Feasibility Study on Establishing a Rural Farm School at Baluan National High School

Feasibility Study on Establishing a Rural Farm School at Baluan National High School

Melody B. Damola, John Michael P. Castino

Mindanao State University – General Santos City, Philippines

DOI: https://dx.doi.org/10.47772/IJRISS.2025.905000493

Received: 13 May 2025; Accepted: 21 May 2025; Published: 25 June 2025

ABSTRACT

This study explored the feasibility of establishing the Rural Farm School (RFS) Program at Baluan National High School (BNHS). It used mixed-methods research design to investigate the program’s viability in five areas of study: market, technical, management, financial, and socio-economic. Data were gathered from the 139 learners and 49 parents of the feeder school and 13 members of the BNHS community including teachers, school head, and stakeholders through surveys, key informant interviews (KIIs), and focus group discussions (FGDs). The Market Study revealed significant interests among learners and parents to enroll in the program. They believe that the program can equip the learners with practical farm skills and prepare them for agriculture careers. The Technical Study showed the school’s readiness in terms of material resources and teacher competence, although these need to be augmented and upgraded. The Management Study identified specific challenges and risks like limited resources and safety issues. To address these problems, plans for mitigation were established including efficient fund allocation and safety policies. The Financial Study revealed financial viability through fund diversification and strengthened partnerships with stakeholders. The cost benefit analysis determined that the program’s benefits like enhanced student competence and agricultural productivity are worth its costs. The Socio-Economic Study emphasized the need to eliminate negative attitudes towards agriculture by highlighting the program’s relevance to the community. The findings recommend a phased implementation of the RFS at BNHS starting in School Year 2025-2026 to strategically address funding limitations. Equally important is the need for strong stakeholder and community engagement to ensure the program’s sustainability and effectiveness.

Keywords: Agriculture, Agricultural Education, Rural Farm School, Sustainable Farming

INTRODUCTION

Despite the continuous modernization of the world, agriculture still plays a crucial role in the economic development of the Philippines. It consistently accounts for 8-10% of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP), provides livelihood to majority of the Philippine workforce, and guarantees its food security (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2025). However, the agriculture sector has contributed the least to the country’s GDP among the three major sectors of the economy for five consecutive years (Rivera, 2023). Moreover, the industry suffers from low productivity despite a quarter of the country’s labor being employed in agriculture. In fact, the labor productivity of the agriculture sector exhibits a downward trend from 2019 to 2023 (PSA, 2025). The waning agricultural productivity is attributed to climate change, slow expansion in production factors, reduced farm sizes due to urbanization, inadequate capital for high input expenses among farmers, limited technology and innovative practices, and weak export performance (Briones, 2021). Consequently, there is an urgent necessity to boost the nation’s agriculture sector.

The agriculture sector’s challenges are exacerbated by the negative view of the industry among Filipino youth (Secretario, 2021). There is an alarming decrease in the number of people who desire to work in the agriculture, as evidenced by the average age of farmers who range from 55 to 59 years old (Agricultural Training Institute, 2023). Young individuals harbor unfavorable perceptions of agriculture owing to minimal engagement and the belief that employment in this sector cannot enhance their living standards (Geza, 2021). The diminishing workforce in the agricultural sector poses a threat to the nation’s food security. Studies indicate that enhanced youth involvement in agriculture via contextual education, work-based learning, and leadership development can transform the negative mindset of young people regarding agricultural occupations (Mendoza and Garcia, 2023; Secretario, 2021).

One initiative to ensure sustainable agriculture through education is the Rural Farm School (RFS). RFS aims to promote sustained agricultural productivity and foster rural development by providing rural human capital with access to educational opportunities tailored to their needs and circumstances (Rural Farm Schools Act, 2013). This alternative secondary education method provides learners with traditional classroom learning alongside and practical farm skills like crop production, animal management, and sustainable farming techniques. This program suits BNHS as it complements the school’s existing Strengthened Technical-Vocational Education Program (STVEP) with specialization in agriculture.

In BNHS, learners receive training in the following agricultural domains: Agri-Crop, Organic Agriculture, and Animal Production. Portions of the school’s total land area have been transformed to vegetable gardens and animal pasture. In the years preceding the pandemic, the pasture served as a laboratory rice field for Agri-Crop Production students. In order to provide the learners with the necessary qualifications to pursue professions in agriculture, BNHS subjects them, specifically the Agri-Crop Production and Organic Agriculture Production learners, to a National Certification assessment. In fact, the school has already produced Junior High School completers who are Agri-Crop Production NCII holders and Senior High School graduates who are Organic Agriculture Production NCII and Pest Management NCII holders.

Moreover, the school has solidified its reputation in agricultural education through the different awards and recognitions it has garnered. It was acknowledged as one of the Top 10 among 200 infomediaries of PhilRice and featured in PhilRice magazine for its carbonized rice hull innovation. The school also received the Division Gulayan sa Paaralan Best Rural Garden award in 2024.

The school obtained multiple grants from the Department of Agriculture (DA) that enhanced the delivery of its agricultural curriculum, including the Infomediary Campaign and Multiplier Farm Project. The grants supplied the school with livestock resources specifically goats, chickens, pigs, and cows utilized by Animal Production learners in their practicums. Moreover, learners receive comprehensive trainings in agricultural methods via the school’s collaboration with the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI), 4H Club, and Technical Education Skills Development Authority (TESDA).

Implementing the RFS at BNHS will benefit the agriculture industry by producing graduates who are equipped with essential skills for advancing sustainable agricultural methods. It will specifically profit Barangay Baluan, where the school is situated, as it is predominantly an agricultural community. The primary source of livelihood of families in the barangay is farming, encompassing rice, vegetable, and livestock farming. At BNHS, nine percent of the student body has parents employed in the agriculture industry. In this context, producing a highly-skilled manpower will greatly impact the agricultural productivity of the barangay.

Furthermore, only five schools in SDO Gensan provide agriculture-related courses in the Senior High School curriculum, and only BNHS offers a specialized agriculture curriculum at the Junior High School level. The inadequate number of schools offering agricultural education restricts the development of agricultural awareness among learners, thus intensifying their negative perceptions about agriculture.  Through the RFS, the school can influence more learners to pursue agriculture-related courses and join the industry workforce by putting a premium on agriculture skills development and experiential learning, thereby exposing them to diverse career opportunities within the sector. The availability of the farm school will draw additional learners from both within and outside the barangay who are interested in pursuing future agricultural ventures.

