1

Planning for the Learning Recovery: The Philippine Experience

Carlo Magno
Technical Adviser, United States Agency for International Development

Different government and non-government agencies have started to initiate and implement
efforts to address the learning gaps encountered by learners during closing of schools and remote
learning due to the pandemic for the last two years. Learning gaps and loss occurred due to the low
access of some learners in low to middle income countries to resources needed to pursue with remote
or distance education. This includes low access to technology (i. e. devices, applications, and internet
connection) and learning resources (printed modules). The UNESCO reported that even before the
pandemic, there are learners left behind who are unable to read and this gap becomes exponential if
learners will not continue with effective instruction (p. 5):

Before the pandemic, an estimated 15 million children in the region between the ages of 5-14
were out of school and nearly two-thirds of children in the region were unable to read with
proficiency3. An additional 10 million children were at risk of dropping out of school, due to
poverty, social marginalisation, displacement and disruption caused by conflict. In 2020, on top
of the pre-pandemic estimates, UNESCO estimated that a further 1.31 million children and
youths were at risk of dropping out of school due to the COVID-19 crisis, noting that these
children were unlikely to return to their education institutions.

The UNESCO, World Bank, and MICS Foundation even reported that larger losses are also observed
among socioeconomically disadvantaged students. The Philippines, classified under lower to middle
income country, was reported that about 0 to 15% of 10 years old children could not read a simple text.
The UNESCO Global Monitoring closure has shown that about 26,950,258 Filipino learners were affected
due to school closure.
In Region 5, the grade 1 to grade 3 learners were assessed using the Comprehensive Rapid
Literacy Assessment provided by the ABC+ and USAID. The assessment results showed that about 65.5%
of the grade 1 learners are in the full refresher level (able to identify letters only), 52% of the grade 2
and 18%-28%% of the grade 1 learners are still in the full refresher level.
Direct assessment of Filipino learners in English and Mathematics was conducted by the Center
for Learning and Assessment Development-Asia (CLAD-Asia) for grade 1 (representing early grades) and
grade 10 (representing high school) learners. Longitudinal data was obtained comparing performance of
learners before the pandemic (SY 2019-2020) and during the pandemic (SY 2020-2021) on the Most
Essential Learning Competencies (MELC: Curriculum in the Philippines). A linear-mixed model was used
to account for the random effects such as type of school (public and private) and location of the learners
(Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao). Fixed effects in the analysis were the two years where the SY 2019-
2020 represents face to face instruction and the SY 2020-2021 used remote learning modality. The
result for the grade 10 showed that significant decline on the performance for English and mathematics
from SY 2019-2020 to SY 2020-2021. The decline in mathematics is a bit larger, with a parameter
estimate of 3.99 (p<.01), than in English with a parameter estimate of 2.43 (p<.01). Both effect sizes for
of the change in modality resulted to large decline in performance. Random effects on the location of
the learners did not matter much as shown by the small estimates (.26 and .13 for math and English
respectively). However, the type of school accounted much as a random effect (5.06 and 2.42 for math
and English respectively). A different pattern was observed for the grade 1 learners where significant
 2

acceleration was found for math (parameter estimate of 13.42) but a slight acceleration in English
(parameter estimate of 5.97). However, the performance for the SY 2020-2021 still did not reach a high
performance. The performance is still 18.2 standard deviations below the perfect score for math and
20.54 standard deviation below for English. The random effects for the type of school is very large
indicating that there are variations in the performance when stratified between public and private
schools on the English performance (Random effect estimate of 9.71).

Figure 1. Performance of Grade 10 Learners in Math and English for SY 2019-2020 and SY 2020-2021.

