the child’s first

language.

Location of the School. The geographical location of the school as to: along the road, at

mountainous region, near the rivers, and the distance (in kilometers of the school) to the Schools

Division Office, District Office, and municipality.

Mathematics. This assesses the children ways to understand and demonstrate knowledge,

thinking skills, and insights into patterns of mathematics, concepts of numbers, length, capacity,

mass, and time through the use of concrete objects or materials, and to apply these meaningfully

in their daily experiences.

Participation to Contest. The status of the Kindergarten classes as they joined the contest

in Regional, Division, and District levels. In this study, the contests are limited to those

implemented by the Department of Education. The participation is measured is terms of the

number of participation of the Kindergarten pupils in the contest and any award received by the

Kindergarten pupils in joining the contest.

Performance of the Kindergarten Classes. It refers to the status of the performance of

the Kindergarten classes with respect to the participation to contest, classroom evaluation, and

learning domains.

Physical Health and Motor Development. This pertains the ways children are expected

to develop both their fine and gross motor skills to be efficient and effective movers when engaging

in wholesome physical and health activities. Also their understanding of good health habits and

8
develop their awareness about the importance of safety and how they can prevent danger at home,

in school, and in public places.

Profile of the Kindergarten Schools. It pertains to the enrolment, years of existence,

curriculum implementation, instructional materials, teaching pedagogies, facilities, location of the

school.

Socio-Emotional Development. It contains indicator that measure the performance of the

children in terms of their emotional skills, basic concepts pertaining to her/himself, how to relate

well with other people in his/her immediate environment, demonstrate awareness of one's social

identity, and appreciate cultural diversity among the school, community, and other people.

Teaching Pedagogies. These pertain to the teaching approaches, methodologies, and

strategies employed by the Kindergarten teachers in developing the performance of the

Kindergarten pupils in their respective classes.

Understanding of the Physical and Natural Environment. This contains indicators that

demonstrates a basic understanding of concepts pertaining to living and nonliving things, including

weather, and use these in categorizing things in his/her environment. Also the ways they acquire

essential skills and sustain their natural curiosity in their immediate environment through

exploration, discovery, observation, and relate their everyday experiences using their senses

(touch, sight, smell, taste, and hearing).

Values Development. This measures the children ways in showing positive attitudes, self-

concept, respect, concern for self and others, behave appropriately in various situations and places,

manifest love of God, country, and fellowmen.

9
 Years of Existence. The year when the Kindergarten class has been established including

the year when Kindergarten Education has become mandatory.

10
 Chapter 2
Review of Literature

This chapter presents selected literature and related studies relevant to the study that will

give direction and provide additional insights and information for deeper understanding of the

problem presented for investigation.

History of Common Core Standard

Rothman (2012a) suggested the idea of setting standards for the knowledge and skills

students need surfaced in the United States in the late 1980s. The National Council of Teachers of

Mathematics (NCTE) drafted standards in 1989 stating what students should learn in mathematics.

The concept of setting national academic standards gained support from the George H.W. Bush

administration and grants were awarded to subject-matter organizations that agreed to develop

standards for their disciplines (Rothman, 2012a).

In 1994, the National Education Standards Improvement Council was created through

legislation that provided grants to states to write their own standards. However, before individuals

were appointed to serve on this council, Congress abolished it in 1995 (Rothman, 2012a). Rothman

suggested that after this debate, most educators believed the idea of national standards would

disappear; however, the Clinton administration tried to bring the issue of national standards in

front of Congress again by proposing voluntary tests in reading and math. Once again, the idea did

not make it past Congress.

11
 Rothman (2012a) noted that with the idea of national standards dead, the 1994

reauthorization of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act required states to develop and

implement state standards and assessments. By the late 1990s, all states except Iowa had standards

in place. The No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001 further strengthened the need for

standards and assessments through its stringent accountability measures.

The NCLB Act, with its focus on discrepancies across states, refueled the fire for national

standards. For example, the National Assessment of Academic Progress (NAEP) test (Achieve,

2010) revealed disproportionate proficiency scores between NAEP and state assessments. Tepe

(2013) believed there is a lack of identifying the inconsistency of 50 states having 50 different sets

of standards; this inconsistency perpetuates inconsistent student outcomes. In addition, Tepe noted

that students were graduating high school not prepared for college-level courses and as a result,

first-year college students were being placed in remedial courses. The CCSS were designed to

eliminate this expectation gap (Achieve, 2010).