The current STVEP curriculum implemented at BNHS also needs to be upgraded in response to the needs of the rural community. The RFS program’s curriculum is more farm-focused and promotes family and community linkages.

Ultimately, establishing RFS at BNHS will significantly uplift the agricultural community and support the state in fulfilling its mandate to provide relevant education that meets the demands of its populace and the society.

Legal Bases

The establishment of Rural Farm School is espoused in Republic Act No. 10618 or the Rural Farm School Act of 2013. This law seeks to enhance sustainable agricultural production and rural development by empowering human capital in rural areas through access to educational opportunities tailored to the requirements and circumstances of agricultural communities. The law aligns with the directive stated in Paragraph 2, Section 2, Article 14 of the 1987 Constitution which is to “establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate, and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society” and Paragraph 4 Section 2 which is to “encourage non-formal, informal, and indigenous learning systems, as well as self-learning, independent, and out-of-school study programs particularly those that respond to community needs.”

Moreover, DepEd Order No. 36, series of 2015 delineates the standards and guidelines for establishing RFS, with the objective of fostering agricultural education in rural regions. It establishes a framework for the integration of agricultural learning into the curriculum, guaranteeing that leaners in rural areas have access to practical and pertinent education focusing on Agri-fisheries.

Enrollment to RFS is open to all graduates of elementary education regardless of age, with priority given to the relatives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) beneficiaries up to the third degree of consanguinity as well as Agri-fishery beneficiaries. CARP beneficiaries are the farmers or their kin who had received certificates of land ownership or emancipation patents under RA 5567, while the Agri-fishery beneficiaries are the children of farmers and fisherfolks who have been identified and recognized by accredited farmers and fisherfolk in the locality. Meanwhile, the RFS curriculum shall follow the core secondary curriculum of the DepEd with focus on agri-fishery, farm entrepreneurship, community development, education for sustainable development, and other community-specific point (DO 36, 2015). The last two academic years in RFS educational system shall focus on integrative learning across all subject disciplines in the curriculum, with a particular emphasis on the promotion of farm entrepreneurship theory and practice as a means of training local entrepreneurs. Learners may also undergo National Certificate Assessment based on TESDA training regulations in agriculture as stated in DO 36, series of 2015.

In summary, the aforementioned legal bases provide a strong foundation for the establishment of RFS at BNHS.

Significance of the Study

The establishment of RFS in BNHS promises transformative benefits that will boost the agricultural productivity of the community and raise the agricultural consciousness of the young people, leading them to take agricultural courses and contribute to strengthening of the manpower in the Agri-Fishery sector. Specifically, RFS is deemed to be of great value to a wide array of stakeholders, including the learners, teachers, parents, researchers, community, and other educational partners. Its relevance can be emphasized as follows:

The school.  The establishment of RFS could position BNHS as a progressive institution with a unique educational offering, thereby garnering the attention of various education and governmental bodies. With an innovative program, it has the potential to attract learners who are interested in agriculture. The farm-based learning program could also diversify the school’s curriculum, providing hands-on learning experiences that complement traditional academic subjects and fostering a more holistic education.

The educational leaders. The results of the feasibility study can inform the educational leaders with data that they can use for strategic planning and curriculum enhancement, as well as funding allocations for the sustainable implementation of RFS in schools. It will provide them with insights into the resource necessities, risks, and obstacles linked to implementing RFS. A rural farm school can secure external fundings from government agencies and other private organizations. School administrators can utilize these resources to improve school infrastructure and academic programs.

The learners. RFS will provide valuable agricultural knowledge and skills to learners that will prepare them to pursue future carers in the agriculture industry. Additionally, they would acquire knowledge on sustainable farm practices and resource management that they can use to improve their community’s agricultural methods. Working on farm-based projects may also help them develop deeper understanding of other areas of disciplines like Science, Mathematics, Economics, and Social Studies as these subjects are integrated into practical farm activities.

The teachers. The study will help the teachers acquire the necessary experience and expertise to provide practical, hands-on education. They have the potential to enhance their abilities in the integration of agriculture into interdisciplinary subjects and devise novel teaching methods to improve student outcomes. Teachers may also have opportunities to collaborate more closely with local agricultural specialists and partners to improve their instructional methods through integrating external knowledge and perspectives.

The parents. Parents can also benefit from this study since it offers insights on how their children could develop useful life skills, become more responsible, and learn the value of hard work which can translate to better academic and social outcomes. If parents are involved in farming, the skills that their children obtain from the program may augment and enhance the family’s agricultural practices, thus benefiting the family’s livelihood.

The community. The farm school can enhance local agricultural growth, especially if learners apply their knowledge and skills to promote and develop local farming techniques. The school can spearhead local sustainability initiatives through farm-based education to advocate eco-friendly practices and instruct learners and the community on sustainable living. It can a serve as a community hub collaborating with local farmers and other agricultural to provide knowledge, mentorship, and resources.

The educational partners. RFS aligns with other government agencies and non-government organizations (NGOs) to promote rural development and sustainable agricultural practices. Other educational institutions, particularly higher education institutions (HEIs) offering Agriculture courses, can partner with the school for mentorship and research opportunities as well as recruit the school’s learners to pursue agricultural education in their institutions. Private agribusiness partners may also invest in or collaborate with the school for training programs, internships, or future employment of learners.

The researchers. Researchers in the fields of education and agriculture can utilize the farm school as a case study to investigate the impact of agricultural education to student performance and community engagement. They may also use this to study novel methods of integrating practical life skills into the curriculum, contributing to the development of more effective and innovative educational models.

