(Enclosure No.
9 to DM-OUHROD-2024-1576)
Republic of the Philippines
Department of Education
National Educators Academy of the Philippines
SCHOOL-BASED PD PROGRAM DESIGN QUALITY STANDARDS CHECKLIST
Use this form for the review and evaluation of proposed INSET and LAC.
School
Proposed PD ☐ INSET
Program ☐ Learning Action Cell
Instruction: Please put a check (/) mark on the standards that have already been satisfied.
Otherwise, put a cross (x) mark and support it with a corresponding suggestion/s or
comment/s.
PD Program Component and Quality
Standards Status Remarks
A. Strength of Research Base
1. The proposed PD program is based on
the results of competency-based
professional development needs
assessments (i.e., through individual
development plans (IDPs), DepEd
priorities across levels, learners’
learning outcomes, etc.)
2. The proposed PD program’s content
and
methodologies are justified and
supported by research literature or
theories and/or legal bases (DepEd
issuances/RA) if any.
B. Alignment to the Professional Standards
1. The proposed PD program responds to
at least one PPST/PPSSH/PPSS
domain, strand, and indicator,
and/or other
emerging needs of the Department.
2. The target PPST/PPSSH/PPSS domain,
strand, and indicator in each session
is indicated.
C. Target Participants Profile
1. The proposed PD program identifies
the
career stage/s and profile
(teacher/school head/supervisor, position,
1
subject, and/or grade/year level taught)
of the target participants.
2
2. The target number of participants is
specified.
D. Articulation of Learning Objectives
1. The proposed PD program’s workplace
development objectives and session
objectives are articulated according to
the SMART principles.
2. The proposed PD program’s
workplace
development objectives and session
objectives are logically articulated to
support the development of the
target professional standard (domain,
strand, and indicator).
E. Session Contents
1. Contents are appropriate and adequate to
support the attainment of the
learning objectives and expected
outputs.
2. Contents are accurate and based
on credible sources of
information.
3. For subject content-based PD
programs, contents align with the
curriculum standards.
4. Contents are organized according to
the
most appropriate sequence and structure.
F. Soundness of Methodology
1. The methodologies (e.g. active
learning,
experiential learning or collaborative
learning, etc.) employ adult learning
principles with opportunities to be
active, experiential, social, self-directed
and goal oriented.
2. The methodologies describe in detail
or step-by-step process how the
assigned resource speaker will deliver
content and engage participants.
3. The methodologies indicate the
relevant
learning resources that the resource
speaker and participants will use to
support the attainment of the session
objectives.
3
4. The methodologies use recognized
best learning practices such as
motivational/mood-setting activities,
modeling, etc.
G. Assessment Strategies and Tools
1. The formative and summative
assessment strategies are varied and
sufficient to assess learner’s progress
and proficiency in the target
competencies for development.
2. Appropriate assessment tools are
identified and provided. Rubrics
are available
for
performance/demonstration-based
assessment.
H. Expected Outputs
1. The session outputs are concrete,
e.g.,
reflection journal, TA Plan,
lesson exemplar, rubrics,
worksheets.
2. The session outputs are relevant to
the session objectives and can be
realistically produced by participants
within set time.
I. Workplace Application
1. The proposed PD program provides
opportunities for development and
application of acquired competencies:
crafting and implementation of
Learning Action Plan (LAP).
2. The LAP can be realistically completed
within an adequate period (exclusive
of school breaks for teachers) using
available resources in the workplace.
J. Time Requirement
1. The indicative dates of implementation
of the proposed PD program do not
interfere with the conduct of school-
based instructionally relevant
activities, especially the actual classroom
teaching of teachers.
2. Sessions are appropriately sequenced
and adequately timed.
4
5
K. Credentials/Expertise of Resource
Speaker/Subject Matter Expert
1. The Resource Speakers/Subject-Matter
Experts' CVs reflect expertise relevant
to the PPST/PPSSH/PPSS domain/s,
strand/s and indicator/s covered in
the Speaker's/Subject-Matter Expert’s
session/s.
L. Gender Equality, Disability
and Social Inclusion
1. Proposed PD program elements (i.e.,
participants selection criteria,
activities, learning resource materials,
resource speakers, and monitoring and
evaluation, etc.) promote maximum
engagement of participants from all
backgrounds (disability, age, gender,
religious and ethnic backgrounds).
M. Monitoring and Evaluation
1. The proposed PD Program M&E plan
reflects the four levels of evaluation
according to Kirkpatrick’s Model (Level
1: Reaction; Level 2: Learning; Level
3: Behavior; and Level 4: Result).
2. For Level 1, daily evaluation tool to
measure how participants find the PD
program favorable, engaging, and
relevant to their jobs is indicated and
submitted.
3. For Level 2, formative and summative
assessment tools to measure
participants’ acquired knowledge,
skills, attitude, confidence, and
commitment based on their
participation in the PD program are
indicated and submitted.
4. For Level 3, the LAP template detailing
how participants will apply what they
learned from the PD program when
they are back on the job is indicated
and submitted.
N. Budget and Costing
1. Proposed budget per participant is within
the allowable limits according to
6
government budgeting, accounting,
and auditing rules and regulations.
2. The attached itemized expenditure
reflects
the cost of the proposed PD
program vis-à-vis the allowable
expenses.
Reviewed by Type name here
Signature Sign here
