Under certain circumstances, the NSGO director may elect to send a spe- cial letter of findings to the institution. These specials reports, it is ex- pected, will be used infrequently and only in highly unusual cases that warrant communication at a higher administrative level in the university.
The intensive, weeklong PAT evaluation by a team of experts, who interact with university officials, constituents, and government officials, provides credible information from which to judge a program's performance. This additional input is critical information for the NSGO Review and can often provide clarifying information on program performance. While the NSGO evaluates programs individu- ally, by considering a group of programs at the same time and with the same reviewers, more consistency for assigning ratings can be achieved.
The rating of a program involves the use of judgment in weighing the qualitative and quantitative evidence available. Following extensive dis- cussion of a program's performance under each evaluation criteria, the NSGO staff provides their individual rating ranging from 1 highest to 4 lowest for the 14 evaluation sub-elements.
Nonetheless, new technical staff members are expected to be present and to participate in the discussions. Taking into account the pro- portional weighting of each of the 14 sub-elements e. The NSGO final rating for the program is determined by locating a program's score along a fixed four-category rating scale for merit funding and a variable two-category rating scale for bonus funding. Merit funding and bonus funding allocations are dis- cussed in detail below. As a matter of policy, however, if there is not a broad consensus agreement two-thirds majority on a particular sub- element rating, the NSGO assigns a rating consistent with the PAT rating for that sub-element.
Final ratings for the group of seven or eight programs are considered at the last session of the review week. Rating adjustments result, as for all NSGO ratings, only from a broad consensus agreement two-thirds majority. At the conclusion of the session, all NSGO ratings are consid- ered final. The final NSGO ratings are used to assign each program to a merit-fund- ing category and are also interleaved with the last rating of all other Sea Grant programs to determine eligibility for bonus-funding categories.
The NSGO developed systematic proce- dures to rate each Sea Grant program for the purpose of allocating funds from this merit pool. During Cycle 2, merit fund allocations will continue to be made in a manner similar to Cycle 1, with slight modifications. Merit Funding Sea Grant programs that have reached institutional or college status are assigned to one of four merit categories.
Categories 1 and 2 are reserved for programs that achieve the highest levels of performance. Category 3 denotes programs meeting performance benchmarks, while programs assigned to Category 4 have significant deficiencies.
Programs assigned to categories 1, 2 and 3 qualify for merit pool allocations over the next four years. If a program fails to meet 20 percent or more of the weighted benchmarks, it will be considered as having "significant deficiencies" and assigned to Category 4.
Programs assigned to Category 4 do not receive a merit pool allocation during the four-year period. Added together, these two components determine each program's merit funding allocation for a given year. The minimum allocation is a fixed percentage of the merit pool that a program can expect to receive over the course of the next four years. Assuming level funding of the merit pool, this amount will remain the same each year.
The fixed minimum component for a program in Cat- egory 1 is calculated by dividing the total amount of funds in the merit pool by the number of programs e. A program in Category 2 and Category 3 receives a minimum allocation of 70 percent and 40 percent respectively of that received by a program in Category 1.
A program assigned Category 4, "sig- nificant deficiencies," would not receive a merit funding allocation. The residual share of merit funding depends upon the distribution of ratings across all programs for a given year. The amount of the merit pool that remains unallocated after meeting the minimum allocations, the "re- sidual" amount, is distributed to programs in Category 1 and Category 2 only. Category 1 programs gets twice as much of the residual as those in Category 2 programs.
Category 3 programs do not receive a share of the residual. A new residual share is calculated every year. The NSGO Direc- tor could cap an award if the residual share exceeds 10 percent of the merit pool, although in practice this is unlikely to occur. Calculating the allocations each year assures that all programs have the same merit funding opportunities, regardless of the year they are reviewed.
The law now re- quires the Director of the National Sea Grant College Program to rate such programs according to their relative performance into at least five categories, with each of the two best-performing categories containing at most 25 percent of the programs.
In particular,. In order to meet these requirements, the NSGO will adopt a two-tier approach to funding allocations related to performance evaluations. All programs will continue to be assigned to a merit-funding category. Programs assigned a rating of Category 1 highest , 2 or 3, based on the NSGO Review, will receive merit funding allocated similarly to the Cycle 1 allocation procedures. Categories 1 and 2 are reserved for programs that achieve the high- est levels of performance.
