The attributes of how the

worlds
best
performing
school system come on top is
a recent and rapidly growing
appetite in educational field.

MANAGEMENT OF CO-CURRICULAR
ACTIVITIES AMONG TOP
PERFORMING PUBLIC SECONDARY
SCHOOLS IN SAN CARLOS CITY
DIVISION

LYNDON F. GARCIA
Master of Arts in Education

INTRODUCTION
Education nowadays should
transform the individuals for
lifelong learning for him to be
functionally literate so that the
learners can apply to real life
what he/she learns from the four
walls of the classroom.

INTRODUCTION
There are many dimensions in
identifying
top
performing
school, its best management of
co-curricular
activities
are
studied and shared (National
Center
for
Educational
Achievement NCEA, 2011).

INTRODUCTION
Top performing schools
in
the
Philippines
combine and coordinate
various kind of resources
by carrying out four
basic
management
functions:
planning,
organizing, leading and
monitoring.

INTRODUCTION
Moderators,
trainers
and coaches spend
considerable
amount
of time preparing the
student contestants for
various
co-curricular
competitions. (Arnett,
2010).

INTRODUCTION
Co-curricular
activities
are
programmed for the school year to
give the learners opportunities to
sharpen their skills and discover
their potentials in journalism,
science research and experiment,
mathematics and the like.

INTRODUCTION
Every year, the public secondary
schools of San Carlos City have been
very dedicated and vigorous in
sending selected students in Cocurricular
Division
Competitions,
Regional Competitions and even
National Competitions.

INTRODUCTION

Some schools lost

and some make it to
the top.

INTRODUCTION

What
could
be
the
factors contributing to the
schools who perform well
in these competition?

INTRODUCTION

management of cocurricular activities among

top performing public
secondary schools in San
Carlos City Division

METHODS

Descriptive Normative
Research
Locale of the
Study
City Schools Division of San
Carlos
Abanon NHS
Pangalangan NHS
SEPNAS
Tandoc NHS
Turac NHS
Respondents

Teacher Coaches
Top Five Ranking
who Participated in
Schools for Press
Press Conference,
Conference, MTAP
MTAP and Science
and Science Quest
Quest
(2012 2015)
(2012 2015)

Purposive
Sampling

(75 teacher
coaches for the
last three years)

METHODS
Review of Related Literature

Survey
Questionnaire
Adopted from Wing Hong
Tsang (2012)

Valid for Utilization

METHODS
Survey Questionnaires
I. Personal and Professional
Attributes of Respondents
II. Status of Top Performing
Public Secondary Schools
III. Management Functions of
Co-curricular Activities
Among Teacher Coaches
IV. Extent of Problems
Encountered in Management
of Co-curricular Activities

Purpose
Benefits
Discomforts

Entirely
Voluntary

PROBLEM
1
PROBLEM
2
PROBLEM
3
PROBLEM
4

PROBLEM
5
PROBLEM
6

PROBLEM 1
What are the personal and
professional attributes of the
respondent coaches along the
following:
A. Personal
Age;
Gender; and
Civil status?

PROBLEM 1
B. Professional
Position/rank;
Years in handling co-curricular
activities;
Highest educational attainment;
and
Eligibility?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Frequency
Count and
Percentage

RESULTS
Profile
Age
Sex

Majority of
the
Respondents
22 37 years
old
Female

Frequency

Percentage

45

60 %

56

74.7 %

Civil Status

Married

50

66.7 %

Position/
Ranks
Years in
Handling
Activities
Educational
Attainment
Eligibility

Teacher

62

82.7 %

1 8 years

44

58.7 %

MS/MA Units

46

61.3 %

LET

54

72.0 %

CONCLUSIONS
Majority of the respondents belong
to early adulthood, dominated by
married female teacher who have
MA/ MS units with a length of service
of more than a decade and are LET
Passer.