Objectives of the Study

The following were the objectives of the feasibility study:

1. On Market Study (Educational Needs and Market Analysis)
   1. Evaluate the interest and demand for agricultural education among learners and parents
   2. Identify the number of learners who are interested to enroll in RFS
   3. Determine the readiness of potential enrollees and parental support for the RFS program
   4. On Technical Study (Strategic Planning and Sustainability)
2. Assess the adequacy of available resources including qualified teachers, classrooms, equipment, and instructional materials required for the program
3. Propose an organizational chart for the implementation of RFS, including teaching and non-teaching personnel
4. Propose a class scheduling from Grades 7 to 10 based on RFS requirements
5. Provide a plan for long-term sustainability including potential partnerships with other agencies and local businesses
6. On Management Study (Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies)
7. Identify potential challenges and risks related to the implementation of RFS
8. Propose risk mitigation strategies to address potential risks and challenges
9. On Financial Study (Financial Projections and Cost-Benefit Analysis)
10. Propose budget allocations for the establishment and ongoing costs of the implementation of RFS
11. Analyze the program’s benefits through a cost-benefit analysis
12. On Socio-economic Study (Ethical and Socio-Cultural Considerations in Educational Projects)
13. Identify ethical concerns and socio-economic considerations in the establishment of RFS
14. On the Decision to Implement the Proposed Rural Farm School
15. Provide decision points regarding the implementation of the RFS at BNHS

METHODOLOGY

Data Gathering Procedure

This study examined the feasibility of establishing RFS at BNHS. The program shall focus on Grade 7 in its first year of implementation.

The feasibility study utilized a mixed-methods research design to systematically gather and analyze data, assessing the viability of establishing a RFS program at BNHS. Data were gathered through surveys, key informant interviews (KIIs), focus group discussions (FGDs), and documentary analysis to thoroughly evaluate the viewpoints of learners, parents, teachers, and stakeholders.

The researcher prepared communication letters addressed to the Schools Division Superintendent and respective school heads, which were noted by the subject professor and dean, asking permission to allow the researcher to administer the survey and interviews.

After the approval to conduct the study, the researcher secured consent from the participants. Then, the surveys, interviews, and focused group discussions were conducted to gather relevant data. Documentary analysis was used to reinforce the study further with data on policies, inventory reports, and curricular frameworks. The data were then organized, processed, analyzed, and interpreted according to the project objectives. Lastly, a manuscript was written with tables, figures, and excerpts from interview transcripts.

Locale of the Study

This study was conducted within the Division of General Santos City, specifically in Barangay Baluan where BNHS is located. Figure 1 shows that BNHS is situated adjacent to Baluan Elementary School (BES). This is the nearest feeder of BNHS, making them relevant to the proposed Rural Farm School program. For the past school years, more or less 80% of the graduates of BES enroll at Baluan National High School for their secondary education.

Figure 1 Location of Baluan National High School

The surrounding areas of BNHS are still primarily composed of farmlands. In fact, the major source of livelihood in the community is in agriculture. However, urbanization has been slowly infiltrating the barangay with the conversion of lands into subdivisions.

BNHS is the only secondary school in the Division of General Santos City that offers the STVEP focusing on agriculture in the Junior High School. Forty percent (40%) of its learners are children of farmers or have parents who work in the agriculture sector, making the program relevant to them.

Respondents and Informants

The respondents of this study were Grade 6 learners of BES, as they were Grade 7 entrants to the proposed implementation of the RFS. As the immediate target audience, their insights were critical in assessing their interest, awareness, and readiness to immerse in agricultural education. Proportional representation was ensured by applying Slovin’s formula to calculate the sample size in each section of Grade 6 learners, using a 5% margin of error.  Table 1 shows the distribution of the respondents in the survey.

Table 1 Distribution of Learner-Respondents

The parents of these pupils were also included as respondents in recognition of their role in supporting the program. Table 2 shows the distribution of parent-respondents across all Grade 6 sections.

Table 2 Distribution of Parent-Respondents

 The nine (9) Technical-Vocational Education (TVE) teachers were also selected to become the respondents of the study since they will be the key implementers of Rural Farm School program, particularly those who are teaching Agri-Crop Production.

In addition, the study involved key informants that enriched the data gathered from the surveys. These included the School Head, PTA President, SGC members, and Grade 6 parents who are available for an interview

Sampling Technique

The learners who participated in the survey were determined through stratified random sampling. To ascertain representation of the population, Slovin’s formula was used with a 5% margin of error.  A total of 139 students answered the survey. Meanwhile, the parents were determined through convenience sampling, based on their availability to answer the given questionnaires and attend the interviews. A total of 49 parents answered the survey, which comprised 22.80% of the total population of Grade 6 parents.

Additionally, purposive sampling was utilized to identify the key informants of the study. This sampling technique is important in ensuring that the selected participants have specific and relevant knowledge and experience related to the research topic (Stratton, 2024). The responses that the informants provided allowed the researcher to develop insights that are necessary to support the study.

Data Analysis

Survey. The data from the survey were described using frequency count and percentages to compare the responses among the respondents.

Documentary Analysis. The school documents were analyzed and incorporated to the data extracted from the surveys and interviews. The data from the inventory of school resources were organized into tables.

Key Informant Interviews (KII). The data from the KII sessions were examined using thematic analysis. Categories and themes were extracted and interpreted to understand the perspectives of the informants on the establishment of RFS at BNHS.

Focus Group Discussion (FGD). The data from the FGD were analyzed using thematic analysis to supplement the data gathered from the surveys, KIIs and documentary analysis.

Triangulation. The data gathered from quantitative and qualitative methods were compared and cross-validated. This helped the researcher identify the strengths and weaknesses of the feasibility study.

RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Market Study: Educational Needs and Market Analysis Interest and Demand for Agricultural Education The study reveals a strong interest among incoming Grade 7 learners to enroll in a program that focuses on agriculture. Figure 2 shows that 78.4% or 109 out of 139 learners indicated their interest to enroll in an agriculture-related program, while 20.1% are uncertain. Only one learner responded with disinterest. This indicates that majority of them have positive attitudes towards learning agriculture.

Figure 2 Percentage of Learners Who Are Interested to Join an Agriculture-related Program

The learners perceive that learning agriculture can help them take care of the environment. Also, they believe that they will harness skills in planting when they are in an agriculture-related program. These perceptions are supported in the following statements:

“Makatabang siya …paano namo ma-take care ang kalikasan. “ (FGD1.LI1.L11.)

