Management of secondary level interventions for students-at-risk

of dropping out in public secondary schools

Joseph R. Carreon
General Emilio Aguinaldo National High School, Philippines

Education for all ensures access to quality education fostering no student left behind. The research
endeavored to assess the management of secondary level interventions for students at-risk of dropping
out in public secondary schools. The descriptive correlational research design and documentary
analysis were employed in which the primary gathering instrument was developed researcher-made
questionnaire validated by experts. It involved 16 school heads, 12 guidance personnel, 186 teachers,
and 143 students-at-risk. Frequency count, percentage, mean, and Pearson Moment Correlation were
used to analyze and interpret the data. Findings revealed that: (1) students' demographic profiles are
somehow determinants that influence students-at-risk; (2) the guidance and counseling, peer
counseling, home visitation service, and after-school activities are essential components in the
management of prevention, intervention, and support strategies; and (3) inclusive interventions
promote social fairness and equal opportunity and engage students-at-risk in proactive and constructive
activities geared towards building strengths and character.

Implications for practice

 The commitment, capacity building, and instructional delivery of school personnel reflect a
high fidelity that comes from their resiliency in such culture
 Schools should strengthen family engagement, explicit provision of training, adequate
essential resources, and an empowered multi-disciplinary team and community support to
implement the different intervention and support programs for students-at-risk with profound
fidelity.

Keywords: management, students-at-risk, secondary level interventions, level of implementation,

fidelity on intervention,

Introduction

Education has always been strongly viewed as a pillar of national development and a primary avenue for social
and economic mobility (Education for All and Millennium Development Goals, 2015). The 1987 Constitution,
likewise, guarantees that the state shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all
levels and shall take appropriate steps to make education accessible to all. The right of every Filipino to quality
basic education is further emphasized in Republic Act 9155 or the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001.

Philippine education has been dogged with issues of high dropout rates, a high number of repeaters, low passing
grades, lack of particular language skills, failure to adequately respond, and address the needs of students with
special needs, overcrowded classrooms, and poor teacher performance (EFA, 2015). Learners-at-risk display
certain easily identifiable characteristics, some of which are demographic, and some of which are related to their
performance in school (Burrus, 2012). Study shows the following causes of the occurrence of students-at-risk in
school: (a) low socioeconomic; and (b) students' unstable situations regarding personal, health, physical, social,
and psychological circumstances. Most often, students considered at-risk show persistent patterns of
underachievement that lead to their failure to finish high school. They are identified as students who are with
learning difficulties, unable to make adequate progress, struggling from typical instruction, low performing, and
prone to failure. These problems, in turn, result in a considerable number of illiterate Filipinos and out of school
youths and graduates who are not prepared to work.

There has been no standardized, comprehensive, precise, and easy-to-use method for program evaluation for
personnel and stakeholders to assess program fidelity across different prevention, intervention, and program
practices (Center for Innovation and Improvement). The extent to which an intervention program is delivered in
adherence to its design features has been labeled as treatment fidelity and has been identified as a critical
element of intervention programs (Zirkel & Thomas, 2010). Lack of implementation fidelity of intervention
remains as challenges in program implementation that might result in a practice that is less effective, less
efficient, or producing less-predictable responses and can weaken outcomes (Hagermoser and Kratochwill,
2011). Some signs that intervention fidelity is interfering with the effectiveness of the intervention include the
following: (a) lack of data regarding implementation, (b) lack of progress-monitoring data of outcomes, (c) lack
of data indicating the intervention is rarely implemented with integrity, (d) lack of training has not been
provided regarding correct implementation, and (e) lack of continuous intervention program implemented
properly (Kovaleski et al., 2013). There is also a lack of efficacy and systematic approach on the part of
principals' and teachers' understanding of effective teaching strategy for students with difficult behavior (Kelly,
2010). Therefore, it is imperative to assess the degree of fidelity to interventions to which intervention is
empirically supported, and understand beneficial adaptation that highlights the potential strategies that could be
used to address learners-at-risk prone to dropout. Fidelity is the extent to which the delivery of an intervention
adheres to the program model originally developed (Kaye, 2011).

As a response to these demands to provide access and quality education, the DepEd implemented the Dropout
Reduction Program (DORP) through DepEd Order No. 74, s. 2010. This program deems to decrease dropout
rates and increase participation rate and improve learning outcomes using formal, non-formal, and informal
methods in many schools across the regions with the overarching goal to contribute to the achievement of better-
quality performance indicators in basic education. To share the best practices of this program, the Bureau of
Secondary Education encourages all school heads to mainstream this program in the conceptualization of their
school improvement plan in all public secondary schools, with the overarching goal "No Child Left Behind"
focusing on the progress of students including at-risk students, students with learning difficulties and disability.
Individual Disabilities Act emphasizes that all struggling learners and children with learning disabilities should
be exposed to appropriate educational services to meet their unique needs and prepare them for further
education, employment, and independent living (IDEA, 2004). The provision of (DepEd Order No. 18)
articulates that the intervention and support program mechanism aimed at reducing delinquency among students,
including learners and out-of-school-youth is implemented within the general education classroom. It provides a
process by which students may be identified to receive special education and related services according to
students' needs. In all stages of the process, the school head is informed of the cases and actions taken involving
the students-at-risk which include reporting and gathering of information, profiling, and initial risk assessment,
development of intervention plan, and implementation. Likewise, Republic Act 9344 mandates all educational
institutions to provide adequate, necessary, and individualized educational schemes for students who are re-
manifesting difficult behavior, including Children-at-Risk (CAR), and to work together with families,
community organizations, and agencies to intensify capacity building, prevention programs, and implementation
of intervention plans to overcome potential barriers. Consequently, the welfare of students is given the utmost
priority, always ensuring the promotion of their sense of dignity and worth in every situation.