Quay (2010) suggested that when states develop their own content standards, five major

criticisms surface. First, some states have developed standards too numerous to effectively teach.

Instead of creating standards that grow increasingly complex with each new grade, most states

write standards that cover the same topics in first through eighth grades, in addition to adding new

standards at each grade level. Numerous standards force teachers to pick and choose what to teach

and thus, eliminate some standards completely. Second, state standards tend to be confusing and

inconsistent in comparison to each other. Inconsistencies include what material is covered, how

specifically material is described, what grade the material should be taught, and for how many

grades the material should be addressed. In a study of teachers in five states, Massel (2008) found

that teachers reported being frustrated by too many standards and the decision of which standards

12
to teach. Another study by Goertz (2008) found teachers believed that most state standards are too

vague to be helpful in planning instruction. Third, state standards established set low expectations

for students (Quay, 2010). Numerous analyses confirm that state expectations for student

achievement fall below National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) expectations

(NCES, 2010). Fourth, state standards are not aligned to college and career readiness. In 2009,

fewer than one in four high school graduates who completed an academic curriculum and took the

ACT were considered ready for college-level work (ACT, 2009). Fifth, state standards do not

measure up to international comparisons (Quay, 2010).

America’s education standards fall behind higher-ranking countries in the number of

standards, the composition and progression of standards across grade levels, the rigor of the

standards, and the level of mastery expected from students (Quay, 2010). In 2006, the Programme

for International Assessment that found American students ranked 35th among 40 countries in

math and 29th in science (Cleaver, 2011). All of these factors combined spurred the idea again for

national standards.

In the Philippines, the standards of Kindergarten is stipulated in the Kindergarten

Curriculum. Republic Act 10157, or "The Kindergarten Education Act" made Kindergarten the

compulsory and mandatory entry stage to basic education. Section 2 of this Act provides that all

five (5)-year old children shall be given equal opportunities for Kindergarten Education to

effectively promote their physical, social, emotional, and intellectual development, including

values formation, so they will be ready for school. The Department of Education (DepEd) believes

that Kindergarten is the transition period from informal to formal literacy (Grades 1–12),

considering that age five (5) is within the critical years in which positive experiences must be

nurtured to ascertain school readiness. Extensive research has shown that this is the period of

13
greatest growth and development, during which the brain continuously develops most rapidly and

almost at its fullest. It is also the stage when self-esteem, vision of the world, moral foundations

are established, and their mind’s absorptive capacity for learning is at its sharpest.

Teachers/parents/caregivers/adults should therefore be guided to facilitate explorations of our

young learners in an engaging, creative, and child-centered curriculum that is developmentally

appropriate and which immerses them in meaningful experiences. Provision of varied play-based

activities leads them to becoming emergent literates and helps them to naturally acquire the

competencies to develop holistically. They are able to understand the world by exploring their

environment, as they are encouraged to create and discover, which eventually leads them to

becoming willing risk takers and ready to tackle formal school work

The Kindergarten Curriculum Framework (KCF) draws from the goals of the K to 12

Philippine Basic Education Curriculum Framework and adopts the general principles of the

National Early Learning Framework (NELF). Kindergarten learners need to have a smooth

transition to the content based curriculum of Grades 1 to 12.

Theoretical bases for teaching-learning in the early years, which are founded on

constructivism, integrative, thematic, collaborative, inquiry–based, and reflective teaching in play-

based approaches with application of the Developmentally Appropriate Practices (DAP); these

support the principles of child growth and development, and the learning program development

and assessment.

The circles, on the other hand, signify the system of how Kindergarten Education is to be

employed. The interlocked ellipses represent the learning domains that have to be nurtured and

equally imparted to holistically develop children. It also forms a flower that portrays the gradual

unfolding but steady development, as is expected of every child. The child is seen as being in the

14
process of blossoming – like a flower bud whose development should not be forced lest it lose its

chance to fully mature. The domains are enclosed by the Learning Areas children will meet in

Grade One onward, for which they are being prepared. The outermost layer indicates the Curricular

Themes upon which the Kindergarten Curriculum Guide (KCG) or the Teacher’s Guide is

designed. It has been crafted using the thematic or integrative approach to curriculum development

in a spiralling learning process. This approach employs integerative and interactive teaching-

learning strategies as well as child-centered learning experiences.