A thorough assessment for the literacy and numeracy levels were conducted among a large
sample of grade 2 public school students in the National Capital region. The literacy assessment in
English showed that about 1.87% are still non-readers, and 37.38% are still not reaching a full range of
reading skills in English. These results are consistent for the Filipino literacy where 1.3% are still non-
readers and 19.39% are still not reaching a full range of literacy skills in Filipino. A one-parameter Rasch
Model was conducted and it showed that there is a large leap of learners’ ability from alphabet
knowledge to phonological awareness in English and Filipino. A wide range of ability between blending
sounds to word recognition in English was also shown (but not in Filipino). This implies that there are
underlying literacy skills involved before the learner reaches the next literacy skill. These underlying
literacy skills needs to be identified and bridged through instruction. The pattern showed in an in-depth
analysis showed that providing literacy intervention is not the perspective at hand. It shows further that
underlying literacy skills in between the subskills needs to be identified and properly bridged.
The numeracy assessment showed that across the 8 stages of numeracy skills, majority of the
grade 2 learners is at stage 4 or advance counting. This means that very few can perform the
fundamental operations. The one-parameter Rasch model was used to identify easy and difficult
numeracy skills. The three tasks on problem solving showed to be the most difficulty and sequential rote
counting with other counting skills are the easiest.
The results pointing to the learning loss and gaps in the early grades are realized by school
leaders. The movement is directed on accelerating instructional programs to address learning gaps so
that these learners can proceed to the next level skills. The Hanover Research Institute has explained in
their reviews that the learning recovery plan is one of the best practices for the long-term recovery
programs. There are several systematic models how the learning recovery plan is operationalized. One
of the main operational model at the onset of the pandemic (2021) is provided by The National Institute
for Excellence in Teaching (NIET). The NIET provided four steps in learning recovery planning:

(1) Conduct a landscape analysis

(2) Determine which strategies will best support learning recovery and accelerate learning in the district
 3

(3) Identify key personnel and build buy-in

(4) Create a budget

The NIET has also provided areas of concern in the development of the learning recovery plan:

Area 1 – Support strong instructional practices through building the capacity of teacher and leaders with
professional learning.
Area 2 – Ensure a robust plan for supporting literacy is in place and understood by all.
Area 3 – Ensure all schools have high-quality curriculum and instructional materials that will effectively
support students’ accelerated learning.
Area 4 - Provide ongoing learning intervention and individualized support for students in need.

Also in 2021, the Academic Innovation and Performance New Classrooms Innovation Partners for
Learning has developed six components of the learning recovery plan:

1. An underlying skill map or framework: A common, multi-grade skill map that articulates the
relationships between different skills within and across different grade levels is an essential tool for
tailored acceleration.
2. Diagnostic tools: Next, schools must precisely diagnose each student’s incoming levels of mastery to
determine the focus of instruction.
3. Prioritization on a strategic mix of skills to get students back on track: Once schools have a clear
understanding of each students’ learning recovery plan, they must prioritize an ambitious subset of
concepts to be learned within the instructional time available.
4. Regular assessments to measure progress: Schools should utilize interim assessments that are
designed to capture learning gains that span multiple grade levels.
5. Meaningful parent engagement: While an approach focused on meeting the strengths and needs of
each student can better accelerate progress, it will nonetheless differ from what parents are
accustomed to seeing.
6. Incorporating key program design choices: An effective learning recovery plan must account for
several program design choices (flexible learning, blended learning, hybrid).

The UNICEF, UNESCO, and the World Bank (April, 2022) has recently developed a framework for
the learning recovery. Their model focuses on the global priority that every girl and boy is sufficiently
supported to return to school and catch up on missed learning. The model is composed of five key
actions for education recovery with the acronym RAPID: (1) Reach every child and retain them in school,
(2) Assess current learning levels, (3) Prioritize fundamentals, (4) Increase catch-up learning, and (5)
Develop psychosocial health and wellbeing.