The City Schools Division of Imus has five secondary schools with a total population of 22,054 students.
Despite adherence to the intervention policy and protocols embedded in schools to reduce the dropout rate and
improve participation rate, still, the current status of learners-at-risk constitutes 6.04 percent of the total
population at the secondary level. To eradicate the causes being at-risk and prevent students from dropping out
and the need to address students-at-risk, schools have implemented the different components of the levels of
intervention in various mechanisms such as youth development program, values formation program, health, and
nutrition program, guidance and counseling, peer counseling, home visitation, after-school program, alternative
learning system, home study program, and accreditation and equivalency program. The program provides
coping mechanisms for learners during hostilities, aims to facilitate access of every student to quality basic
education, and equips the student with the basic literacy that is essential for their growth and development in all
walks of life. These intervention programs run in continuum and are not linear but are interlinked to address the
circumstances of learners-at-risk. Moreover, schools need to adopt multifaceted intervention programs and
sustain the consistency and culture of responsiveness. It is in this context that the researcher conducted the
study, to describe the level of implementation and the extent of fidelity on an intervention which is considered a
critical factor that contributes to the successful implementation of a program. Thus, this study is geared towards
the reinvigoration and building of evidence-based best practices that will serve as a guide to school in the
management of intervention and support programs for at-risk students towards continuous improvement of
quality education inclusive for all.

Statement of the Problem

Currently, there are different prevention, intervention, and support program practices implemented in public
schools that responded to the needs of at-risk students to foster meaningful academic and behavioral outcomes.
Owing to these needs, the study may prove and determine the integrity of the management of secondary level
interventions for students-at-risk in secondary schools in the schools' division office of the City of Imus at-risk
students.
 1. What is the demographic profile of the students-at-risk in terms of: a. Sex, b. Age, c. Grade Level, d.
Siblings’ Position, e. Parents’ Educational Attainment, f. Parents’ Civil Status, g. Parents’ Occupation,
and h. Parents’ Monthly Income?

2. What is the level of implementation of secondary level interventions as perceived by:

a. Administrators, b. Guidance Personnel, c. Teachers, and d. Students?

3. What is the extent of fidelity on intervention of the school personnel in terms of:
a. Commitment, b. Capacity Building, and c. Instructional Delivery?
4. Is there a significant relationship between the fidelity on intervention and the components of
secondary level interventions?

Research Method

Research Design

A descriptive correlational method of research was used in the study which involves the description,
interpretation, synthesis, and analysis of the data gathered. Descriptive research may be defined as a purposive
process of gathering, analyzing, classifying and tabulating data about prevailing conditions, practices, beliefs,
processes, trends and cause-effect relationships and then making an adequate and accurate interpretation about
the data with the aid of statistical methods (Calderon and Gonzales, 2012). A correlational method, certainly to
determine the magnitude and direction of a relationship between the fidelity of intervention and the perceived
extent of implementation of secondary level interventions.

Population and Sampling

The study was conducted in the schools' division of Imus City, wherein samples of the study were drawn from
five public secondary schools. The respondents of the study were composed of administrators, guidance
personnel, teachers, and students respectively. The study used the proportional stratified random sampling
procedure from the total population of the five secondary schools. The total respondents from teachers and was
computed using Slovin's formula with .05 margin of error, while the total samples from administrators and
guidance personnel were computed 100% sample size from five secondary schools and total enumeration of
students-at-risk referred by the guidance office.

A total population of 357 respondents was involved in the study from five secondary schools with a sample size
of 186 teachers and 143 students from different department and grade levels. It also involved 16 school
administrators and 12 guidance personnel. The students were selected using the total enumeration who are
exposed to the program. The strata were based on the guidance record and advisers' report on students-at-risk
encountered across grade level per school. The total students' respondents from the five schools equally
represented the perception of the students on the management of secondary level interventions in school.

Research Instrument

The main instrument used for this study was a researcher-made questionnaire. Available documents regarding
the management of intervention in the school and the respondents served as a source of data. The study used 2
sets of descriptive type questionnaires and applied documentary analysis.