The following are the general guiding principles of the National Early Learning Framework

(NELF):

A. On Child Growth and Development 1. Every child is unique. Growth and development

vary from child to child, for whom the first eight years of life are most vital. He/she has an innate

desire to learn, and this is best done through meaningful and real experiences. 2. Every aspect of

growth and development is interrelated and interdependent. The child needs to be nurtured in a

good and caring environment that enhances healthy and dependable relationships with other

children and most significant adults. 3. The learning and development of every child involve a

series of complex and dynamic processes that are best attended to in a more positive and responsive

manner. 4. The child must be encouraged to aspire beyond one’s own level of achievements and

to practice newly acquired competencies. 5. Every child is a thinking, moving, feeling, and

interactive human being able to actively participate in the learning and development of self in the

context of one’s family and community, including cultural and religious beliefs.

B. On Learning Program Development 1. The learning program is child centered. It

promotes the holistic way by which young children grow and develop, and recognizes the role of

families and communities in supporting the child through various stages of growth and

15
development. 2. The learning program is appropriate for developing the domains, and must sustain

interest in active learning of all young children including those with special abilities, marginalized,

and/or those at risk. 3. The learning program is implemented by way of diverse learning activities

that may be enhanced with multimedia technologies such as interactive radio, audio/video clips,

and computer-enhanced activities. 4. The use of learning materials and other resources that are

locally developed and/or locally available is encouraged. The mother tongue shall be used as the

child’s language of learning.

C. On Learning Assessment 1. Assessment is done to monitor learning, know where the

child is at, and inform parents of the child’s progress. 2. Assessment is crucial to identifying the

child’s total developmental needs and does not determine academic achievement. 3. Assessment

is best conducted on a regular basis so that a timely response or intervention can be made to

improve learning. 4. The results of the learning assessment of a child shall be kept strictly

confidential. Ratings should be more qualitative/descriptive and less numerical. 5. The family and

community must be informed of the general outcomes of learning so as to encourage further

cooperation and partnerships

Developmental Domain

“Developmental domains” refers to specific aspects of growth and changes in children.

These are represented by the ellipses to show interconnectedness in the holistic development of

children. The contents of each developmental domain are defined by learning expectations, as

follows:

1. Socio-Emotional Development (Pagpapaunlad ng Sosyo-Emosyunal at Kakayahang

Makipamuhay) - Children are expected to develop emotional skills, basic concepts pertaining to

16
her/himself, how to relate well with other people in his/her immediate environment, demonstrate

awareness of one's social identity, and appreciate cultural diversity among the school, community,

and other people.

2. Values Development (Kagandahang Asal) - Children are expected to show positive

attitudes, self-concept, respect, concern for self and others, behave appropriately in various

situations and places, manifest love of God, country, and fellowmen.

3. Physical Health & Motor Development (Kalusugang Pisikal at Pagpapaunlad sa

Kakayahang Motor) - Children are expected to develop both their fine and gross motor skills to be

efficient and effective movers when engaging in wholesome physical and health activities. They

are also expected to acquire an understanding of good health habits and develop their awareness

about the importance of safety and how they can prevent danger at home, in school, and in public

places.

4. Aesthetic/Creative Development (Sining) – Children are expected to develop their

aesthetic sense and creative expression through drawing, painting, and manipulative activities.

Aesthetic development involves the love and pursuit of beauty in art, music, and movement, and

creates opportunities for the creative expression of emotions, thoughts, feelings, and ideas.

5. Mathematics - Children are expected to understand and demonstrate knowledge,

thinking skills, and insights into patterns of mathematics, concepts of numbers, length, capacity,

mass, and time through the use of concrete objects or materials, and to apply these meaningfully

in their daily experiences. Children are provided with varied manipulative activities to help them

see relationships and interconnections in math and enable them to deal flexibly with mathematical

ideas and concepts.