“Maka-learn gihapon ka kung paunsa magtanom ug kung may activities. Makabalo na ka magtanom kung dili ka kabalo.” (FGD1.LI3.L14-15)

Meanwhile, Figure 3 below shows parents’ responses when asked if they would enroll their child in agriculture-related course or subjects. Most parents (71.4%) expressed willingness to enroll their children in agriculture-related subjects, while 28.6% were unsure. This suggests high receptiveness, although uncertainty remains among a portion of the population that may need additional awareness and engagement. According to Alcantara (2024), parents see farming as a life skill and it brings them assurance that their children can support themselves in the future.

Figure 3 Percentage of Parents Who Are Willing to Enroll their Children in Agriculture-related Programs

Interest to Enroll in a Rural Farm School Figure 4 shows that 98.6% of the surveyed learners were willing to enroll in the RFS program. This corroborates with their interest to join in agriculture-related programs.

Figure 4 Percentage of Learners Who Are Willing to Enroll in the Rural Farm School

The learners viewed Rural Farm School as enjoyable since they will also be taught how to be entrepreneurial aside from learning agricultural skills. This was further reinforced in the following informants’ statements:

“Makatabang pud man siya pagdako nimo kay pwede man pud ka maka-sell ug makahimo ka ug businesses.” (FGD1.LI2.L80-81)

“Lingaw tapos makatuon ka paunsa magtanom ug makabaligya pod ka.” (FGD1.LI3.L79)

 “Makation ka. Tapos makabenta pud ka. Makabaligya pud gamay.” (FGD1.LI8.L74-75)

Table 3 shows that most learners prefer to learn about crop farming (Rank 1) among all topics in agriculture. Crop farming involves cultivating crops for food like rice and vegetables. This is followed by Horticulture (Rank 2), which involves the practice of garden cultivation and management, then Livestock Management (Rank 3) which focuses on tending farm animals. These data show that most learners prefer to learn practical skills in agriculture.

Table 3 Learners’ Preferred Agriculture Topics

 When asked about their preferred learning styles, learners favored doing hands-on activities like gardening (Rank 1), followed by group projects and collaboration (Rank 2), and classroom-based learning with some fieldwork (Rank 3) as shown in Table 4. This demonstrates a clear preference for actual learning experience coupled with group collaborations, suggesting that the RFS program should incorporate hands-on activities and group projects. This data supports the earlier preference for topics that are loaded with hands-on activities.

Table 4 Learners’ Preferred Learning Methods in Rural Farm School

Learners believe that hands-on learning activities could help them understand the lessons better since these will test whether they are capable of doing the tasks or not.

“Kailangan ang hands-on jud para matry nimo ang lesson na gina-ingon.  Kung ganahan ba ka.” (FGD1.LI5.L120-121)

Additionally, learners prefer working together with their peers when doing hands-on activities as they find group projects or collaborations enjoyable, as shown in the following responses:

“Mga group projects. Mga sociable things na makahimo kag friends, makabuo kag new circle. Mag-expand imong social network kay nag meet man kag other people out of your comfort zone.” (FGD1.LI2.L106-108)

Figure 5 Percentage of Parents Who Are Willing to Enroll their Children in the Rural Farm School

Meanwhile, similar proportions from Figure 3 are observed in Figure 5, reinforcing the earlier findings about the parents’ willingness to enroll their children in agriculture-related programs. About 69.39% of parents would enroll their children in the RFS if offered, while 28.57% were uncertain. Only one parent opposed the idea. This highlights a solid base of support and a significant group of undecided stakeholders who could be persuaded through targeted advocacy.

Table 5 Parents’ Reasons for Considering Rural Farm School for their Children

The most cited reason of parents for considering RFS for their children was a strong interest in agriculture (n = 19), followed by a desire for a more personalized learning environment (n = 14) and interest in sustainability (n = 14). Preparing for an agriculture-related career was noted by four parents. These responses suggest that parents value both academic and holistic development, including life skills and environmental awareness.

Readiness for the RFS Program Since the RFS will integrate home-based projects in the curriculum, it is essential to determine whether the learners have the capacity to do such projects. Figure 6 reveals that 78.4% of the learners have spaces at home where they can do gardening or other farming-related tasks or projects while 21.6% do not have. Some of these learners have backyards at home where they can have their gardens. However, there are some who do not have home garden spaces like those living in the subdivisions. In this case, urban gardening techniques like container gardening and aquaponics can be used for their home-based projects.

Figure 6 Percentage of Learners with Home Spaces for Gardens or Farm-related Projects

Meanwhile, when asked about the support they are willing to provide for their children, most parents responded that they are willing to give time for school events or farm-related activities (Rank 1), followed by the provision of materials or resources for farm projects (Rank 2) as shown in Table 6. Time could be the top resource parents are willing to provide for their children since it would not give them additional educational costs.  The data presented could inform the school about the support they can extend to augment the learners’ resources for their farm activities, especially home- or community- based projects.

Table 6 Types of Support from Parents

One parent informant said that she is willing to give time for her children to do their farm-related tasks.“Tagaan sila ug time ma’am. Kana na oras, inyoha ng oras na para asikasuhon ninyo.” (KII6.PI2.L28-29)Other parents responded that they will financially support their children by providing their needs for their school activities.

“Suportahan nako siya kung unsa man ang kinahanglan sa school kay para man pud na sa iyaha.” (KII7.PI3.L41)“Kung unsay need diri sa eskwalahan, eh di suportahan. Pareha ana sa farming ba ninyo nga tanom-tanom. Unsa bang klase na tanom? Ilaha bang mga seed, para mag-tanom sila or sa school ba? Oh di palitan.” (KII8.PI4.L22-24)

All these data show that majority of the learners are ready for the RFS farming activities in terms of home readiness and parental support.

Technical Study: Strategic Planning and Sustainability Adequacy of Available Resources The study found that current physical resources of BNHS are insufficient to fully support the implementation of the Rural Farm School program. The table below shows the existing tools and equipment that the learners can use in their hands-on activities at school.

Table 7 School’s Available Tools and Equipment

Table 7 shows that most of the available planting tools do not reach a quantity of 10, except for the spade and hand fork. Hoes, which is the most common farming tool, are also insufficient in number. Also, there is a limited number of Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) like boots and hard hat that is readily available in school. This shows that the number of tools is not proportionate to the number of learners who might be needing them during hands-on activities. Learners would have to secure their own tools and PPE during activities, or they would have to wait in turns to use the available tools. It is also worth noting that all tools and equipment were acquired during the pre-pandemic years, which may affect their quality and efficiency.

