Management of Intervention and Support Program for Students-at-Risk of Secondary Schools in the Division of Imus City

Abstract

INTRODUCTION

Inclusive education ensures access to quality education while ensuring also that no student will be left behind. Most often, students considered at-risk show persistent patterns of underachievement that leads to their failure to finish high school. To eradicate the causes of being at-risk and prevent students from dropping out, different components of the levels of intervention are implemented: youth development program, values formation program, health and nutrition program, guidance and counselling, peer counselling, home visitation, after-school program, home study program, alternative learning system, accreditation, and equivalency. This research endeavored to assess the management of intervention and support program for students-at-risk of public secondary schools.

METHODS

The descriptive correlational research design supported with documentary analysis was employed in which the primary gathering instruments were 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.

RESULTS

The different components of the primary, secondary, and tertiary interventions were highly implemented in schools. The primary level of interventions promotes social fairness and equal opportunity which tackle the perceived root causes of being at-risk and engaged youth in proactive and constructive activities geared towards building strengths and character. The secondary level of interventions is preventive and protective in nature and needs-specific and age-appropriate that requires the active involvement of the family including the community. The tertiary level of interventions is an alternative that restores learners' well-being and ensures that education is provided and available through various learning schemes. The extent of commitment, capacity building, and instructional delivery of the school personnel were highly consistent. In general, the respondents were satisfied with the implementation of the intervention program. It was also yielded that there was no significant relationship on the extent of fidelity on intervention and the level of implementation and the level of satisfaction on the different intervention, prevention and support program practices.

DISCUSSIONS

The drivers of the management of intervention and support program for students-at-risk requires a deliberate, intentional, and well-planned efforts on the part of school personnel at the school level to serve students in need of academic and behavioral support. Fidelity on interventions needs to systematically assess because it remains the best concern to determine the implementation of the program proceeds as intended by policymakers towards continuous improvement across the levels of interventions. It is recommended to strengthen family engagement, explicit provision of training, adequate essential resources, and empowered multi-disciplinary teams that will manage the implementation of the different Interventions and support programs with profound fidelity.