Category 3 denotes programs that meet performance benchmarks. Bonus funding would go only to programs that are rated in Category 1 best-performing category and are rated among the top programs in "Category 1" each of the 2 best-per- forming categories containing no more than 25 percent of the pro- grams. Currently, this would allow up to 14 programs to receive bonus funding, or up to seven programs in each of the two bonus funding categories. It would be expected that the NSGO would.
There is no interim grad- ing of programs in the "outyears". Programs are evaluated and rated once every four years through the PAT and NSGO process, and the program's rating is in effect for the full four years. The one change that may occur over time is a program's relative position in the new rating categories mandated by Congress, or in Sea Grant terminology, the two new bonus categories. Assignment to the two new bonus categories is dependent not only on a program's rating, but also on the distribution of the ratings of all pro- grams.
Consequently, with respect to the bonus funding only, it is pos- sible for a Sea Grant program not being reviewed to be affected. The ratings of the seven or eight programs reviewed yearly may reorder the distribution of ratings across programs. Each year it is possible for a pro- gram not reviewed to move into or out of a bonus category e. In the future, were appropriations to increase substantially, increases in merit funding would be a primary mechanism for maintaining and enhancing Sea Grant's en- abling infrastructure.
Currently, as many as 14 programs in Category 1 would receive bonus funding in addition to merit, in any given year. However, because Congress limits the number of bonus programs, the actual allocations would depend on the distribution of the merit ratings and the number of "Category 1" programs.
As such, the merit pool would be expected to be larger relative to the bonus pool. The NSGO expects to provide preliminary notice to programs of the next fiscal year's merit funding and changes in bonus categories, if any, fol- lowing finalization of the NSGO Review. A funding letter will be pre- pared that will go to each Sea Grant program to indicate the dollar level of the merit funding allocation a program will receive in the following fiscal year, assuming level funding. The letter will also indicate whether a program's rating makes it eligible for either of the two bonus categories, along with a preliminary estimate of bonus funding for the following fiscal year, again assuming level funding.
Takes care of school materials, facilitates, and equipment 5. Keeps work area in order during and after work 6. Keeps ones work neat and orderly.
Demonstrates pride in being a Filipino; exercises the rights and responsibilities of a Filipino citizen. Identifies oneself as a Filipino 2. Respects the flag and national anthem 3. Takes pride in diverse Filipino cultural expressions, practices, and traditions 4.
Promotes the appreciation and enhancement of Filipino languages 5. Abides by the rules of the school, community, and country 6. Enables others to develop interest and pride in being a Filipino.
Demonstrates 1. Manages time and personal resources appropriate behavior efficiently and effectively in carrying out 2. Perseveres to achieve goals despite activities in the difficult circumstances school, community, 3. Conducts oneself appropriately in and country various situations. Danny A. Open navigation menu. Close suggestions Search Search. User Settings. Skip carousel. Carousel Previous. Carousel Next. What is Scribd?
Explore Ebooks. Bestsellers Editors' Picks All Ebooks. Explore Audiobooks. Bestsellers Editors' Picks All audiobooks. Explore Magazines. Editors' Picks All magazines. Explore Podcasts All podcasts. Difficulty Beginner Intermediate Advanced. Explore Documents. Original Title DO 8 s. Did you find this document useful? Is this content inappropriate? Report this Document. Flag for inappropriate content. Download now. Save Save DO 8 s.
For Later. Original Title: DO 8 s. Related titles. Carousel Previous Carousel Next. DO 36, s. Deped Div. Memo No. DO 56, s. Jump to Page. Search inside document. How are learners assessed in the classroom? What is the grading system? What is Classroom Assessment? Assessment is a process that is used to keep track of learners progress in relation to learning standards and in the development of 21st century skills, to promote self reflection and personal accountability among students about their own learning; and to provide bases for the profiling of students performance on the learning competencies and standards of the curriculum.