Table 8 Additional Resources Needed for the Program’s Success

Table 8 shows that majority of the teachers (88.9%) identify laboratory tools and equipment as the top resource that the school needs to ensure the program’s success, alongside with partnership with local agricultural organizations (88.9%). This data is congruent to the inventory of tools presented in the earlier table. Teachers usually find difficulty in implementing hands-on activities when the learners do not have sufficient tools to use. The table’s data are further supported by the following statements from the teachers:

“Ang sa mga resources is una-una sa financial…Need mo ang building, need mo ang equipment..” (FGD2.TI2.L97-98)

“Partnership.. Support. Support system..” (FGD2.TI1.L213-215))

Table 9 Available Farm Laboratories

Table 9 shows the school’s four available farm laboratories. The school’s land title indicates that the school has a total of 15, 354 square meters or 1.54 hectares of land area. Five hundred square meters of this land is utilized as vegetable garden, while 2,500 square meters is used as animal forage area. The large forage is used as grazing area for the cows. On the other hand, the vegetable gardens are situated at the classrooms and gym backyards. Meanwhile, there is one TVE laboratory and two vermiculture bins that Agri-Crop production learners use for their classes. In terms of instructional materials like modules and textbooks, the school only has the teacher’s copies of the modules for Agri-Crop Production, while there are none for Animal Production.

The school has nine teachers teaching Technical-Vocational Education (TVE) and its allied subjects, including Internet and Computing Fundamentals, Technical Drawing, and Entrepreneurship under the Strengthened Technical-Vocational Education Program (STVEP). Seven teach in Junior High School, while two are in Senior High School. The table below shows their qualifications.

Table 10 Qualifications of Teachers who will Teach in the Rural Farm School

n=9

Of these nine, three have baccalaureate degrees with specializations specific to TVE. Despite this, the majority of them, particularly four who are teaching TVE in the Junior High School (JHS) and two teaching in the Technical Vocational and Livelihood (TVL) track – Agri-Fishery strand in the Senior High School (SHS), have undergone agriculture trainings and have National Certificates (NC) related to agriculture. Two of the JHS have NC in Agri-Crop Production and one has NC in Animal Production. Another one JHS teacher do not have an NC in Animal production but has a specialized training on livestock management. One teacher was also trained explicitly on the Farm School pedagogy. These data show that the teachers are qualified to teach agriculture subjects in the Rural Farm School.

However, the teachers still determined several areas where they need training. Table 11 shows that the primary training need of the teachers is on the technical knowledge of Rural Farm School. This is followed by training needs on sustainable agricultural practices (77.8%), experiential learning methods (66.7%), and assessment methods on farming (66.7%). These needs should be considered when preparing the TVE teachers to implement the Rural Farm School.

Table 11 TVE Teachers’ Training Needs

Teachers further clarified that they need upgrades in their knowledge of agriculture as well as trainings in hands-on activities, as shown in these statements:

“Habang continuous ta sa atong pagtudlo, kinahanglan mag-upgrade sad atong mga knowledge about agriculture. .Mahirap kapag may kakulangan kasi merong pabago-bagong sistema in Agriculture. Since technology na tayo, there are always changes.” (KII1.TC.L30)

“I need more trainings lalo na sa mga actual or hands-on trainings. So sa teaching, meron naman kaming mga trainings, kung paano or ano yung gagamitin na mga approach sa teaching. Ang training lang is yung hands-on.” (KII3.TT.L26-28)

Proposed Organizational Chart Based on the availability, qualifications, and teaching experience of the existing school personnel, the following organizational structure is proposed:

Figure 7 Proposed Rural Farm School Organizational Chart

Proposed Class Schedule

In terms of adapting a new class schedule, key informants did not see any significant difficulty in plotting the subjects for the Rural Farm School since the school has been implementing the STVEP curriculum, which follows an almost similar schedule: 8 regular subjects with double period and integration of specialization in TLE, and electives. The TVE Coordinator of the school confirmed this in his statement:

“Actually parehas lang man gihapon sa curriculum nato karon. Wala siguroy adjustment na mahitabo. May adjustment pero gamay lang siguro, especially mag-start ang  Rural Farm School majoring sa Grade 7.” (KII1.TC.L72-73)

However, the RFS will use an ‘in-school, off-school approach’, which entails careful planning and collaboration among the teachers. The school head ascertained this in his statement:

“Integrating rural farm school classes can be feasible but it requires careful planning and consideration of various factors like the flexibility in scheduling especially that the child will allocate days at home and days also in school. We have there the in-school and off-school schedules and learners. Second is the teachers’ collaboration. Teachers should collaborate for the successful integration that they will understand the scenario, the situation among learners.” (KII2.SH.L72-77)

Figure 8 shows the proposed class schedule of the RFS program patterned from the policy guidelines on integrating Rural Farm School classes stipulated in DO 36, s.2015.

Figure 8 Proposed RFS Class Programs for Grades 7-10

The TLE specialization is delimited to Agri-Crop Production since it is the agriculture area most preferred by learners. There are also two qualified TVE teachers who can teach the subject.

Proposed Long-term Plan for Partnerships with Other Agencies and Local Businesses that can Sustain the Program

Partnerships with local agencies are deemed necessary for the establishment and sustainability of the program, as reflected in Table 8. Stakeholders can provide technical support to the school in terms of funding for additional facilities and equipment, teacher training, student immersion, and research opportunities.

“For the city, the city has also the plan to provide funds for this unique program. We can also ask their support aside from the barangay LGU. For the NGO, we have many associations. There are many existing associations, farmers associations to be used for benchmarking like in immersion, especially in the nearby areas.” (KII1.TC.L65-69)

“Pwede tayong manghingi ng tulong in different allied government agencies na makakatulong sa atin, katulad ni City Agriculturist Office, City Environmental and Natural Resources Office, and many among others na related sa mga government agencies na tumutulong regarding sa Rural Farm School.” (FGD3.SGCI1.L46-49)

The key stakeholders considered for this partnership include the Local Government Unit (LGU) in the barangay, the City Agriculturist Office (CAO), the Technical Education Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and Non-government Organizations (NGOs) related to agriculture. The Barangay LGU and CAO can provide funding support to the school to fulfill its needs, including farm products like seeds, tools, facilities, and equipment. The LGU may incorporate the school’s needs in its Barangay Development Plan (BDP) to ensure funding. CAO, on the other hand, may provide project grants to the school that the learners can utilize in their classes and that can upgrade the agricultural resources of the school.