PROBLEM 2
What is the status of the top

performing public secondary

schools based the following variables:
NAT

performance;
Co-curricular standings/achievements;
No. of enrolled students;
Educational attributes of teachers;
Years in operation; and
Category of school?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Frequency
Count and
Percentage

RESULTS

Name of School
1. Abanon National
High School
2. Pangalangan
National High School
3. Speaker Eugenio
Perez National
Agricultural School
(SEPNAS)
4. Tandoc National
High School
5. Turac National High
School

Co-curricular Activities

Composit
e Rank

Final
Rank

English

Science

Mathemat
ics

55

61

12

236

51

37

50

138

159

158

159

476

104

179

68

351

81

103

191

375

RESULTS
Schools

1. Abanon National
High School
2. Pangalangan National High
School

NAT

43.5

46.3
9
3. SEPNAS
49.4
1
4. Tandoc National
37.5
High School
6
5. Turac National High 48.3
School
3

Rank Rank Ran Overal

Englis Scienc
k
l Rank
h
e
Mat
h
4
4.5
3
4
5

4.5

RESULTS

Students
Enrolled

Teachers

MT

HT

Total

Category

Years of
Operatio
n

1. Abanon
NHS

911

37

46

NHS

52

2.
Pangalanga
n NHS
3. SEPNAS

713

23

30

NHS

34

3509

93

13

4. Tandoc
NHS

919

31

5. Turac
NHS

981

29

112 Agricultur
al School
39
NHS
34

NHS

102
40
50

CONCLUSIONS
Majority of the schools
are national high schools
that excel in their NAT
performance
and
cocurricular activities in
Math,
Science
and
English.
Further, the
schools have more than
700 enrollees and has
been operating for more
than 30 years.

PROBLEM 3
What are the co-curricular
programs/activities of the
top
performing
schools
along the following subject
areas:
English;
Science;
Mathematics?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Frequency
Count and
Percentage

RESULTS
Subject Area

English

CoCurricular
Activities

Press
Conference
Science
Science
Quest
Mathemati MTAP
cs
Challenge

Frequency Percentage

75

100

75

100

75

100

CONCLUSIONS
All of the schools are
national high schools that
excel
in
co-curricular
activities in Math, Science
and English.

PROBLEM 4
To what extent do the coaches perform
their management functions along
the following:
Planning of co-curricular activities;
Selection and recruitment of contestants;
Orientation, training and development of
contestants;
Establishment and maintenance of
working relationship; and
Appraisal and evaluation?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Average
Weighted
Mean

RESULTS
Planning

Mean Descriptive
Rating
1. Forecasts long term co-curricular 3.99
Moderate
program requirements for the attainment
of the subject areas goal.
2. Determines immediate human
3.88
Moderate
resources needed in co-curricular
program.
3. Determines material and financial
3.92
Moderate
resources needed in the co-curricular
work plan.
4. Designs each subject areas work plan 3.93
Moderate
to allow for personal responsibility and
accountability.
5. Develops contingency plans to ensure
3.92
Moderate
better preparedness for
sudden/unprepared consequences.

t
a
r
e
d
o
M
e
=
M
W
(A
)
3.93

RESULTS
Selection

Mean Descriptive
Rating
student 4.20
High

1.
Interviews
potential
contestants from the school.
2. Conducts information dissemination to
find out students expectations and
interests in co-curricular programs within
the school.
3. Selects objectively the most qualified
student contestants based on specified
criteria.
4. Availability of search committee to
recruit and select contestant.
5. Creates a profile that best fits the
contestant qualification in the context of
the co-curricular activity.

4.16

High

4.27

High

3.99

Moderate

4.05

High

High .133)
4

=4
M
(AW

RESULTS
Orientation

Mean Descriptive
Rating
1. Provides student development of co- 4.12
High
curricular programs.
2. Prepares enrichment/remedial action 3.97
Moderate
for students with exemplary/weaker
performance in co-curricular programs.
3. Recognizes the good performance of 4.35
High
student
concerning
co-curricular
activities.
4.
Ensures
contestant
safety
and 4.27
High
readiness
in
the
competition
by
undergoing
medical
check-up
and
issuance of parental consent.
5. Employs partnership development with 4.13
High
)
8
6
1
.
external agencies.
4

High

=
M
W
(A

RESULTS
Establishment

Mean

Descriptive
Rating
High

1. Provides sufficient information to the 4.23

parents, and students concerning the
recent co-curricular development of the
school.
2. The school provides clinical and 4.12
consistent co-curricular supervision.
3. Provides appropriate tools and 4.09
materials
for
performing
the
cocurricular job.
4. The school instills to the teacher 4.23
coach
commitment
to
co-curricular
quality.
5. Promotes Home-School partnership in 4.15
the
management
of
co-curricular
activities.
(AWM

High
High

High

High4High
.16)
=

RESULTS
Appraisal and Evaluation

Mean

1. Records detailed schools co-curricular

achievements.
2.
Prepares
students
appraisal
programs
to
appraise
students
performance in co-curricular activities.
3. Receives opportunities from teacher
coaches to assess their interests, skills,
and options.
4. Allows other teachers involvement
through open communication.
5. Provides flexibility in defining cocurricular job requirements.