What is assessed in the Classroom? Assessment in the classroom is aimed at helping students perform well in relation to the learning standards. Performance Standards It describes the abilities and skills that learners are expected to demonstrate in relation to the content standards and integration of 21st century skills.
Learning Competencies This refer to the knowledge, understanding, skills, and attitudes that students need to demonstrate in every lesson and or learning activity. Concept Development The learning standards in the curriculum reflect progression of concept development. How are Learners Assessed in the Classroom? Leaners are assessed in the classroom through various processes and measures appropriate to and congruent with learning competencies defined in the K to 12 curriculum.
During the Lesson Proper FA conducted during the lesson proper informs teachers of the progress of the students in relation to the development of the learning competencies. After the Lesson FA conducted after the lesson assesses whether learning objectives were achieved.
Identify barriers to learning 1. Identify what hinders Examples of Assessment Methods 1. To make decisions on whether to proceed with the next lesson, Examples of Assessment Methods 1. Seek support through remediation, enrichment, or other strategies 1.
Evaluate whether learning intentions and success criteria have been met Examples of Assessment Methods 1. Performance Task PT Allows learners to show what they know and are able to do diverse ways. Involve students in the learning process 2. Quarterly Assessment QA Measures students learning at the end of the quarter These may be in the form of objective test, performance-based assessment, or a combination thereof.
The Grading How is learner progress recorded and System computed? How are grades computed at the end of the school Year? How is Learner Progress Recorded and Computed? For Kindergarten Issued in a different Memorandum or Order For Grades 1 to 10 In a grading period, there is one Quarter Assessment but there should be instances for students to produce Written Work and to demonstrate what they know and can do through Performance Tasks.
Final Grade of at least 75 in all learning areas Promoted to the next grade level 2. Did Not Meet Expectations in not more than two learning areas Must pass remedial classes for learning areas with failing mark to be promoted to the next grade level. Final Grade of at least Can proceed to the 75 in all learning areas in next semester a semester For Grades 11 to 12 learners 2. Did not Meet Expectations in a prerequisite subject in a learning area Must pass remedial classes for failed competencies in the subject before being allowed to enroll in the higher-level subject 3.
Did Not Meet Expectations in any subject or learning area at the end of the semester Must pass remedial classes for failed competencies in the subjects or learning areas to be allowed to enroll in the next semester. Recomputed Final Grade Summative Assessments are also given during remedial classes. Vision We dream of Filipinos who passionately love their country and whose values and competencies enable them to realize their full potential and contribute meaningfully to building the nation.
Demonstrates curiosity and willingness to learn about other ways to express spiritual life Shows adherence to ethical principles by upholding truth 1. Demonstra tes contributio ns towards solidarity 1. Speakers out against and prevents bullying Shows respect for all Waits for ones turn Takes good care of borrowed things Views mistakes as learning opportunities Upholds and respects the dignity and equality of all including those with special needs 6. Enables others to develop interest and pride in being a Filipino Demonstrates 1.
Documents Similar To DO 8 s. Frederick Gella. Khay Ann. Santa Dela Cruz Naluz. Raquel Macapagal Carpio. Felix Llamera. Deped Tambayan. Geoffrey Miles. Mark Anthony Llego. Raquelito Belmonte Cenal. Julie Aninipot. Misyel Camposano. Juliet Bernal. Ellen Esguerra Basit. Allen Allenpogi. Ann Paredes. Estanislao Villanueva Elem. Melvin Cabonegro. Virgilio Boado. DO 15, s. Jayson Leguiab. Badu Portallo Sambulay. Jenny Rose Olfindo. Synchronized Local Planning and Budgeting Calendar.
Rheii Sparks. Ore wa want to die right now gerard esguerra. Theo Balares. Alvin Deliro. Sam Burke. Guidebook on the Strategic Performance Management System.
Ronnel Vivo. Rex Revelar. Popular in Educational Assessment. Waqas Aziz. Syed Ibad. Jack Kent Cooke Foundation state policy report cards. Adrian Baguna Montemor. Manju Galagangodage. Lucille Joy V. Vilija Bartusyte. Carlota Ramirez. Sarah Thompson. Diana Longrie. Maria Kristine Llauderes Llorico.
0コメント