In the Philippine setting, school leaders are conscious of the learning loss that occurred in the
early grades (kinder to grade 3) which they termed as key stage 1. The Department of Education Region
5, headed by the regional director was the first to conceptualize the learning recovery in the Philippines.
The goal of the learning recovery plan is to address the learning loss due to the low access of learners to
resources in remote learning and to improve instruction by using evidence-based learning programs.
The learning recovery plan is composed of seven components:

(1) Establishing the shared vision for learning recovery among school leaders
(2) Establishing SMART goals for the learning recovery
(3) Identify priority areas for the learning recovery
 4

(4) Gather and analyze data for each priority area

(5) Setting objectives, projects, programs, and activities, and formulating Key Performance Indicators
(6) Institutionalizing the Learning Recovery Plan
(7) Implementing and Monitoring the Learning recovery plan

Establishing the shared vision for learning recovery among school leaders

It is realized that school leaders are the primary initiators of the learning recovery plan. Their
vision of the learning recovery need to be set in order to drive the organization. A shared vision is not
imposed by one or a few people as an organizational mandate. Rather, it is derived from the members
of the organization, creating common interests and a sense of shared purpose for all organizational
activities. In the process, the schools division superintendent with the assistant schools division
superintendent, chief curriculum and instructional development, and planning officer works together to
formulate their initial vision. This vision is then processed with the rest of the division personnel for
adjustments. When the shared vision is built, people in the organization starts to perceive, understand,
and take responsibility for the entire organization. It requires people to make the vision a part of their
own values, support each other, understand that vision is a process (not just a statement), move toward
intrinsic motivations, and focus on pro-active change, rather than action against a problem or negative
situation.
In the process of making the shared vision explicit, the school leaders are provided with a guide
on the contents to focus their shared vision (see Appendix A).

Establishing SMART goals for the learning recovery

The SMART goal focuses the aspects that needs to be attained in shared vision. The goals when
made specific, measurable, attainable, and time specific, makes the shared vision more concrete (see
Appendix B). The smart goal expresses the aim on what needs to be developed among the learners.
The shared vision describes the change in the learning organization and how these organization
will produce the kind of learners. The specific skills that need to be developed by the learners in the
shared vision is specified in the smart goal. The quantity of the behavior is specified in terms of the rate
of increase from a baseline. The specific indicator used for measuring the quantity is specified.

Identify priority areas for the learning recovery

The priority areas are specified given what needs to be achieved in the SMART goals. In this
process, the curriculum, learning materials, and capacity of teachers are looked at in order to mobilize
the learning recovery plan. In this stage, the school leaders are guided in setting the priority areas of the
learning recovery. The following are the considerations in deciding on the priority recovery areas:

1. The area is needed in the implementation of the different learning modalities in DepEd. Partial face
to face in DepEd is the alternating implementation of instruction of face to face and remote learning
with one week each.
2. There are supporting implementing guidelines for the areas selected.
3. The area is part of what DepEd specified in the learning continuity plan and other implementation
guidelines of the region/division
4. The area is supported by the initiative of the regional and division office.
 5

5. There are corresponding objectives, projects, programs, and activities in the plans that correspond to
the area specified.
There are two models that can be looked at in deciding for the priority areas. These areas are
provided by the NIET and PEAC.

Area of Concern Guide questions

Area 1 – Support strong instructional practices What type of instructional practices

through building the capacity of teacher and and professional learning would best
leaders with professional learning. support teachers and school leaders
in the division?
Area 2 – Ensure a robust program for supporting What is the division’s comprehensive vision to
literacy is in place and understood by all. address learning loss?
Area 3 – Ensure all schools have high-quality What is the division’s strategy to develop high
curriculum and instructional materials that will quality programs to ensure that learning loss is
effectively support students’ accelerated addressed?
learning.
Area 4 - Provide ongoing learning intervention What are the evidence based practices will the
and individualized support for students in need. division implement to support the
learners/teachers and other personnel?