17
 6. Understanding of the Physical and Natural Environment - Children are expected to

demonstrate a basic understanding of concepts pertaining to living and nonliving things, including

weather, and use these in categorizing things in his/her environment. They are also expected to

acquire the essential skills and sustain their natural curiosity in their immediate environment

through exploration, discovery, observation, and relate their everyday experiences using their

senses (touch, sight, smell, taste, and hearing).

7. Language, Literacy, and Communication - This domain provides opportunities on early

literacy learning for self-expression through language using the mother tongue or the child’s first

language. Children are expected to develop communicative skills in their first language. They are

also expected to develop more positive attitudes toward reading, writing, and to view themselves

as effective users and learners of language.

Professional Development of Kindergarten Teachers

Standards alone will not raise student achievement, nor do standards implement

themselves. Teachers are responsible for the instruction and implementation of the CCSS

(Coleman, et al, 2012). Professional development will play a key role in the success of the CCSS

(Killion & Hirsh, 2012a; Loveless, 2012; Nielson, 2012; Sheninger, 2013). Research has revealed

that increasing teachers' knowledge through professional development is the most important factor

for improving student achievement (Grossman, 2009).

Wilson (2009) noted key components of successful professional development: emphasis

on subject-matter knowledge, more than 40 hours with a year or more of follow-up, connecting it

to existing knowledge, actively involving teachers, and training teachers from the same school at

18
the same time. The Council of Chief State School Officers agreed with these components, and

endorsed teachers completing 100 hours or more of training (Blank & de las Alas, 2009). A

groundbreaking study supported the request that teachers receive a large amount of hours targeting

the CCSS. Carpenter, Fennema, Peterson, Chiang, and Loef (1989) found that students in a class

where the teacher received 80 hours of comprehensive, targeted professional developed on a

specific type of instruction outperformed the students on three of the six student achievement

measures compared to the class where the teacher received only four hours of training. Fullan et

al. (2004) suggested 10 components for large-scale reform: compelling conceptualization,

collective moral purpose, the right structure, capacity building, lateral capacity building, ongoing

learning, productive conflict, demanding culture, external partners, and focused financial

investments.

According to Birman, Desimone, Porter, and Garet (2000), most evidence supporting

effective professional development is anecdotal. These researchers, therefore, surveyed more

1,000 teachers nationwide to identify effective approaches to professional development. Literature

and survey data indicated three structural features that created the context for professional

development: form (study group, task force, mentoring, internship, etc.), duration (length of PD),

and participation (group participation by grade level, school, department or individual

participation). The study also revealed three features that characterize the processes that happen

during professional development: content focus (how well the PD emphasized the intended

content); active learning (opportunities for teachers to practice or analyze teaching/learning); and

coherence (provision for continued support and alignment with goals and standards). The number

of teachers that reported attending professional development exhibiting all six characteristics was

very small (Birman et al., 2000).

19
 The assumption has traditionally been that educational leaders tell teachers to implement a

new reform and, overnight, teachers are expected to change how and what they teach. Killion and

Hirsh (2012a) suggest this “educator as miracle worker” approach will more than likely fail. When

school districts face budget cuts, professional development is typically reduced or taken away

(Archibald et al., 2011). If this occurs for professional development needed to support

implementation of the CCSS, budget cuts could prove detrimental to the success of the CCSS

because professional development has been proven to be a major implementation investment in

the initiative (Murphy et al., 2012).

When schools and school systems that have made significant improvements in terms of

school reform are studied, professional development continually emerges as an essential factor

(Bryk et.al, 2009; Silva, 2008). Professional development is linked to increasing students’

academic achievement (Yoon et al., 2007). Many researchers have agreed that professional

development should be intensive and sustained to have a greater impact on teaching practices

(Collinson & Cook, 2001; Day & Leith, 2007; Garet et al., 2001). Teachers have reported that

professional development should focus on the subject matter, provide opportunities for hands-on

practice, and be a part of the daily life of the school (Garet et al., 2001).

Professional development for the CCSS has been deemed as critical for successful

implementation (Williams, 2012). Concurrently, the CCSS poses a different issue for professional

development because in this case, students are not the first learners of the CCSS; the teachers are

the first learners (Walsh, 2014). If teachers do not effectively learn how to implement the CCSS,

then student achievement will not increase.