Cohen et al. (2011) described a survey questionnaire as a systematic collection of data to scan an extensive field
of concerns, the behavior of the population, and programs to describe any comprehensive status. There were sets
of a questionnaire that was used. A researcher-made type of questionnaire was utilized in the study. One set for
administrators, guidance personnel, and teacher-respondents, and set two was intended for the student-
respondents that were validated and translated in a native or Tagalog language. The questions that were used in
the 2 sets of questionnaires depended on the data needed that was collected from the four groups of respondents
to draw the data appropriately for each particular group of respondents by the problem statements. The
documentary analysis was also applied in the study to gain additional needed information and pertinent
documents that serve as the basis of the study. This information was taken from the action plan or work plan and
narrative reports about the implementation of the intervention and support program for students-at-risk obtained
in the school records on activity or program completion reports. Among the documents analyzed were the
narrative reports of programs and activities of the school with regards to intervention and support of secondary
level interventions.
Validation of an Instrument

A set of the questionnaire was presented to the thesis adviser for comments and suggestion until the researcher
formulated the corrected and final researcher-made instrument. Upon the approval of the questionnaire from an
accredited authority, the instrument went evaluative validation from educational experts who were determined
by the College of Education Graduate Studies personnel. The validators were proficient in the field of
educational research, then the validators' feedback and solicited information were incorporated and the
necessary correction was made on the questionnaire. Finally, the revised and edited research instrument was
returned to the validators for their final approval. The research questionnaire protocol was reviewed by the
institutional ethics review committee for informed consent and was approved for the implementation of the
study

Data Collection Procedure

The researcher had secured a permit from the university research office to formally start the data gathering to
five secondary schools in the Schools Division Office of Imus, City. After the review committee has reviewed
the protocol of the study, the letter was presented to the office of the Schools' Division Superintendent for a
permit to conduct research data gathering in the five secondary schools.

With the approval and permission to conduct the study, the letter was conveyed to the principal as a formal
endorsement of the study. The letter emphasized the purpose of the study, a method of administration of the
research instruments, the date of administration, and retrieval of the research instruments were indicated and
shall not disrupt classes nor interfere with the regular activities of the schools. After the permission of the school
head, the researcher was endorsed to the guidance office to organize the administration of the survey
questionnaire. Orientation regarding the conduct of the study was given to the guidance personnel, an informal
interview regarding the management of intervention practices and challenges were tackled. Anecdotal records,
an action plan made by schools were presented about different activities in the different intervention and support
programs.

The survey questionnaire was turned over to the guidance personnel and was distributed to the advisers of the
target respondents identified for the study. Together with the adviser and students, they were asked to answer
the questionnaire in their free time and at their most convenient time. For a small school, based on the anecdotal
record of their school, the guidance personnel personally confronted students-at-risk to answer the survey until
all the details were completed. After answering the survey questionnaire, the researcher collected the survey
questionnaire from the guidance office after accomplishing all the information and details of the instrument
through digital communication. The duration of answering the research instrument took one week for the school
personnel and two weeks to one month waiting time to retrieve all the survey questionnaires for the students.

The researcher requested the necessary documents such as a work plan, action plan, and the narrative report
obtained from the guidance office and the records unit in the Division. The pertinent documents were analyzed
thoroughly to answer the research questions.

Data Analysis

Frequency and percentage count were used to determine the distribution of student respondents in terms of the
demographic profile such as sex, age, grade level, siblings' position, parents' educational attainment, parents'
occupation, parents' civil status, and parents' monthly income. Mean was used to determine the level of
implementation of the four groups of respondents on the different components of the secondary level
intervention. It was also used to measure the fidelity of intervention implementation in terms of commitment,
capacity building, and instructional delivery of the school personnel. The Pearson Correlation was used to
measure the degree of relationship between two sets of variables. It will determine the extent of fidelity of
intervention and extent of implementation and level of satisfaction of the different intervention and support
program practices. This was measured employing a correlation coefficient with a maximum value of 1 and a
minimum value of -1 degree of relationship. The person product-moment correlation coefficient was used to
determine the existence of a statistically significant relationship between the extent of fidelity on intervention
and the level of implementation of secondary interventions. The Correlation coefficients were interpreted by
employing descriptors (1 – perfect correlation; 0.75-0.99 – very high correlation; 0.50-0.74 – high correlation;
0.25-0.49 – moderately small correlation; 0.01-0.24 – very small correlation; 0 – no correlation).
The researcher used a five-point Likert Scale to determine the respondents' perception of the extent of
implementation of the secondary level interventions. To determine the data on the extent of implementation of
the different components of secondary level interventions, the study used a 5-point Likert Scale with the
following verbal interpretation: 1 – Not Implemented/Never Practiced, 2 – Less Implemented/Sometimes
Practiced, 3 – Fairly Implemented/Seldom Practiced, 4 – Highly Implemented/Usual Practiced, and 5 – Very
Highly Implemented/Always Practiced. To analyze the extent of fidelity on intervention, the Likert scale was
used to describe the data with the following verbal interpretation: 1 – Not Consistent, 2 – Less Consistent, 3 –
Fairly Consistent, 4 – High Consistent, 5 – Very Highly Consistent.

Results and discussions

Students-at-Risk Demographic Profile

Seventy-five (75) or 52.45% of students-at-risk are males and 68 or 47.55% females. The majority of students-
at-risk are in 15-16 years of age with a percentage of 53.15%. According to grade level and sibling's position, 72
or 50.35 % of them are grade 10 students and most of the student-at-risks are the eldest sibling which composed
of 54 or (37.76%). Most of the parents of the students-at-risk are high school graduates which are composed of
61 or (42.66%) mother, 53, or (37.06%) father. More than half of the parents of students-at-risk are married with
60.14%. In terms of parents' occupation, 69 or (48.25%) are just plain housewives, while there are only 3 fathers
are just simply a household father. The majority of the father are private company employee which is composed
of 72 or (50.35%), while 31 or (21.68%) are private employee mothers. 29.37% of the parents' income range is
as much as 10,000 to 15,000 pesos and another 25.87% of them have 5,000 below to 10,000 pesos income
range.