4.29

Descriptive
Rating
High

4.29

High

4.08

High

4.21

High

4.11

High

High4.197)

=4
M
(AW

RESULTS
Management Functions
1. Planning Co-curricular
Activities
2. Selection and Recruitment
3. Orientation, Training &
Development
4. Establishment &
Maintenance
5. Appraisal & Evaluation

Summated
Mean
3.93

Descriptive
Rating
Moderate

4.133
4.168

High
High

4.16

High

4.197

High

CONCLUSIONS

The respondents has

high
management
functions of co-curricular
activities.

PROBLEM 5
What are the problems encountered
by the coaches in the management of
co-curricular activities among top performing
schools?
Planning of co-curricular activities;
Selection and recruitment of contestants;
Orientation, training and development of
contestants;
Establishment and maintenance of working
relationship; and
Appraisal and evaluation?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

Average
Weighted
Mean

RESULTS
Planning

Mea Descriptive
n
Rating
1. The coach failed to shape a shared 2.05
Slightly
value that reflects and promotes
Serious
school vision.
2. There is no existing plan and
2.01
Slightly
schedule as to how the trainings will
Serious
be done.
3. Contestants are not involve in
1.91
Very Slightly
planning co-curricular activities.
Serious
4. No reward scheme available for
1.87
Very Slightly
y
l
t
h
the winning coach and contestant.
Serious
g
i
l
S
y
r
5. Unable to plan school based coSlightly
e2.00
s
V
u
o
i
curricular workshop and activity.
Serious
er
)

68
9
.
1
=
M
(AW

RESULTS
Selection

Mean

1. Absence of intensive selection and

recruitment
process
of
the
most
qualified contestants.
2. No systematic screening scheme for
student contestant.
3. Allowed contestant to participate in
two or more co-curricular activities.
4.
Students
have
low
rates
of
participation in the screening process.
5. Neglect students to have equal
opportunity to join in co-curricular
activities.

2.01

Descriptive
Rating
Slightly Serious

2.03

Slightly Serious

2.47

Slightly Serious

2.13

Slightly Serious

2.04

Slightly Serious

y
l
t
h
g
Sli
s
u
o
i
)
Ser
.136

=2
M
(AW

RESULTS
Orientation

Mea Descriptive
n
Rating
1. Contestants are not informed with their 2.07 Slightly Serious
roles, with the co-curricular activity, and
with other contestants.
2. Failed to identify problems and future 1.83
Very Slightly
challenges that can be met through
Serious
training or development.
3. No feedback given to contestants which 1.83
Very Slightly
failed to gauge their progress and leads to
Serious
discouragement.
4. Unable to select training and/or 1.81
Very Slightly
development techniques to match training
Serious
objectives based on sound co-curricular
principles.
y
l
5. Failed to tap the assistance of other 1.97
Very h
Slightly
t
g
i
teachers in the conduct of trainings.
ry Sl Serious

Ve

s
u
o
i
r
Se
1)
0
9
.
1
=
(AWM

RESULTS
Establishment

Mea Descriptive
n
Rating
1. Absence of co-curricular objectives that 1.84
Very Slightly
fits with contestants' personal values and
Serious
roles.
2. No regular meetings to highlight recent 1.95
Very Slightly
co-curricular activities as well as discuss
Serious
how contestants are working preparations
and trainings.
3. Failure to address clear and precise 1.93
Very Slightly
instructions, and the need for individuals to
Serious
feel respected as both individuals and
crucial contributors to the co-curricular
y
activity.
l
t
h
g
i Slightly
lVery
S
4. The coach failed to identify important 1.93
y
r
e
s
u
issues or decisions that will affect co-V
Serious
o
i
r
Se
8)
2
curricular program.
9
.
1
5. Unable to address co-curricular problems 1.99M =
Very Slightly
(AW
or concerns immediately.
Serious

RESULTS
Appraisal

Mea Descriptive
n
Rating
1. The coach failed to assess actual 1.83
Very Slightly
contestant performance.
Serious
2. Failure to offer feedback to address 1.93
Very Slightly
weaknesses, determine training needs, and
Serious
to identify poor performers.
3. There is significantly less focus on top 1.91
Very Slightly
performers and thus there is no system to
Serious
capture their best practices and then to
share them with others.
4. Coaches are not trained on how to assess 1.88
Very Slightly
and give honest feedback.
Serious
5. The school has no system in dealing with 1.84
Very Slightly
ly
t
h
g
i
l
complains and appeals.
y S Serious