In addition, CAO, through the Agricultural Training Institute (ATI) and TESDA, may provide training opportunities for teachers and learners. For the past years, the 4-H Club under the ATI has been providing free practical farm skills training to both learners and teachers. The school can also utilize its partnership with TESDA to secure NCII or NCIII certificates for the teachers who have yet to obtain their qualifications and the learners who are expected to take an NCII assessment when they reach Grade 10.

For industry-based work experience, the school can collaborate with various NGOs and Agricultural industry partners. Some of these partners include Felicidad Orchard and Garden Organics, Envirogreen Village Educational Foundation Inc., and the Baluan Farmers’ Association. These organizations and institutions can support the Rural Farm School program by providing the learners with workshops, work opportunities, and scholarships. They can also provide research opportunities for the school, making the Rural Farm School program responsive to the needs and changes in the agriculture sector.

Furthermore, local agricultural businesses in the community can provide additional support to the implementation of the Rural Farm School. They can sponsor or donate additional tools, seeds, fertilizers, livestock, or even infrastructure that the students can use in their hands-on activities. Local farmers and agricultural businesses can also hold training sessions or demos on sustainable farming techniques, pest control, livestock management, and agro-entrepreneurship. In addition, they can support the learners in their entrepreneurial ventures by offering market spaces or stores, or even serving as direct buyers. Collaborations for community-based farming projects are also possible.

A comprehensive partnership strategy will involve creating memoranda of understanding (MOUs) with each partner agency or organization, outlining shared goals, roles, and responsibilities. This move ensures mutual accountability and benefits. Regular engagements like meetings, updates, and feedback sessions can help sustain these partnerships over time.

The study identified several risks that could pose challenges to the implementation of the RFS at BNHS. Table 12 shows the responses of the surveyed teachers and parents regarding these implementation challenges.

Table 12 Perceptions on the Potential Challenges in the Implementation of the Rural Farm School

Both teachers and parents perceived lack of funding as the foremost challenge in implementing the RFS. Funds are essential to meet the needs and sustain the RFS program. Meanwhile, teachers ranked insufficient teacher training or expertise in Agriculture as the second most pressing implementation challenge, while parents ranked lack of student interest second. The discrepancy likely arose from the differing roles and experiences of both groups of respondents with the program. Teachers are directly involved in the curriculum delivery; hence, they are aware of their challenges, such as limited resources and inadequate training. Parents, conversely, observe their children’s motivation and engagement levels at home. If learners lack enthusiasm for doing agriculture-related activities like gardening and tending to farm animals, they may interpret it as a lack of interest in agriculture. The inadequate farming area, tools, and equipment are on the third rank. Sufficient tools and equipment are needed to ensure the learners do not experience delays in their hands-on activities. Lastly, both determined the lack of support for the program as the least pressing implementation challenge. This status may be due to the supportive school community and the existing partnerships the school has established with its current stakeholders.

These data are supported in the statements of the key informants of the study:

“Any programs need support. Number one there is the funding limitations. We have a limited MOOE since we only have few enrollment. But notable gap is funding limitations especially on the acquisition of tools and equipment. Second is the training of teachers. We know that knowledge is growing, especially agriculture. It is science. Therefore, science is always improving. We are going to train our teachers in order to cope up the demand of knowledge.” (KII2.SH.L37-42)

“Siguro una sa mga teacher nato. Dili man siguro nato ni ma-push na programa kung ang teacher wala puy effort. Pero kung ang teacher nato pag naay effort ani, siguro makita nako kini na programa, mas nindot kini kay daghan na mga bata na gustong mukuha ug mu-apply aning trabahua tungod kay nasanay sila sa ginatawag natong agriculture.” (KII4.PTA.L94-98)

Other important concerns that arose from the study were the learners’ discipline and health and safety when doing agriculture-related tasks, and the weather patterns that can affect the production of crops. While supportive, parents were concerned about their children’s health, particularly due to the physical nature of farm work and weather conditions. They also worried about the playful nature of young children, particularly since the program will start in Grade 7. These concerns came out from the statements of some informants:

“Kung puro man gud bata, parang malikot pa sila. Grabe pa sila magdula.” (KII5.PI1.L64)

“Naay time maabutan na magsakit-sakit ang bata.” (KII8.PI4.L69)

“Weather condition. Then, additionally, ang condition sa soil. Siyempre, time to time, right now, that’s why gina-change ang fertilizer na tong ginagamit before kay makaguba pud diay siya sa lupa. So, isa pud na siya sa concern nato. Then, ang health pud sa mga bata kay at risk right now since climate change. Init ang panahon, lamig ang panahon. Isa pud ka-challenge kay kung paano pud nato ma-ensure ang mga estudyante na they are all safe during sa immersion nila sa pagtanom.”(FGD3.SGCI1.L84-90)

The strengths and weaknesses of the school and the opportunities and threats surrounding it, which play a crucial role in the success of RFS at BNHS, are analyzed in the SWOT analysis in Figure 9. This analysis was based on the results of the surveys, interviews, and document review.

Figure 9 SWOT Analysis for the Establishment of RFS at BNHS

Figure 9 shows that the greatest strength of the school is the availability of its farm area as well as the existence of qualified teachers who can teach in the RFS. The school has sufficient area for crop and animal production. It also has teachers who are equipped with competencies in teaching agriculture. In addition, the school has a functional School Governing Council (SGC) that can support the school’s programs through policymaking and resource mobilization. On the other hand, limited funds, insufficient tools, equipment, and learning materials, and a lack of established health and safety policies governing farm activities are the school’s weaknesses that should be addressed. Sufficient funds are needed to provide the needs of the farm school. Tools and equipment are essential materials for the learners’ hands-on activities. Moreover, although most of the TVE teachers are competent to teach in RFS, some have to renew their certifications since updated certifications are required to teach in the program. Most of them also have outdated trainings in TVE, hence the need to upgrade.