Diloy (2015) asserted that most of the students who need social support were belong to grades nine and ten.
Travers (2017) stated that birth order is considered by some researchers and psychologists to be one of the most
powerful influences on personality, along with genetics, gender, temperament, and parenting styles. Sibling
position is not the only influence on personality formation, but it is an important consideration (Butterworth,
2015). Socio-economic status, parental education attainment, family size, family structure or marital status,
income range and parental involvement affect the academic performance of the learners have a positive
influence on student's academic potential, achievement, and behavior (Kocakaya, Gonen, and Makewa et al.,
2012, Salazar and Blanco, 2017).

Table 1: Level of Implementation of the Secondary Level Interventions

Components School Head Guidance Teachers Students Compos Verbal
and Personnel ite Mean Interpre
Department tation
Head
Mean VI Mean VI Mean VI Mean VI
Secondary Level Interventions
Guidance Counselling 4.08 HI 4.54 VHI 4.34 VHI 3.83 HI 4.20 HI
Peer Counselling 4.08 HI 4.30 VHI 4.43 VHI 4.21 VHI 4.26 VHI
Home Visitation Service 3.88 HI 4.27 VHI 4.31 VHI 3.85 HI 4.08 HI
After-School Activities 3.79 HI 4.31 VHI 4.18 HI 3.76 HI 4.01 HI
Composite Mean 3.96 HI 4.36 VHI 4.32 VHI 3.91 HI 4.14 HI
Legend: 4.21-5.0 - Always Practiced//Very Highly Implemented (VHI), 3.41-4.20 - Usual Practiced/Highly Implemented (HI), 2.61-3.403 -
Sometimes Practiced/Fairly Implemented (FI), 1.81-2.60 - Seldom Practiced/Less Implemented (LI), 1.00-1.80 - Never Practiced/Not
Implemented (NI)

Table 1 shows the summary result of each component under the secondary interventions. It can be noted in the
table the computed composite mean of 4.14 which is described as highly implemented. Based on the ratings
given by the guidance personnel and teachers, the means were computed as 4.36 and 4.32, which are interpreted
as highly implemented. However, school administrators and students rated the level of the secondary
interventions as highly implemented with corresponding means of 3.96 and 3.91. Meanwhile, as reflected in the
table, peer counseling (mean=4.26) is very highly implemented while guidance and counseling (mean=4.20),
home visitation (mean=4.08), and after-school activities (mean=4.01) are highly implemented in schools.

The results above were supported by the data gathered from the different existing documents prepared in the
five secondary schools about the management of intervention and support programs for students-at-risk under
the secondary level of interventions. The documentary analysis and interview revealed that all secondary school
guidance personnel conduct individual counseling and involve parents or guardians in orientations about
guidance and counseling services. Teachers can manage students' habitual absences and tardiness through
progress and monitoring reports. School personnel also facilitate students with special needs to prescribed
service providers through a diversion program. Guidance personnel, supreme students organization, and their
advisers facilitate peer counseling support and mediation activities on bullying, illegal use of substances, early
pregnancy, conflict resolution, anxiety, and anger management. As mentioned in DepEd Order No. 18, teachers
can home visit students-at-risk based on risk assessment of such circumstances encountered. Teachers provided
students-at-risk with supplementary learning materials during home visitation, but not all of them were visited at
home, maybe, teachers' point of view and somehow reluctance to conduct home visitation. This action is an
indicator that there is a need to intensify teacher-parent-community collaboration to address students' academic
and behavioral circumstances.

The five secondary schools provide a remedial class for students-at-risk. Mentoring and tutorial activities are
conducted inside the faculty room, laboratory room, and sometimes in the hallway. In one way or another,
students are engaged in relevant extra-curricular activities and teachers facilitate students'-at-risk progress and
monitoring based on attendance and performance records obtained by the adviser. Several students are referred
to DSWD for intensive intervention and support program, however, some of them refuse to stay at the center
rather than stay at home where the home study program occur.

The findings presented in the preceding discussions reveal that secondary level of intervention is preventive and
targeted in nature stipulated in the policy declaration. The strategies of interventions are essential at this level to
ensure that school personnel and students are actively involved in the protocol. It implies that these
interventional mechanisms strengthen the school support system towards students' holistic development. It may
manifest that students are responsive and benefiting from the different interventions given to them. The practice
of high-quality intervention among targeted students-at-risk can maximize student achievement and reduce
behavioral and academic problems in school.

