DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool

School ID:
School Name:
Division:
Name of person who submitted the SIP:
Name of quality assessor:
Date of SIP Submission:
Date of SIP quality assessment:

Instructions: The Quality Assessment Tool is a tool that you may use to assess the quality of your School Improvement Plan
(SIP). The questions/ criteria in the suceeding sheets are intended to assist in you in assessing whether the SIP meets quality
standards. Read each statement carefully. Decide if the questions/ criteria have been met with a "Yes" or "No".

Write Meaning
1 Yes
0 No
NA Not applicable
nt Tool

of your School Improvement Plan

ssing whether the SIP meets quality
t with a "Yes" or "No".
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool

Output Checklist Available?

Preparatory Activities
1 School- Community Data Template
2 School Report Card
4 List of SPT members
3 Documentation of vision sharing
5 List of SPT with roles and responsibilities
Style and Language
6 Gap Analysis Template
7 Priority Improvement Area (PIA) Template
8 Planning Worksheet
8.1 Intermediate Outcomes
8.2 Priority Improvement Areas
8.3 General Objectives
8.4 Root Cause
8.5 Timeframe
9 Project Team members with roles and responsibilities
10 Documentation of listening to the voice of the learners
11 Flowchart of school processes relevant to each PIA
12 Project Work Plan and Budget Matrix
13 Annual Implementation Plan
ment Tool

Reviewer Comments
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool

Chapter 1: VMV Rating

Content 1.0
1 Clarity and completeness of introduction of the DepEd VMV and how it relates to this plan 1
1.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the DepEd VMV?
1.2 Was there discussion in the Executive Summary about how the SIP is linked to the DepEd VMV?
1.3 Did you clearly understand the SIP and the DepEd VMV after one reading of the discussion?
2 Clarity and completeness of discussion of the plans and how these strategically contribute to the intermediate outcomes 1
2.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the intermediate outcomes of DepEd?
2.2 Was there discussion in the chapter about how the SIP is linked to the intermediate outcomes of DepEd?
2.3 Did you clearly understand the SIP and the intermediate outcomes of DepEd after one reading of the discussion?
Style and Language 1.0
1 Compliance with the following requirements: 1.0
1.1 DepEd style guide 1.0
1.1.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section was written based on DepEd's prescribed style guide?
1.2 Template and branding requirements 1.0
Did it leave you the impression that this section used the correct DepEd logo and placement as indicated in the DepEd
1.2. branding guidelines (if applicable)?
1.3 Citation and labeling 1.0
Did it leave you the impression that this section properly cited its sources using the Chicago Manual of Style or its
1.3. equivalent as guide?
1.4 When needed, did this section present the following additional information using the prescribed format 1.0
1.4. Graphs
1.4. Tables
1.4. Sidebars
1.4. Photos
1.4. Infographics
2 Appropriateness of language and grammar used 1.0
2.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section used gender neutral words (e.g., they, he/she, chairperson, etc.)?
2.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section used appropriate grammar?
2.3 Did it leave you the impression that this section had minimal spelling corrections?
Reviewer Comments
 School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool
Chapter 2: School's Current Situation Rating Reviewer Comments
Content 1.0
1 Clarity and completeness of discussion on the school's geography 1
1.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the school's geography?
1.2 Did you clearly understand the school's geography after one reading of the discussion?
2 Clarity and completeness of discussion on the school's learning environment 1
2.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about school's learning environment?
2.2 Did you clearly understand the school's learning environment after one reading of the discussion?
3 Clarity and completeness of discussion on the teacher's situation 1
3.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the school's teacher's situation?
3.2 Did you clearly understand the school's teacher's situation after one reading of the discussion?
4 Clarity and completeness of discussion on learner's health and safety 1
4.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the learner's health and safety?
4.2 Did you clearly understand the learner's health and safety after one reading of the discussion?
5 Clarity and completeness of discussion on learner's access to basic education 1
5.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the learner's access to basic education?
5.2 Did you clearly understand the learner's access to basic education after one reading of the discussion?
6 Clarity and completeness of discussion on learner's quality of education 1
6.1 Was there discussion in the chapter about the learner's quality of education?
6.2 Did you clearly understand the learner's quality of education after one reading of the discussion?
Style and Language 1.0
1 Compliance with the following requirements: 1.0
1.1 DepEd style guide 1.0
1.1.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section was written based on DepEd's prescribed style guide?
1.2 Template and branding requirements 1.0
1. Did it leave you the impression that this section used the correct DepEd logo and placement as indicated in the DepEd branding guidelines?
1.3 Citation and labeling 1.0
1.3.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section properly cited its sources using the Chicago Manual of Style or its equivalent as guide?
1.4 When needed, did this section present the following additional information using the prescribed format 1.0
1. Graphs
1. Tables
1. Sidebars
1. Photos
1. Infographics
2 Appropriateness of language and grammar used 1.0
2.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section used gender neutral words (e.g., they, he/she, chairperson, etc.)?
2.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section used appropriate grammar?
2.3 Did it leave you the impression that this section had minimal spelling corrections?
 School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool
Chapter 3: Planning Worksheet Rating
Content 1.0
1 Priority Improvement Area (PIA) 1.0
1.1 Did the SIP present the Priority Improvement Areas?
1.2 Did it leave you the impression that the PIAs were identified using the prescribed process and rubrics ?
1.3 Did it leave you the impression that the PIAs cover all activities mandated by DepEd policies (i.e. professional development for teachers)?
2 Root Cause 1.0
2.1 Did the SIP present the root causes of the PIA?
2.2 Did it leave you the impression that the root causes identified in the SIP were derived using a root cuase methodology ?
2.3 Quality of articulation of root cause (can they be easily understood?)
3 General Objectives 1.0
3.1 Did the SIP present its objectives?
3.2 Did it leave you the impression that the objectives identified in the SIP address the root cause?
3.3 Did it leave you the impression that the objectives identified in the SIP are necessary to address the root cause?
3.4 Quality of articulation of strategies (can they be easily understood?) 1.0
3.4 Were the objectives written as an approach to deliver the intermediate outcomes?
3.4 Were the objective written in an infinitive sentence?
4 Timeline 1.0
4.1 Did the SIP present timeline?
4.2 Did it leave you the impression that the timeline is feasible?
Style and Language 1.0
1 Compliance with the following requirements: 1.0
1.1 DepEd style guide 1.0
1.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section was written based on DepEd's prescribed style guide?
1.2 Template and branding requirements 1.0
1.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section used the correct DepEd logo and placement as indicated in the DepEd branding guidelines?
1.3 Citation and labeling 1.0
1.3.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section properly cited its sources using the Chicago Manual of Style or its equivalent as guide?
1.4 When needed, did this section present the following additional information using the prescribed format 1.0
1.4 Graphs
1.4 Tables
1.4 Sidebars
1.4 Photos
1.4 Infographics
2 Appropriateness of language and grammar used 1.0
2.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section used gender neutral words (e.g., they, he/she, chairperson, etc.)?
2.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section used appropriate grammar?
2.3 Did it leave you the impression that this section had minimal spelling corrections?
Reviewer Comments
 School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool

Chapter 4: Monitoring & Evaluation Rating Reviewer Comments

Content 1.0
1 Monitoring Arrangements 1.0
1.1 Did the SIP present the its monitoring arrangement?
1.2 Did it leave you the impression that the monitoring arrangements were identified using the prescribed process?
2 Appropriateness of monitoring arrangements 1.0
Did it leave you the impression that the discussion on monitoring and reporting mechanisms both in terms of progress
2.1 monitoring and results monitoring was complete?
2.2 Did it leave you the impression that the discussion on data sources or means of verification was complete?
2.3 Did it leave you the impression that data sources or means of verification are readily available for M&E purposes?
2.4 Did it leave you the impression that the timing of reporting and monitoring is appropriate and relevant?
2.5 Did it leave you the impression that the planned frequency of monitoring and reporting was appropriate?
Did you clearly understand the monitoring and reporting mechanisms both in terms of progress monitoring and results
2.6 monitoring after one reading?
Style and Language 1.0
1 Compliance with the following requirements: 1.0
1.1 DepEd style guide 1.0
1.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section was written based on DepEd's prescribed style guide?
1.2 Template and branding requirements 1.0
Did it leave you the impression that this section used the correct DepEd logo and placement as indicated in the DepEd
1.2 branding guidelines (if applicable)?
1.3 Citation and labeling 1.0
Did it leave you the impression that this section properly cited its sources using the Chicago Manual of Style or its
1.3 equivalent as guide?
1.4 When needed, did this section present the following additional information using the prescribed format 1.0
1.4 Graphs
1.4 Tables
1.4 Sidebars
1.4 Photos
1.4 Infographics
2 Appropriateness of language and grammar used 1.0
2.1 Did it leave you the impression that this section used gender neutral words (e.g., they, he/she, chairperson, etc.)?
2.2 Did it leave you the impression that this section used appropriate grammar?
2.3 Did it leave you the impression that this section had minimal spelling corrections?
 DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
School Improvement Plan (SIP) Quality Assessment Tool

School ID:
School Name:
Division:
Name of person who submitted the SIP:
Name of quality assessor:
Date of SIP Submission:
Date of SIP quality assessment:

Weight: Criteria
70% Content
30% Style and Language

Rating
Criteria
Content Style and Language Average
1.0 Chapter 1: Vision- Mission- Values
2.0 Chapter 2: School's Current Situation
3.0 Planning Worksheet
4.0 Monitoring and Evaluation
Overall Quality Assessment

Definition Scale
3.5- 4, Highly Satisfactory. This is a good example of a well written SIP that may be used as benchmark by other
schools. The plan responds well to the voice of the learners and other stakeholders. It also demonstrates good practice
in following DepEd guidelines in drafting SIPs.

2.5-3.49, Satisfactory. This SIP is well written but falls short of being a benchmark plan. The plan responds well to the
voice of the learners and other stakeholders. There are minor revisions needed to make the SIP compliant with the
DepEd guidelines in drafting education development plans.

1.5-2.49, Marginally Satisfactory. This SIP is well written but it needs major improvement in several areas. The plan
responds well to the voice of the learners and other stakeholders, but it needs major improvement in other areas. The
SIP follows the DepEd guidelines in drafting education development plans.

<1.49, Unsatisfactory. This SIP needs significant improvement in several areas. Its content needs major improvements
in several areas that may take some time to revise. The style and language this plan uses is not consistent with the
DepEd guidelines in drafting education development plans.

Rating = NA. If the item being rated is not applicable.