A recent study conducted by the Center on Education Policy found that providing effective

professional development will be a challenge for most states (Kober & Rentner, 2012; Sawchuk,

20
2012). Any shortcuts taken in professional development will have the potential for decreasing

students’ opportunities to be college and career ready (Killion & Hirsh, 2012b). In a survey by the

Center on Education Policy (2012), 53% of school districts reported not providing professional

development related to the CCSS in math and 55% reported not providing training in English

language arts.

At the same time, teachers are voicing their requests for professional development related

to the CCSS. The EPE Research Center that assists in publishing Education Week asked teachers

to rate how prepared they felt to teach the CCSS (Gewertz, 2013a). On a scale from 1 to 5 with 5

being very prepared and 1 being not prepared at all, 49% of teachers rated themselves as a 1, 2, or

3. The study also revealed how varied the amount of professional development has been for

teachers. Nearly 3 in 10 teachers reported having no training for the CCSS and of the 70% who

had been trained, only 41% had had four or more days of professional development. Guskey (1986)

suggested that when professional development fails, the failure can be linked to two factors not

taken into account: the motivation for teachers to participate in professional development and the

process that occurs to change teachers' beliefs and instruction. When professional development is

designed to change teachers' attitudes in hopes of securing strong commitments, the typical result

is failed professional development (Jones & Hayes, 1980). In a more recent article, Guskey (2002)

expanded on this previous research and suggested an alternative model in which teachers' attitudes

and beliefs change some time after the professional development occurs because teachers have

experienced an increase in student achievement due to changes made in classroom practices.

Support from other studies has also emphasized that teachers became committed to specific

reforms after they have opportunities to practice in their classrooms and experience change in

student learning (Crandall, 1983; Huberman & Miles, 1984).

21
Theoretical Framework of the Study

The study is anchored on theories of teaching and learning in the olden days which are

founded on constructivism, integrative, thematic, collaborative, inquiry–based, and reflective

teaching in play-based approaches with application of the Developmentally Appropriate Practices

(DAP); these support the principles of child growth and development, and the learning program

development and assessment.

Moreover, the study is anchored on the theories of performance assessments (Smith, 2003).

Accordingly, it involves the active construction of meaning rather than the passive regurgitation

of isolated facts. If learning is thought of as a process of constant development enhanced by

structured, purposeful, and educational experiences, then assessment is more likely to be seen as

providing documentation and feedback (Delandshere & Jones, 1999).

Furthermore, an effective assessment of performance approaches based on constructivist

views promote integration of assessment and teaching (Wilson, 1994; Pilcher, 2001; Sluijsmans,

Brand-Gruwel, van Merrienbore & Bastiaens, 2003). In order to produce the most valid inferences

about what a student knows or understands; the teacher must necessarily gather evidence from

multiple sources (Wilson, 1994). In constructivist framework, valid assessment must be useful to

teachers and students. This usefulness depends on how teachers apply varying assessment

strategies to their students by considering individual student strengths and weaknesses (Graue,

1994). A student’s performance throughout the process of a performance task and/or the product

s/he develop at the end of the task can be assessed in a most valid and fair way by using a rubric.

Assessments in which students carry out an activity or procedure a product in order to demonstrate

their knowledge and skills which is called performance assessments.

22
 Research Paradigm
INPUT PROCESS OUTPUT

Profile of Kindergarten Status of the Performance

Schools the Schools of Kindergarten Schools in
Division of Marinduque
Contest Participation
Enrollment; Classroom Evaluation
Years of Existence; Overall Performance of
Curriculum Pupils in terms of the
Implementation; following domains: Proposed Position Paper
Instructional Materials; socio-emotional
Teaching Pedagogies, development, values
Facilities; and development, physical
Location of the school health and motor
development,
aesthetic/creative
development, mathematics,
understanding of the
physical and natural
environment, and language
literacy and communication.

Figure 1. Research Paradigm

Figure 1 illustrates the paradigm of the whole study following the IPO format. The inputs

are the profile of the Kindergarten schools in the Schools Division of Marinduque in terms of

enrolment, years of existence, curriculum implementation, instructional materials, teaching

pedagogies, facilities, and location of the school. Meanwhile, the process includes the assessment

of the performance of the Kindergarten schools in terms of contest participation, and overall

performance of the pupils in the 7 domains socio-emotional development, values development,

physical health and motor development, aesthetic/creative development, mathematics,

understanding of the physical and natural environment, and language literacy and communication..

