Level of Implementation of School Learning Action Cell (SLAC) in Gumaca East and West Districts, Division of Quezon: Basis for a Proposed Program Implementation Enhancement
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.5281/zenodo.20088312Keywords:
School Learning Action Cell (SLAC), program enhancement, mixed methodAbstract
This study examined the level of implementation of the School Learning Action Cell (SLAC) in Gumaca East and West Districts, Division of Quezon, Philippines, as a basis for developing a program enhancement plan. A mixed-methods design was employed, combining descriptive quantitative analysis and qualitative thematic analysis for comprehensive interpretation. The quantitative phase assessed SLAC implementation in terms of learning areas priority, cost, and monitoring and evaluation using a five-point Likert scale administered to 23 school heads and 373 teachers through total enumeration. The qualitative phase explored implementation challenges and recommendations using open-ended responses analyzed through thematic coding.Findings revealed that SLAC is highly institutionalized and consistently implemented across all domains, with very high ratings in pedagogical practices, assessment strategies, ICT integration, and curriculum contextualization. These results indicate that SLAC functions as an effective professional learning community supporting teacher development and instructional improvement. Cost indicators showed strong financial support primarily through Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE), supplemented by local and alternative funding sources. Monitoring and evaluation practices were also highly implemented, particularly in feedback utilization and progress tracking, although gaps were identified in standardization, documentation, and consistency. Thematic analysis identified key challenges, including limited financial resources, absence of standardized monitoring tools, and inconsistent scheduling. Respondents recommended strengthening financial sustainability, institutionalizing a unified monitoring framework, ensuring regular scheduling, enhancing leadership and collaboration, and establishing continuous feedback mechanisms. The study concludes that while SLAC is effectively implemented, its long-term sustainability requires strengthened systems, resources, and instructional leadership.References
Admiraal, W., Schenke, W., de Jong, L., Emmelot, Y., & Sligte, H. (2021). Schools as professional learning communities: What can schools do to support professional development of teachers? Professional Development in Education, 47(4), 684–698. https://doi.org/10.1080/19415257.2019.1665573
Avalos, B. (2016). Teacher professional development in teaching and teacher education over ten years. Teaching and Teacher Education, 27(1), 10–20. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.tate.2010.08.007
Bajar, J., Reyes, R., & Santos, M. (2021). Collaborative learning practices in Philippine public schools. Asia Pacific Journal of Education, 41(2), 210–225.
Bruns, B., & Luque, J. (2015). Great teachers: How to raise student learning in Latin America and the Caribbean. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-0151-8
Cabral, R. (2019). School-based learning action cell (SLAC) as a professional development strategy. Journal of Educational Research and Practice, 9(1), 45–58.
Cabanero, J. (2022). Leadership roles in school learning action cells. Philippine Journal of Educational Management, 5(2), 33–47.
Darling-Hammond, L., Hyler, M. E., & Gardner, M. (2017). Effective teacher professional development. Learning Policy Institute. https://learningpolicyinstitute.org
DepEd. (2016). Policy guidelines on the learning action cell (LAC) as a K to 12 basic education program school-based continuing professional development strategy (DepEd Order No. 35, s. 2016). Department of Education, Philippines.
DepEd. (2017). Philippine professional standards for teachers. Department of Education, Philippines.
Desimone, L. M., & Garet, M. S. (2015). Best practices in teachers’ professional development in the United States. Psychology, Society, & Education, 7(3), 252–263.
Dino, M. (2018). Impact of SLAC on teachers’ instructional practices. International Journal of Educational Studies, 6(2), 78–89.
Hallinger, P., & Murphy, J. (2016). Assessing the instructional leadership of principals. Educational Administration Quarterly, 28(3), 277–308.
Hamilton, L., Halverson, R., Jackson, S., Mandinach, E., Supovitz, J., & Wayman, J. (2020). Using data to improve schools: An overview of effective practices. Teachers College Record, 122(11), 1–28.
Hattie, J. (2017). Visible learning for teachers: Maximizing impact on learning. Routledge.
Kraft, M. A., Blazar, D., & Hogan, D. (2018). The effect of teacher coaching on instruction and achievement. Review of Educational Research, 88(4), 547–588. https://doi.org/10.3102/0034654318759268
Leithwood, K., Harris, A., & Hopkins, D. (2020). Seven strong claims about successful school leadership revisited. School Leadership & Management, 40(1), 5–22.
Llego, M. (2019). DepEd professional standards and teacher development in the Philippines. Philippine Journal of Education, 98(2), 112–125.
OECD. (2019). TALIS 2018 results (Volume I): Teachers and school leaders as lifelong learners. OECD Publishing. https://doi.org/10.1787/1d0bc92a-en
Opfer, V. D., & Pedder, D. (2019). Conceptualizing teacher professional learning. Review of Educational Research, 81(3), 376–407.
Paler, R., Mendoza, A., & Cruz, L. (2020). Monitoring and evaluation practices in school-based professional development. Asian Journal of Education and Training, 6(3), 400–409.
Republic Act No. 10533. (2013). Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013. Official Gazette of the Republic of the Philippines.
Reazo, J. (2021). Implementation challenges of SLAC in public schools. Journal of
Philippine Educational Research, 12(1), 55–70.
Silva, P. (2021). ICT integration and teacher professional development in the Philippines. International Journal of Learning, Teaching and Educational Research, 20(5), 112–130.
Trust, T., & Whalen, J. (2020). K–12 teachers’ experiences and challenges with using technology. Journal of Educational Technology Systems, 48(2), 142–163.
UNESCO. (2022). Global education monitoring report: Non-state actors in education. UNESCO Publishing.
Vangrieken, K., Meredith, C., Packer, T., & Kyndt, E. (2017). Teacher communities as a context for professional development. Teaching and Teacher Education, 61, 47–59.
Vega, E. (2020). Financial constraints in school-based professional development programs. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 28(65), 1–20.
Voogt, J., Erstad, O., Dede, C., & Mishra, P. (2015). Challenges to learning and schooling in the digital networked world. Journal of Computer Assisted Learning, 29(5), 403–413.
World Bank. (2018). World development report 2018: Learning to realize education’s promise. World Bank. https://doi.org/10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1