Very ious
Ser
7)
7
8
.
=1
M
(AW

RESULTS
Problems Encountered in
Management Functions

Summated
Mean

Descriptive
Rating

1. Planning Co-curricular
Activities
2. Selection and Recruitment

1.968

Very Slightly
Serious
Slightly Serious

3. Orientation, Training &

Development
4. Establishment & Maintenance

1.901

5. Appraisal & Evaluation

1.877

2.136

1.928

Very Slightly
Serious
Very Slightly
Serious
Very Slightly
Serious

CONCLUSIONS
The respondents encounter
very slightly serious problems
on their management of cocurricular activities.

PROBLEM 6
Is
there
a
significant
difference
in
the
performance of coaches in
their management functions
across their profile?

STATISTICAL TREATMENT

T-test for
Independent Group
and Analysis of
Variance (ANOVA)

RESULTS
Profile
Age
Category
Profile

Compared
Group
22-37
38-63

Sources
Sum of
of
squares
variation
Between
5.254
Groups
Within
30.958
Groups
Total
36.211

Responde
Responde
nts who
ntsSingle
who
are
are 22- 37
Years Old
Civil
Status

Profile

Civil Status

Mea
n
4.08
3.69
Df

Mean
square

tvalue
.2451

F-value

Sig
.017
Sig

Managem
ent
Managem
Performan
ent
ce
Performan

2.627

72

.430

74

Compared
Group

Single
Married

Mean
Difference
.391*

Mean
4.35
3.76

6.109**

.004

Mean
difference

.588*

ce

Sig

.004

RESULTS
Profile

Civil
Status

Sources
of
variation
Between
Groups
Within
Groups
Total

Sum of
squares

Civil Status

Mean
square

4.190

2.095

31.437

72

.437

35.627

74

Responde
nts who
are Single
Profile

Df

Compared Group
Single
Married

F-value

4.798*

Sig

.011

Managem
ent
Performan
ce
Mean

4.495
4.016

Mean
difference
.4792*

Sig

.025

RESULTS
Profile

Sources
Sum of
of
squares
variation
Between
3.985
Groups
Within
26.658
Groups
Total
30.643

Df

Mean
square

Fvalue

Sig

Highest
4
.996
2.616* .042
Respondents
Educational
70 Managem
.381
Attainment
who are MS/
74

ent
MA Units and
Degree
Performan
Profile
Compared Groups
Mean
Mean
Sig
Holders

ce

Highest
Educational
Attainment

MS/MA Units
Ed.D./ Ph.D. Holder
MS/ MA Holder
Ed.D./ Ph.D. Units
MS/ MA Holder
Ed.D./ Ph.D. Holder

4.178
3.200
4.400
3.733
4.400
3.200

Differenc
e
.9783*
.032
.6667*

.025

1.200*

.011

RESULTS
Profile

Sources
of
variation
Civil
Between
Status Groups
Within
Groups
Total

Sum of
squares
3.425

Civil Status

Mean
square

1.712

32.791

72

.455

36.215

74

Responde
nts who
are Single
Profile

Df

Compared
Group
Single
Married

F-value

3.760*

Sig

.028

Managem
ent
Performan
ce

Mean
4.48
4.01

Mean
difference
.464*

Sig

.035

RESULTS
Profile

Sources
of
variation
Civil
Between
Status Groups
Within
Groups
Total

Sum of
squares
3.928

Civil Status

Mean
square

1.964

30.032

72

.417

33.959

74

Responde
nts who
are Single
Profile

Df

Compared Group

Single
Married

F-value

4.708*

Sig

.012

Managem
ent
Performan
ce
Mean

4.533
4.036

Mean
difference

.4973*

Sig

.016

CONCLUSIONS
Management of Co-curricular
activities differ when grouped
as to age, civil status and
highest
educational
attainment.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The

coaches must always

consider
the
five
management functions from
the
start
of
co-curricular
preparation,
training
and
development, contest proper,
working relation and appraisal
which contribute toward winning
performance.

RECOMMENDATIONS
The

creation of search
committee to intensify the
selection process of the most
qualified contestant is greatly
encourage.

RECOMMENDATIONS
Finally,

appraising output
is important to determine
the
strengths
and
weaknesses
of
the
cocurricular programs.

Free powerpoint template:

www.brainybetty.com

62