Workshop 2

DEDP APPRAISAL

General Comments

1. Accuracy and completeness of data2. No cause-effect analysis. 3. Description of programs/projects – no correlation to situational

analysis.4. No forecasting (e.g., effect of programs/projects in the future, data, etc.)5. Data presented in tables should present and highlight trends6. Tables should be substantiated with analysis and not mere narrative

discussion7. Opportunities were slightly discussed (SWOT analysis)8. Presentation or physical appearance of the report (eg. font size,etc)9. No mention of best practices and not so good practices.10. Less use of segmentation technique.11. Some problems were not quantified.

Workshop 2: General Comments

Preschools

No forecasting

Claims were not supported by evidence/data.

No segmentation.

Incomplete data on preschool teachers, curriculum, classroom size, etc (vis-à-vis standards)

Problems and needs were identified but the strengths were not.

No information provided for best practices and for not so good practices.

Elementary

No evidence of cause-effect analysis

No segmentation technique used

Inconsistency in data

Lack of supporting documents.

There were Division-initiated programs/projects but the impact were not mentioned.

No diagram presented.

Tables were not interpreted.

No proper link and use of data.

SecondaryNo forecasting

Inconsistency in data (narrative discussion vis-à-vis tables)

No segmentation – problems should have been identified by category/kind of school

Opportunities were slightly discussed.

Figures were enumerated but no interpretations.

No diagrams presented.

Font is too small.

ALSNo tracking system for completers and A&E passers

No in-depth analysis of tables presented

Incomplete, inaccurate and inadequate data

No segmentation

General RecommendationsSegmentation

Provide forecasting

Check accuracy/adequateness/reliability of data

Present data in graphical/tabular form; disaggregation of data

Provide SWOT analysis

Include data analysis on private schools