Secondary level interventions are specifically designed to meet the needs of students who continue to have
difficulties after the implementation of the primary interventions (Menzies and Lane, 2011). (Co, et al., 2016
and Sungahid, 2016) reiterated that early intervention strategies for policy improvement help to reduce dropout
rates and improved the school retention and rate and students' performance. As mentioned by Kremer et al.,
(2014), secondary interventions mobilized by teachers are used to prevent adverse outcomes, decrease risks, or
improve functioning with at-risk youth in several areas, including academic achievement and behavioral
problems, socio-emotional functioning, school engagement, and attendance. Schools will likely experience
successes and failures as they move forward with the implementation of secondary level responses to
interventions. The potential for enhanced student outcomes makes this a worthy undertaking (King et al., 2012).
Secondary interventions entail tracking at-risk students' performance over time to analyze responsiveness to
instruction, evaluate the effectiveness of instruction, and create individualized interventions for students who are
the least responsive (IDEA, 2004). Kelly (2010) stressed that the school-wide management of intervention
program emphasizes the creation of mechanisms that support the adoption and resilient implementation of
evidence-based practices and procedures that are adequate within enduring school reform initiatives. The
construction of a school-wide prevention program facilitates literacy development provides high quality explicit
instructional strategies for at-risk students (Choi et al., 2012). The result of the current study agrees with Diloy
(2015) that school personnel has full knowledge of the school programs regarding safety and violence in school.
The emerging emphasis on management to intervention initiative is being made to link behavioral support and
academic support together into a shared problem-solving approach with greater emphasis on prevention and
support mechanisms.

Table 2: Extent of Fidelity on Interventions

Components School Head and Guidance Teachers Average Composite
Department Head Personnel Mean Mean
Mean VI Mean VI Mean VI
Commitment 3.90 HC 4.17 HC 4.25 VHC 4.11 HC
Capacity Building 3.59 HC 4.23 VHC 4.18 HC 4.0 HC
Instructional Delivery 3.84 HC 4.31 HC 4.25 VHC 4.13 HC
Composite Mean 3.78 HC 4.24 VHC 4.22 VHC 4.08 HC
Legend: 4.21-5 - Very Highly Consistent (VHC), 3.41-4.20 - Highly Consistent (HC), 2.61-3.40 - Fairly Consistent (FC), 1.81-2.60 - Less
Consistent (LC), 1.00-1.801 - Not Consistent (NC)

Table 2 unveils the summary of each component in the fidelity of intervention implementation of the different
intervention and support program practices. The computed composite mean of 4.08, interpreted as highly
consistent, was the result given by the school personnel. Based on the given ratings of the guidance personnel
and teachers, the means were computed as 4.24 and 4.22, which are interpreted as very highly consistent. On the
other hand, the computed mean of 3.78 or highly consistent was the mean given by the school administrators.
Likewise, the table also shows the means of the three components of the fidelity of intervention implementation.
Commitment got a mean of 4.11; capacity building got a mean of 4.0, and instructional delivery got a mean of
4.13.

School personnel promote the right of all students to quality education at all levels of intervention, both in
academic and in behavioral dimensions. Despite limited facilities intended for students-at-risk, there is still the
resilience of the school personnel to provide a safe learning environment in conducting the intervention
activities through scheduled remedial activities according to students' needs and interests. High fidelity of
intervention implementation initiatives increases the efficiency of the intervention and support program
practices. The fidelity on the levels of intervention and of its successful implementations needs striving intent to
overcome barriers towards attaining inclusive education for all. Intervention, intervention, and support program
practices are conjecturers of program effectiveness.

The components of effective interventional practices influence the probability of success towards continuous
improvement of services. Assessing fidelity is essential to understanding program impact, and a careful account
of how a program is adapted is essential in guiding future attempts leading to successful implementation
(Education Development Center). Bell (2009) stressed that a highly consistent fidelity assessment will identify
specific components of program implementation that have an extreme effect on outcomes. Educators who have
a clear vision about where they are going are largely in line with their basic values, allowing them to be
involved and motivated in their work (Centeno, 2013).

One most important element in the success and sustainability of an intervention program is the commitment of
school personnel who are the primary movers of the program (Coffey and Horner, 2012). Skilled leaders who
can build high-performance cultures that attain measurable results make everyone around them successful,
including teachers and support staff which encourage improvement in all aspects of leadership and building
capacity for sustained improvement (Kirtman, 2012). Underlying the policy implementation of program
components is the interconnectedness of strategies in optimizing and standardizing fidelity through the quality
of delivery, program differentiation, adherence, responsiveness, monitoring, feedback, and training. The higher
the level of implementation fidelity, the higher level of achieving outcomes (Carroll et al., 2007; Mellard, 2009;
and Bell, 2011). Research that advances our understanding of the processes needed to maintain implementation
fidelity will be a critical step toward creating sustainable interventions (Breitenstein et al., 2010).

Table 3: Correlation between the Extent on Fidelity on intervention and the Level of Implementation of
Secondary Level Interventions
Components r value Relationship Significance Decision
Commitment -.072 Very small negative .843 Not Significant
Secondary Interventions correlation
Capacity Building .235 Moderately small .513 Not Significant
Secondary Interventions positive correlation
Instructional Delivery -.120 Very small negative .742 Not Significant
Secondary Interventions correlation
Significance at 0.05 level
Table 3 shows that the relationship between commitment and level of implementation of the secondary has no
significant relationship as reflected by the very small negative correlation of -0.072 with the computed
significance value of 0.843 shows no significant relationship between the variables. On the other hand, the
relationship between capacity building and level of implementation secondary level of interventions has a
computed r-value of 0.235 described as moderately small positive. The computed significance value of 0.513
shows no significant relationship between the variables. Likewise, the relationship between instructional
delivery and level of implementation of secondary level interventions revealed a very small positive with the
calculated value of -0.120, and a significance value of 0.742 displays no significant relationship between the
variables. It implies that the fidelity of intervention of school personnel is not correlated with the level of
implementation of the level of interventions as perceived by the group of respondents.