PEAC -Area of Concern Description

Curriculum, Assessment, and Instruction Continuity of Learning outcomes in the Different
Subject Areas and Grade Levels.
Alternative Learning Modules (ALMs)/ Flexible
Learning Options (FLOs)

Faculty Teacher Readiness for Alternative Learning

Modules (ALMs)/ Flexible Learning Options
(FLOs)
Administration and Governance School Enrollment and Finance Management
School Budget and Finance
Administration and Governance School Emergency Response and Planning

Institutional Planning and Development

Academic Support and Student Development Mental Health of School Community
Services

Physical Plant and Instructional Support Facilities Elimination of Health Risks, Hazards and Threats
from COVID 19 and other infectious Diseases in
the Campus, Classrooms, Offices Facilities and
Environment

It can be noted that the four areas provided by the NIET falls under the curriculum, assessment and
instruction of the PEAC components.
 6

The DepEd region 5 has derived the Big 4 priority areas of the recovery. They have reviewed and went to
a process for deciding on the areas of priority:

Area 1: Improving the delivery of curriculum, assessment, and instruction

Area 2: Developing the capacity of teachers
Area 3: Academic support for the learning at home and in the community
Area 4: Allocation of budget for the learning recovery

Gather and analyze data for each priority area

Evidences, that includes baseline information, are collected by the school leaders for each of the
recovery areas. The baseline data, as much as possible, needs to be recent so that it will be relevant to
take action. There are available tools to assess the evidences for each recovery area. The tools would
specify the components or indicators for the area. The specific measures are specified when selecting
results of the data that will be reported. The results can be summarized using the following:

Kind of Data to be reported Example

Frequencies and percent Count in percent the number of implemented technical assistance
Count in percent the number of benefits gained.
Count in percent the plans that are compliant
Inventory from Checklists Checklist on the compliance to the plan
Checklist complying to partnership protocols
Ratings from scales Ratings of the learning resources based on a set of criteria in a scale.
Ratings on the accuracy of financial reports using a scale with criteria.
Test scores Test scores from the National Achievement Test
Amount of money Amount of cash advances that are liquidated.
Qualitative Responses Report of benefits gained from the program.

Statistical analysis can be conducted to provide an in-depth interpretation and generate

implications about the data. Inferential Statistical analysis can be conducted in the following cases:

a. Comparing baseline observations and observations after the PPA.

b. Comparing data across different years
c. Comparing performance when grouped by location, gender, and other individual differences
d. Comparing performance when grouped by different class and levels of analysis
e. Ranking of data
f. Predicting future information
g. Determining the effect of PPAs and interventions on outcomes
h. Relationship of one data to another

Setting objectives, projects, programs, and activities, and formulating Key Performance Indicators

The baseline data gathered will point the specific objectives that will be set for the learning
recovery plan. Specific objectives are stated for each of the priority areas. The objectives are stated
based on the recipients of the projects programs and activities (PPAs). If the PPAs are for the learners,
 7

the objectives are directed on the skills that the learners will develop. If the PPAs are training for
teachers, the objectives are directed on the skills that the teachers will develop.
The projects, programs, and activities are indicated in order to accomplish the objectives. These
are the activities that are monitored and evaluated with the KPIs.
The Key Performance Indicators (KPI) in the learning recovery plan serve as the standard that
needs to be met. The KPI also defines the kind of data that needs to be collected.

KPI (Standard) Data to be collected

100% of required CA liquidation and reported on Amount of cash advances that are liquidated.
time
Quality Assured Contextualized LRs in the LR Ratings of the learning resources based on a set
Portal of criteria in a scale.
Partners adhering to TOR/ protocol Checklist complying to partnership protocols
Accurate and reliable financial reports submitted Ratings on the accuracy of financial reports using
within the prescribed period. a scale with criteria.
Percentage of implemented Technical Count in percent the number of implemented
Assistance intervention in each Schools Division technical assistance
*Percentage of Personnel benefitted from the Report of benefits gained from the program.
program
Count in percent the number of benefits gained.
*100% of plans compliant to standards of Checklist on the compliance to the plan
development education strategic and operational
plan Count in percent the plans that are compliant
School Performance indicators: Test scores from the National Achievement Test
• Achievement rate (National Achievement
Test [NAT])

