Impact Evaluation of Extension Programs

Only available on StudyMode
  • Download(s) : 359
  • Published : February 21, 2011
Open Document
Text Preview
COMMUNITY EXTENSION PROGRAMS’ IMPACT IN ADOPTED PUBLIC SECONDARY SCHOOLS IN REGION 1 EDWIN C. CANCINO, PhD COLEGIO DE DAGUPAN
FEBRUARY 2011

TABLE OF CONTENTS

Title Page No.

I. Research Title3
II. Name of Proponent/Institution3
III. Address3
IV. Background of the Study3
V. Review of Related Literature5
VI. Conceptual Framework of the Study6
VII. Statement of the Problem11
VIII.Assumptions11
IX. Significance of the Study11
X. Definitions of Terms12
XI. Scope and Limitation13
XII. Methodology13
XIII.Working Bibliography17
XIV.Questionnaire18
XV.Manpower Requirements30
XVI.Expected Outputs and Derivations30
XVII. Credentials of Key Personnel31
XVIII. Annexes
A.Work Plan and Gantt Chart35
B.Line Item Budget38
C.Terms of Reference39
D.Schedule of Deliverables and Tranche Releases42

Research Proposal

I.Research Title: Community Extension Programs’ Impact in Adopted Public Secondary Schools in Region 1

II.Name of Proponent/Institutions:
Name and Designation
of the Faculty/Researcher : Edwin C. Cancino
Director for Academics
Name of Institution : Colegio de Dagupan
Name of the Head of the Institution : Voltaire P. Arzadon

Name and Designation of Faculty-Network/Cooperating Member
Dr. Estrella R. Calixto
Dr. Efren Abulencia
Dr. Henry L. Galuba
______________

Name of Cooperating Institution (s): Northwestern University
University of Luzon
LORMA Colleges
______________

Name of the Head of the Cooperating Institution (s)
Col. Ben A. Nicolas
Dr. Mac Arthur Samson

______________

III.Address:
a. Proponent: 49 San Marino Place, Bonuan, Dagupan City
b. Institution: Arellano St., Dagupan City

IV.Background of the Study:

The Annual Poverty Indicator Survey 2002 and 2004 estimated that the number of secondary age group (12 to 15 years old) who were not attending school were 704,707 and 896,325 representing 9.72% and 8.65% of the total in 2002 and 2004 respectively. The cited major reasons for not attending in 2004 are lack of personal interest (43%) and high cost of education (26.8%). Caoli-Rodriguez(2007) identified factors that may have contributed to the lack of interest as lack of support from parents, distance of school, demands of community life, desire to contribute to the family income and low quality schools available which indicates that these were due to lack of financial resources. This therefore implies that poor families have lesser chance of obtaining basic education.

The National Achievement test given in the school year 2006-2007 in which the overall achievement rate for 2nd years is only 46.64 indicates a low quality of secondary education in our country. Contributing factors to low quality of education are the lack of updated facilities, lack of competent teachers and low support of the community.

Ideally, the government should be the lead agent to uplift the quality of basic education. However, the government is not spending enough compared to neighboring countries despite the stated aim of making education as one of its priorities. The per capita budget for a Filipino student is only $138 as compared to $852 in Thailand. Moreover, the DepEd budget from 2001 to 2007 made up 2.07 to 2.53 percent of the country’s Gross Domestic Product which is way below the standard set by the United Nations Education, Scientific and Cultural Organization. The 2008 budget for DepEd is PhP145-billion whereas the 2009 budget is PhP164.94-billion which remains below international standards.

There are...
tracking img