Results will yield to the proposed position paper to enhance the weak points of the profile and to

23
improve the status of the performance of the Kindergarten classes in the 127 selected schools in

the Schools Division of Marinduque.

24
 Chapter 3

METHODS AND PROCEDURE

This chapter aims to describe the methods employed in gathering and analyzing the data

collected in this study. This chapter is organized into the following sections: population and

sampling procedure, measures, procedures, and data analysis.

Population and Sampling Procedure

The study will make use random sampling in getting the respondents of the study. Since

there are 181 total population and the conduct of the research has a limited timeframe, it is best to

choose or limit the population using random sampling in which it will determine using the Sloven

Formula. Below is the distribution of the population:

Districts Population of Respondents Sample of Respondents

Boac North 17 12
Boac South 16 11
Buenavista 22 15
Gasan 24 17
Mogpog 22 15
Santa Cruz East 19 13
Santa Cruz North 17 12
Santa Cruz South 16 11
Torrijos 28 20
Total 181 127

Measures

Questionnaire will be the primary tool for collecting data. This questionnaire is divided

into parts. Part 1 questionnaire contains the profile of the Kindergarten schools in the 181 schools

in the Division of Marinduque in terms of enrolment, years of existence, curriculum

implementation, instructional materials, teaching pedagogies, facilities, and location of the

25
schools. Part 2 is comprised of contest participation, classroom evaluation, and overall

performance of pupils in terms of the 7 domains such as gross motor, social-emotional, fine motor,

self-help, cognitive, receptive, and expressive language domain.

Procedures

Several steps will be undertaken in gathering first-hand information from the respondents.

First, permission to conduct the study will be sought from the Schools Division Superintendent.

Second, upon approval, the permit granted will be hand-carry to the Public Schools District

Supervisors for their approval to administer and distribute the validated checklist to the

kindergarten teachers in their respective districts. Third, there will be a short orientation with the

respondents to explain the reasons for conducting the research and to ensure the confidentiality of

their responses. Finally, is the retrieval of the checklist questionnaire. It will be personally

retrieved by the researcher to ensure that all questionnaires are retrieved and to ensure that

everything will be properly documented.

Data Analysis

Some statistical treatment will be employed to process the data. For the profile of the

Kindergarten schools and the performance of the Kindergarten classes, actual data will be used.

These will be described using the frequency count and percentage. In finding the significant

difference in the profile of the Kindergarten schools, Analysis of Variance (ANOVA) will be

employed. In getting the significant relationship between the profile of Kindergarten schools and

performance of the Kindergarten classes, Pearson-Correlation of Coefficient will be employed. All

26
statistical treatment will be determined by the statistician using Statistical Package for Social

Researches.

27
References:

Achieve. (2011). Strong support, low awareness: Public perception of the common core
state standards. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org.

Achieve. (2010). On the road to implementation. Retrieved from http://www.achieve.org

ACT. (2009). ACT National Curriculum Survey 2009.

Archibald, S., Coggshall, J., Croft, A., & Goe, L. (2011). High-quality professional
development for all teachers: Effectively allocating resources. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
Retrieved from http://www.gtlcenter.org/sites/default/files/docs/
HighQualityProfessionalDevelopment.pdf.

Birman, B., Desimone, L., Porter, A., & Garet, M. (2000). Designing professional
development that works. Educational Leadership, 57 (8), 28-33.

Blank, R., & de las Alas, N. (2009). Effects of teacher professional development on gains
in achievement. Washington, DC: Council of Chief State School Officers.

Byrk, A., Sebring, Allensworth, P., Luppescue, S., Easton, J. (2009). Organizing school for
improvement. University of Chicago Press: Chicago.

Carpenter, T., Fennema, E., Peterson, P., Chiang, C., & Loef, M. (1989). Using knowledge
of children's mathematics thinking in classroom teaching: An experimental study.
American Educational Research Journal, 26 (4), 499-531.

Cleaver, S. (2011). The common core: Everything you need to know to succeed. Scholastic
Instructor, 121(1), 55-57.

Coleman, D., & Pimentel, S. (2012). Revised publishers’ criteria for the common core state
standards in English language arts and literacy, grades K-2. 1-9.