As stipulated in the table, it can be explained that the administrators and guidance personnel unveiled a
comparatively different range of responses to each indicator which is also different from the responses of the
teachers who have direct responsibility in the implementation of the program. Interestingly, school personnel
diverged in their perceptions regarding their extent of manifestation of fidelity on intervention. In the same
way, teachers who have direct communication and responsibility to the students gave different perceptions to
the responses of the students on the implementation of the different intervention programs. However, the diverse
views of the respondents perhaps were ascribed to several factors. Among them would probably include the
adherence to guidelines and procedures of the general education teachers who respond to the intervention
protocol and who monitor the fidelity of implementation of different intervention practices. Perhaps, lack of
integrity to open channels of communication and feedback loop hinders school personnel to the roles and
responsibilities to the compliance of sustainable engagement, collaboration, and enthusiasm to activities that
respond to intervention.

Classroom complexities, teacher characteristics, family characteristics, school characteristics, and students'
characteristics all influence adherence to a program and need to be considered when assessing fidelity (Chiodo,
2017). Likewise, participants' responsiveness, interest, and readiness to engage in various interventional
activities may play a direct role in the outcomes or may act as a mediator between the intervention and
adherence to the program or the quality of service delivery (Bell, 2009). Presumably, engagement is associated
with positive academic outcomes, and it is greatly evident in classrooms with supportive teachers and peers,
curriculum support system, program differentiation, and sufficient facilities. On the contrary, students'
disengagement is associated with behavior and academic problems and eventually dropout, signifying that the
exposure of the students under the intended intervention program might be lacking because of the
unresponsiveness on the part of the students to the intervention given to them and lack of family support. It
entails that somehow, steward of education manifests resiliency and determination to accomplish the
overarching goal of the Department of Education despite such culture and scenario of the public school system.
At some point, there's a need to build social capital in school-community that promotes awareness on the
different intervention services. Finally, a concrete utilization of differentiated activities and appropriate
strategies for various types of students-at-risk seems to be advantageous.

According to Dulak and Dupre (2008), achieving good implementation not only increases the probabilities of
program success in statistical terms but also leads to much stronger benefits for the learners. A wider repertoire
of behavior support practices provides compelling evidence-based practices of the capacity to assist school
personnel to have a positive impact on learners' outcome (Kelly, 2010). There is credible and extensive
empirical evidence that the achievement of the level of implementation is an important determinant of program
outcomes (Durlak and Dupre, 2008). Higher levels of fidelity may increase student outcomes; but if teachers are
not empowered in the provision of the curriculum, it might be substantial (Davis, 2014). Competence in
delivering an intervention includes qualities related to communication, technical abilities, and skills in
responding to the students receiving the intervention (Breitenstein et al., 2010). Nevertheless, it is the teachers'
accountability to engage students-at-risk on different intervention, prevention, and support activities that
respond before their needs.

Conclusions

Regardless of determinants that influence students-at-risk, the secondary level of interventions is preventive and
protective in nature and student needs-specific and age-appropriate that requires the active engagement of the
students and involvement of the family including the community as an essential support system to ensure and
achieve better results. The secondary level of interventions is inclusive which promotes social fairness and
equal opportunity and engage students-at-risk in proactive and constructive activities geared towards building
strengths and character.

The components of secondary level interventions were highly implemented in schools in varying degrees. It is
apparent to the drivers of the management of intervention and support program for students-at-risk requires
deliberate, intentional and well-planned initiatives on the part of school personnel at the school level to make the
process work benefit to serve students in need of academic and behavioral support services consistently without
compromising the policy. However, the true challenge lies in ensuring that school personnel is trained, creating
adequate conducive facilities, extensive school-community capacity building activities, prepared and properly
focused on doing what is necessary to implement the intervention, prevention, and support program according to
students-at-risk needs.

Seemingly, school personnel appears to be highly consistent with their fidelity on intervention differently.
Hence, the consensus of implementation fidelity on interventions needs to systematically assess because it
remains the best concern to determine the implementation of the program proceeds as intended by policymaker
towards continuous improvement with fidelity across the different components of secondary level interventions.

Research implications
To achieve inclusive education for all, the study suggests a proactive involvement of the students and parents in
every aspect of the implementation of secondary level interventions through collaborative and extensive school-
community capacity building activities. Strengthen the implementation of the youth development activities,
values formation activities, and health and nutrition program through nurturing sustainable awareness on
pressing issues about personal, physical, health, social, and emotional dimensions. School personnel must have
a clear understanding of their duties through delegation or their roles and responsibilities on the procedures in
the management of students-at-risk with regards to reporting and gathering information, profiling, and initial
risk assessment, intervention plan, protocols, monitoring system, corrective feedback, and decision making.