Meanwhile, the school can utilize the opportunities in the community to address its weaknesses. It has ongoing partnerships with government agencies that can help provide additional funds through projects and grants. The DepEd Division Office can also provide funding through the SEF. In addition, there are private business entities that are supportive of the school’s program. However, there are potential threats that need to be addressed. The lack of interest among learners and the prejudicial attitudes of the parents towards agriculture can threaten enrollment in RFS. The program will not prosper without enrollees. Another is the extreme weather conditions that can significantly affect crop production. Students may experience crop failure as they do their farm activities, potentially affecting their outputs.

Developing strategies to mitigate the impact of risks is crucial for the success and sustainability of the Rural Farm School. Key areas of concerns based on the SWOT analysis include adequate fund allocation, learners’ interest in agriculture, teachers’ competence, adequacy of resources, learner health and safety concerns, sustainable crop production, and support from stakeholders. Table 13 presents the risk mitigation strategies tailored to address the potential risks in the implementation of the RFS.

Table 13 Risk Mitigation Strategies for the Establishment and Operation of RFS at BNHS

Fund Allocation. Programs often fail due to underfunding. It is important to secure regular fund allocations that can help sustain the program. Integrating the program into the school’s Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) can ensure financial stability in the continuous implementation of the program. Seeking the assistance of a higher governing body like the Department of Education Division Office is also a valuable move to ensure funding support. Furthermore, private entities can also be tapped for external grants and donations. Regular audits will help ensure financial transparency and accountability.

Learners’ Interest in Agriculture. Capturing and sustaining learners’ interest in agriculture is pivotal in ensuring steady enrollment. Teachers who are passionate in agriculture and effectively communicate its importance influence the learners’ decision to enroll in agriculture-related programs (Almanzor & Almanzor, 2024). Learners are encouraged to pursue a career in agriculture when they see that these programs are capable of unleashing their potentials and preparing them for their future. Thus, the school should strengthen its advocacy campaign, focusing on explaining the benefits of pursuing agricultural education. Annual career expos should be conducted, catering not only to the learners in school but also to the incoming learners from the feeder elementary schools. Additionally, integrating agriculture in content areas provides “situatedness, connectedness, and authenticity” in teaching content area topics, thereby providing an avenue for experiential learning (Ball and Knobloch, 2007).

Teachers’ Competence. Since teaching agriculture is both knowledge- and skill-based, teachers should have the necessary competencies to teach agriculture subjects. Kyule, et.al. (2018), as cited by Karani, et.al. (2021), postulated that the agricultural knowledge learners acquire partially depends on the quality of teacher training. To equip the teachers with the knowledge and skills to teach agriculture lessons, they should undergo training and secure the necessary qualifications. One significant step to achieve this is forging partnerships with government agencies that provide training and qualifications, like TESDA and DA-ATI. Securing scholarship grants can also help the teachers secure training with minimal or no financial burden on their part. Regular collaborations among teachers are also essential to keep them updated with the trends in agricultural education and share effective classroom practices and teaching strategies.

Adequacy of Resources. Without sufficient resources, the school will struggle to implement the RFS program. Partnerships with allied government agencies, local businesses, and private entities are crucial to augment the school’s resources.

Learner Health and Safety Concerns. RFS involves hands-on activities where students go to the field for farm activities. Exposure to different weather conditions is a significant health risk for the learners. Mishandling or misusing farm tools and equipment can also pose a safety risk to them as they may be injured or exposed to harmful chemicals during their activities. To mitigate these risks, the school should employ proactive strategies like ensuring students wear proper Personal Protective Equipment (PPE) during their farm activities. Lari, el.al. (2023) found that PPEs minimize pesticide-related adverse health effects. Another strategy is to craft health and safety school policies related to agricultural activities. Insurance can also be an option so students can have immediate medical intervention in case of accidents and injuries without financial strain on their families.

Sustainable Crop Production. Variations in the climate and extreme weather conditions significantly affect agricultural crop production in the Philippines (World Food Programme, 2021). Ensuring stable production of agricultural produce has become a challenge. Students working on their farm produce are no exceptions. The school should adopt strategies like crop diversification and climate-resilient crops to mitigate the risks posed by environmental factors to crop production. The school should also employ sustainable farming practices that can increase and sustain yields.

Support from Stakeholders. Stakeholders are necessary for the sustainability of the program. They often resist due to a lack of program relevance to the curriculum and a potential increase in their workload. Clear communication channels should be kept to reach a common understanding and shared goals. A mechanism for regular giving of feedback should also be established to diminish uncertainties and skepticism regarding the program’s relevance.

Monitoring and Evaluation Mechanism

The establishment of RFS at BNHS necessitates a robust monitoring and evaluation (M&E) system to guarantee its success, sustainability, and alignment with community needs. Effective M & E will also support transparency, accountability, and continuous learning, directing the school administration to improve strategies and achieve sustained positive outcomes for students and the broader community. M & E mechanisms help in evaluating the efficacy of the Rural Farm School in each risk area. These mechanisms include data collection, stakeholders’ feedback, and performance assessments.

Fund Allocation. To ensure that the school has adequate funds to sustain the program, mechanisms such as monthly financial reporting against budget plans, regular tracking of expenses, semi-annual financial audits, and quarterly financial review meeting with the SGC should be established.

Student Interest in Agriculture. To monitor the interest of students in agricultural education, the school should undertake measures like conducting annual interest survey before enrollment, tracking enrollment numbers per specialization, tracking of student participation in farm activities and events, and conducting JHS and SHS exit surveys. The school may also put up an RFS suggestion box to gather more insights from the students.

Teachers’ Competence. It is essential that teachers have updated knowledge and skills in teaching in the RFS program. Mechanisms such as annual performance review, quarterly classroom observations and lesson plan reviews, monitoring of teachers’ competencies, and student evaluation of teachers at the end of each semester can help monitor the teachers’ competencies. Self-assessment survey for teachers can also be helpful in identifying their training needs.

Adequacy of Resources. Sufficient resources are crucial to meeting the learning needs of the learners. To guarantee this, quarterly resource inventory, regular inspections of facilities, tools, and equipment, filing of monthly resource need reports, and annual planning sessions to prioritize the acquisition of new resources should be conducted.

Learner Health and Safety Concerns. Farm activities can be strenuous for learners. Safety measures provide assurance to the parents and stakeholders that the program is not detrimental to the lives of the young learners. These measures include incident report logging, quarterly emergency drills, provision of safety concern forms, and parent feedback system.