Coleman, D., Pimentel, S., & Zimba, J. (2012). Three core shifts to deliver on the promise
of the common core standards. Retrieved from http://www.nasbe.org

Collinson, V., & Cook, T. (2001). “I don’t have enough time”: Teachers’ interpretations of
time as a key to learning and school change. Journal of Educational Administration,
39(3), 266-281.

Crandall, D. (1983). The teacher's role in school improvement. Educational Leadership,

41(3), 6-9.

Huberman, M., & Miles, M. (1984). Innovation up close: How school Improvement
Works? New York: Plenum.

28
Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers. American
Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Gewertz, C. (2013a). Standards worrying teachers. Education Week, 32(22), 1-12.

Grossman, T. (2009). Building a high-quality work force: A governor's guide to human

capital development. National Governors Association. Retrieved from
http://www.nga.org.

Guskey, T. (2002). Professional development and teacher change. Teachers and Teaching,
8(3/4), 381-391.

Jones, L., & Hayes, A. (1980). How valid are surveys of teacher needs. Educational
Leadership, 37, 390-392.

Kober, N., & Rentner, D. (2012). Year two of implementing the Common Core State
Standards: States’ progress and challenges. Washington, DC: Center on Education
Policy.

Murphy, P., Elliot R. & Keith MK. (2012). Putting a price tag on the
common core: How much will smart implementation cost? Thomas B. Fordham Institute.
Retrieved from www.edexcellencemedia.net/publications/2012/20120530-Putting-A-
Price-Tagon-the-Common-Core/20120530-Putting-a-Price-Tag-on-the-Common-Core-
FINAL.pdf.

National Association for the Education of Young Children. (2010). Common core
standards initiative related to kindergarten through third grade. Retrieved from
http://www.naeyc.org.

Fullan, M., Bertani, A., & Quinn, J. (2004). New lessons for district wide reform.
Educational Leadership, 61(7), 42-46.

Garet, M., Porter, A., Desimone, L., Birman, B., & Yoon, K. (2001). What makes
Professional development effective? Results from a national sample of teachers.
American Educational Research Journal, 38(4), 915-945.

Killion, J., & Hirsh, S. (2012a). Meet the promise of content standards: Investing in
Professional learning. Oxford, OH: Learning Forward.

Loveless, T. (2012). The common core initiative: What are the chances of success?
Educational Leadership, 70(4), 60-63.

29
Nielson, K. (2012). National Governors Association. Trends in state implementation of
the common core state standards: Educator effectiveness. Retrieved from
http://www.nga.org/center.

Quay, L. (2010). Higher standards for all: Implications of the common core for equity in
education. The Chief Justice Earl Warren Institute on Race, Ethnicity, & Diversity.
Retrieved from http://www.warreninstitute.org.

Rothman, R. (2012a). How we got here: The emergence of the common core state
standards. Retrieved from http://www.nasbe.org.

Rothman, R. (2012b). Putting the pieces in place. Educational Leadership, 70(4), 18-22.

Tepe, L. (2013). A case for the common core. Retrieved from

https://www.catalystchicago.org/news/2013/09/16/59812/teachers-case-common-
core.

Silva, E. (2008). The benwood plan: A lesson in comprehensive teacher reform.

Education Sector.

Sawchuk, 2012). Schwab, K., (Ed.) 2009. The global competitiveness report 2009-2010.
Geneva, Switzerland:World Economic Forum.

Walsh, C. (2014). Three priorities for professional development in literacy. Language Arts,
91(4), 268.

Yoon, K., Duncan, T., Lee, S., Scarloss, B., & Shapely, K. (2007). Review the evidence
on how teacher professional development affects student achievement (Issues and
Answers Report, REL 2007, no. 033). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of
Education, Institute of Education sciences, National Center for Education
Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Regional Educational Laboratory Southwest.
Retrieved from http://ies.ed.gov.

Yopp, R., & Yopp, H. (2000). Sharing informational text with young children. Reading
Teacher, 53(5), 410.

Wilson (2009). Wilson, S. (Ed., 2009). Teacher quality (Education policy white paper).
Washington, DC: National Academy of Education. Retrieved from
http://naeducation.org.

30
31