Intensify the provisions for training, seminar, coaching, monitoring, and coordination of school personnel to
ensure every student receives the right intervention at the right level for the right duration of time to produce the
right result equitable to uniformity, consistency, and quality of delivery of the management of secondary level
interventions. Allocate adequate monetary resources for the establishment of essential learning materials and
conducive facilities for sustainable development on the implementation of various prevention, intervention, and
support program practices. Establish active multi-disciplinary teams or technical working groups that will focus
on gathering adequate documents, extensive planning of activities, monitoring, and evaluation of outcomes of
the implementation of the different prevention, intervention, and support program mechanisms.

Research limitation and future work

This has several limitation First, the sample consisted of school heads, guidance personnel, teachers, and
students-at-risk in five secondary schools. Second, the study deliberated students’ profile such as sex, age, grade
level, siblings’ position, parents’ educational attainment, parents’/guardians’ civil status, parents’ occupation,
and parents’ monthly income. The scope of the study was limited only to the secondary level interventions
implemented in the schools that address students’-at-risk academic and behavioral problems. It also covered the
extent of fidelity on intervention implementation in terms of commitment, capacity building and instructional
delivery, perceived level of implementation of the different intervention and support program practices and its
relationship. The data were solely based from the responses of respondents as a primary source of data where
the study was held during the mentioned school year and it did not deal on the performance of the schools in
terms of key metrics. Therefore, the findings of the study may not be generalized.

Future researches could focus on identifying and assessing potential intervening variables affecting the
relationship between implementation fidelity components and intervention outcomes. More research is needed
on the relationships between adherence, exposure, program differentiation, quality of delivery, students'
responsiveness across the prevention, intervention and support evidence-based program practices, and teachers'
competence and intervention outcome, as well as its impact and effectiveness. An in-depth qualitative analysis
may be conducted on the different stories of students-at-risk and the impact of different programs.

References

Bell. J. (2009). Evaluation Brief. Measuring Implementation Fidelity. Retrieved from

http://www.jbassoc.com/ReportsPublications/Evaluation%20Brief%20-%20Measuring
%20Implementation%20Fidelity_Octob%E2% 80%A 6.pdf
Breitenstein SM; Fogg L; Garvey C; Hill C; Resnick B; and Gross D. (2010). Measuring
Implementation Fidelity of a Community Based Parenting Intervention. Dissertation Abstracts
International: Sciences and Engineering. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/20404777
Burrus, J., and Roberts, R. (2012). Dropping Out of High School: Prevalence, Risk Factors, and
Remediation Strategies. R & D Connections. pp. 7-8.
Butterworth, S. (2015). Sibling Position in Bowen Theory. Retrieved from
http://www.isaacbutterworth.com/
Calderon, J. F., and Gonzales, E. C. (2012). Methods of Research. An Introduction. Retrieved
from https://www.scribd.com/presentation/333587317/Methods-of-Research-Calderon-Gonzales
Carroll, C., Patterson, M., Wood, S., and Booth, A. (2007). A Conceptual Framework for
Implementation fidelity. Retrieved from https://doi.org/10.1186/1748-5908-2-40.
Centeno, W. (2013). Factors Affecting Public School Teachers’ Commitment to their Profession.
Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, De La Salle University-Dasmariñas.
Center for Innovation and Improvement. Monitoring Fidelity of Implementation. Leadership and
 Decision Making. U.S. Department of Education. Retrieved from
http://www.centerii.org/handbook/resources/5_g_monitoring_fidelity.pdf
Chiodo, D. G. (2017). A Qualitative Study of the Fidelity of implementation of an Evidence-
Based Healthy Relationships Program. Electronic Thesis and Dissertation Repository. Retrieved from
http://ir.lib.uwo.ca/etd/4405
Choi, E., Oh, K., Yoon, S.M., and Hong, S. (2012). A Literature Review of Implementing
Response to Intervention for English Language Learners. Journal of Special Education Apprenticeship.
Vol. 1. No. 2. pp. 1-13.
Co, G. A., Trinidad, MA, H., and Boronzi, M. P. (2016). Early Intervention Strategies to Prevent
or Reduce Drop Out Rate. Division of Imus City. Philippine Conference on Basic Education
Researches.
Coffey, J., and Horner, R. (2012). The Sustainability of Schoolwide Positive Behavior
Interventions and Supports. Retrieved from
http://journals.sagepub.com/doi/10.1177/001440291207800402
Cohen, L., Manion, L., and Morisson, K. (2011). Research Methods in Education, 17th Edition.
Rutledge New York. https://islmblogblog.files.wordpress.com/2016/05/rme-edu-helpline-blogspot-
com.pdf
Davis, D. (2014). Fidelity of Implementation, Teacher Perspectives and Child Outcomes of a
Literacy Intervention in a Head Start Program: A Mixed Methods Study. Public Access Theses and
Dissertations from the College of Education and Human Sciences. Retrieved from
http://digitalcommons.unl.edu/cehsdiss/201
Department of Education Guidelines and Procedures on the Management of Children-at-Risk
(CAR) and Children in Conflict with the Law (CICL) – DO 18, s. 2015.
Diloy, A. E. (2015). Assessment of the Safety Needs and Social Support Mechanisms of
Students at Trece Martires City National High School: Basis for the Development of Guidance for the
Code of Conduct under the DepEd Child Protection Policy. Unpublished Masters’ Thesis, De La Salle
University-Dasmariñas.
Durlak, J.A., and DuPre, E.P. (2008). Implementation Matters: A Review of Research on the
Influence of Implementation on Program Outcomes and the Factors Affecting Implementation.
American Journal of Community Psychology. Retrieved from
http://citeseerx.ist.psu.edu/viewdoc/download?doi=10.1.1.470.834&rep=rep1&type=pdf
Enhanced Drop Out Reduction Program (2013). Handbook. Bureau of Secondary Education.
Retrieved from: http://www.depedcamsur.com/uploads/8/4/5/2/8452840/enhanced_dorp.pdf
Hagermoser, L. M. and Kratochwill, T. R. (2011). An Evaluation of the Treatment Integrity
Planning Protocol and Two Schedules of Treatment Integrity Self-Report: Impact on Implementation
and Report Accuracy. Retrieved from
ttp://www.tandfonline.com/doi/abs/10.1080/10474412.2011.620927?src=recsys&journalCode=hepc20
Individuals with Disabilities Educational Improvement (IDEA) Act (2004). Pub. L. No. 108-446,
118 Stat. 2807. Retrieved from http://www.copyright.gov/legislation/pl108-446.html
Kaye, S. (2011). Fidelity 101: How to Develop, Validate and Use Fidelity Measures to Inform
Implementation in Child Welfare. University of Maryland. National Child Welfare Evaluation Summit,
Washington, DC. Todd Holder, MSW, ACTION for Child Protection.
Kelly, O. L. (2010). What Impact does the Implementation of School-Wide Positive Behaviour Support have on
Teachers' Perceptions of their Efficacy, Attribution of Problem Behavior and their Perceived Capacity
to Influence General School Climate. University of Tasmania.