Institutionalizing the Learning Recovery Plan

The M&E involved in the learning recovery plan will be sustained if they are included in the
OPCR and AIP. In this way, the activities in the learning recovery becomes a part of the practice among
the staff.
One of the areas where the learning recovery plan inclusion would be in the KRA and objectives
of the OPCR. Corresponding expectation are done when the objectives and KPI in the OPCR is included.
The OPCR contains a portion on the PPAs and one PPA can be the learning recovery. This PPA
will have a corresponding success indicators, individuals accountable, and actual accomplishments.
The learning recovery initiatives becomes part of the operation of the divisions if it becomes
part of the AIP and strategic plan. The AIP documents a sharp and narrow focus on regional and division
improvement priorities and provides clarity and purpose for all members of the division as they work
towards the goals set out in the Strategic Plan.

Implementing and Monitoring the Learning recovery plan

While the PPAs of the learning recovery are implemented, the monitoring and evaluation is also ongoing
to continuously improve the process. The following are considered in the monitoring and evaluation
process:
 8

1. The M&E practice is integrated before the implementation, while implementation, and post
implementation of the PPAs. This necessitates that different divisions needs to conduct M&E when they
implement their PPAs.
2. M&E is a collaborative process that involves coordination among and across the divisions.
3. Different methods, that follows the scientific method, are used to gather information about the
projects, programs and activities (PPAs).
4. The tools used to gather information are ensured to be valid and reliable.
5. The information collected are accurate and objective.
6. Both qualitative and quantitative information can be generated to monitor and evaluate the PPAs.
7. The results of the monitoring and evaluation are used to make improvements and critical decisions
about the PPAs and other related tasks.
8. The data, information, and results generated from the M&E process are made accessible to members
of the learning recovery team in the divisions so the direction for planning and conceptualizing future
PPAs are set.
9. The knowledge generated, such as decisions, plans, adjustments, and processes, can be justified from
the M&E conducted.
 9

Appendix A
Shared Vision Checklist

COMPONENT yes no
Picture of the School/Students’ What kind of region/division/school do you want to
Future create?
(a statement of the following:
the region’s/sdo desired What do you want your region/division/school to be
transformation or change as a known for with regards to students’ learning and
learning organization, the time achievement?
period for the change to happen)

What change in the region/division/school’s identity

or purpose can happen in line with the new normal or
in response to the country’s performance in national
or international student achievement tests?

What is a realistic time period for this change to

happen?

What will happen to students as a result of the

school’s transformation?

What kind of learners will they become?

What changes in the learning areas do you want to
address?
Region/Division/School Beliefs What kind of learning recovery plan does it want to
and the Role and Purpose of implement given the region/division/school purpose
LEARNING RECOVERY (how the and the performance of its students?
DIVISION defines learning
recovery and explains its
importance
What type of instruction needs to be done as
indicated by available data of students’ current skills?

Key Approaches/ What approaches/ strategies does the

Strategies to Adopt (how the region/division/school need to adopt in order to
region/division/school will ensure the effective delivery of the learning recovery
implement the learning recovery plan?
plan) What kind of faculty development will be provided in
relation to instruction?
What is the involvement of different stakeholders in
the learning recovery?
 10

Appendix B

CHECKLIST FOR SMART

Component YES NO

• Specific: The goal has observable behavioral terms.

Who needs to be involved to achieve the goal?

What needs to be accomplished?

• Measurable: The goals can be translated into the assessment.

Metrics to determine if the goal is met.

Milestones for specific tasks to be accomplished.

• Attainable: The goal can be realistically attained given the conditions

What tools/skills will be needed and how to attain them?

• Results-Oriented: The goal has a corresponding performance indicator and

criterion (e.g., 25% of the learners…)

• Relevant: The goal is relevant to learning recovery

• Time-bound: The goals can be implemented within the given time frame (i.e.
three months).

Realistic time frame.