Kirtman, L. (2012). Four Steps to Building Leadership Capacity. Volume 28. Retrieved from
http://hepg.org/hel-home/issues/28_2/helarticle/four-steps-to-building-m; leadership-capacity_530.
Kocakaya, S. Y. and Gonen, S. D. (2012) Effect of the Demographic Characteristics on Students’
Achievement Path Analytic Study. International Journal on New Trends in Education and Their
Implications. Retrieved October 15, 2018 from
http://www.ijonte.org/FileUpload/ks63207/File/20.kocakaya1.pdf
Kovaleski, J. F., VanDerHeyden, A. M., and Shapiro, E. S. (2013). The RTI Approach to
Evaluating Learning Disabilities. New York, NY: Guilford. Retrieved from
https://www.guilford.com/books/The-RTI-Approach-to-Evaluating-Learning-Disabilities/Kovaleski-
VanDerHeyden-Shapiro/9781462511549.
Kremer K. P, Maynard, B. R., Polanin, J. R., Vaughn, M. G., and Sarteschi, C. M. (2014).
Effects of After-School Programs with At-Risk Youth on Attendance and Externalizing Behaviors: A
Systematic Review and Meta- Analysis. Retrieved from
https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC4597889/
Makewa, L. N; Role, E; and Otewa, F. (2012). Parental Factors Affecting Academic
Achievement of Grade Sic Pupils in Kisumu City, Kenya. from:
https://www.researchgate.net/publication/232242138.
Mellard, D. F. (2009). Fidelity of Implementation within an RTI Framework. National Center on
Response to Intervention Webinar. The University of Kansas Center for Research on Learning.
Retrieved from http://www.rti4success.org/pdf/FidelityImplementation_10-20-09_FINAL.pdf.

Menzies, H., & Lane, K. (2011). Using Self-regulation Strategies and Functional Assessment
-based Interventions to Provide Academic and Behavioral Support to Students at risk within three-
tiered Models of Prevention. Preventing School Failure. pp. 181-191.
Philippine Education For All 2015: Implementation and Challenges. Retrieved from
http://www.unescobkk.org/fileadmin/user_upload/efa/EFA_MDA/National_EFA_MDA_Reports/Phili
ppines_EFA_MDA_FINAL.pdf
Salazar, L. M and Blanco E. G. (2017). Developing Intensified Home Visitation Program.
Division of Batangas City. International Conference of Basic Education Researchers
Sungahid, M. L. (2016). The Impact of ABM (Alternative Delivery Mode) on Instruction in
Saving SARDO (Students-at-risk of Dropping Out). Division of Cagayan de Oro. Philippine
Conference of Basic Education Researchers.
Travers, P. (2017). Birth Order: How your Position in the Family can Influence your Personality.
ABC Radio Canberra. Retrieved from https://www.abc.net.au/news/2016-10-26/how-birth-order-can-
influence-personality/7959170
Viaro, LI, A. (2017). Health Care Services, Behavior, and Learning Outcomes of Grade 9
Students of Jose Lopez Manzano Tuy National High School. Division of Batangas. International
Conference on Basic Education Researches.
Zirkel, P. A., and Thomas, L. B. (2010). State Laws and Guidelines for
Implementing RTI. Teaching Exceptional Children, 43, 60–73.