Sustainable Crop Production. To ensure continued crop yield and avoid losses, mechanisms like quarterly assessment of crop yield, monitoring the use of farm inputs, and quarterly student report on crop yield with peer and expert feedback should be established.

Support from Stakeholders. Stakeholders play a vital role in sustaining the RFS program. Their support can help augment the school’s resources and facilitate the continuous development of the learners and teachers. To keep track of their participation in the program mechanisms like logging of stakeholder participation, tracking of MOAs for active partnerships, conduct of stakeholder satisfaction survey, and semi-annual meetings should be implemented. Regular posting of school farming activities can also help attract more stakeholders.

Sustainability Plan

A clear sustainability plan is necessary to ensure that the program is viable for the long-term. Table 16 provides strategies for maintaining the program’s operations for each risk area. These approaches include strengthening partnerships with the stakeholders to bridge the resource gap, and collaborating with the community for projects and other opportunities for growth. Also, continuous monitoring through audits, reviews, and inventories can facilitate efficient program funding. Meanwhile, sustaining students’ interest is possible by showing the gains of agriculture through advocacy campaigns and entrepreneurial activities. Scholarships can further boost the students’ eagerness to join the program. Regular upgrading of teacher competence will ensure the program’s continuity in terms of classroom instruction. Finally, implementing farm policies and practices will address concerns on health and safety and crop production.

Table 16 RFS Sustainability Plan

Financial Study: Financial Projections and Cost-Benefit Analysis

The Financial Study section analyzes the economic viability and sustainability of the RFS program at BNHS. It aims to present a detailed projection of operational expenses and funding sources. This analysis is necessary in establishing whether the proposed program can be effectively launched, maintained, and expanded over time with the assurance of financial accountability while maximizing community benefits.

Estimated Program Cost

The estimated total cost for establishing and sustaining the RFS at BNHS is Php 860,000. The budget allocation for the program is broken down into key needs categories as reflected in Figure 10.

Figure 10 RFS Fund Allocation

Figure 10 shows that the highest fund allocation, which is 58% of the total RFS budget, goes to farm infrastructure like vegetable gardens, plant nurseries, and animal houses since these require higher costs than other categories. Next in rank are the farm tools, equipment, and students’ projects and activities, which is allocated 12% of the funds. Since farm tools and equipment are inadequate, as established in the earlier parts of the study, it is also necessary to allocate a large amount of funds to this category. Meanwhile, another 12% of the funds is designated for students’ projects and activities since the RFS curriculum focuses on farm- and community-based projects. Next in the funding priorities are teacher training and curriculum materials, each receiving six percent of the total budget. As shown in Table 10 earlier, only four teachers in the Junior High School and 2 in the Senior High School have NCII in Agriculture. To qualify the remaining TVE teachers to teach agriculture classes and allied disciplines like entrepreneurship, the school should secure funding for their NCII training and assessment. There is also a need to update and upgrade the skills of all agriculture teachers to keep at par with the trends in teaching agriculture. Moreover, the school does not have sufficient learning materials in agriculture, like modules and textbooks that learners can use in their classes. Reproduction of such would incur high costs. The least among the funding priorities are the farm inputs and advocacy campaigns, each constituting three percent of the total fund allocation. Farm inputs like seeds, seedlings, and fertilizer ingredients, although necessary, are mostly readily available in the farm except for some that need to be purchased. The farm inputs to be bought shall be placed in the farm nursery so learners can have immediate access to them when needed. Advocacy campaigns, on the other hand, can help boost the learners’ and parents’ interest in agriculture, which can later translate to additional enrollment in the RFS.

Identifying the specific costs for the establishment of RFS is crucial in its budgetary direction. A more detailed breakdown of costs for the establishment and operations of the RFA is shown in Table 14. These costs are based on the identified needs of the school. Establishment costs pertain to the materials needed and other expenses required during the initial setup of the program., while operational costs cover the expenses to be incurred during the program’s ongoing implementation.

Table 14 Establishment and Operational Costs of RFS at BNHS

Funding Sources

The school’s major fund source is its MOOE allocation. All expenses related to implementing the Rural Farm School should be included in the School Improvement Plan (SIP) to justify using MOOE for the program. Another fund source comes from the LGU through the Special Education Fund (SEF), which can be used to support school programs. The school can also forge partnerships with other government agencies for project grants and private entities or business organizations for donations, scholarship grants, and training and immersion opportunities.

Cost-Benefit Analysis

The program is projected to deliver substantial benefits that outweigh its costs. First, the program is expected to enhance the learners’ participation and competence in Agriculture. Learners anticipated gains from attending in the RFS as shown in Table 15.

Table 15 Learners’ Goals in Attending a Farm School

n=139

Table 15 reveals that the learners’ primary goal for enrolling in the Rural Farm School was to gain hands-on experience in Agriculture (Rank 1), followed by gaining skills in farm management (Rank 2). This eagerness to hone practical skills in Agriculture is expected to translate into improved critical thinking skills and acquired technical competence in Agriculture. These are essential for them to thrive in Agriculture-related careers or future business ventures. In addition, key informants mentioned that the program is expected to cultivate life skills, values, and economic opportunities among the students.

“Gina-educate nato sila to entrepreneurship.” (FGD3.SGCI1.L128)“The child, while learning in this program, also is earning. Earning while learning because of their products. They can help the income to sustain the income of the family. That’s economic impact.” (KII2.SH.L107-109)

In addition, the program is expected to promote agricultural productivity and ethical stewardship of the environment in the community. The school head emphasized this in the statement:

“Through this program, the child will learn how to manage our limited resources or environment, especially at this time we are facing climate change. We are facing destructive method of farming. Through Rural Farm School, the child will be trained how to grow crops and animals through organic method.” (KII2.SH.103-106)

Lastly, the program is expected to create a strong connection between the school and the local community. Forging strong community engagement is crucial for the successful implementation of school programs. Community stakeholders can provide various forms of support to the school like fundings, trainings, and research collaborations. The school head further stressed this in his statement:

“Rural Farm School program, for me, creates a sustainable integrated educational framework that not only enhances students; understanding about agriculture but also fosters a strong connection between schools, local communities and environment… Community engagement is very important for the successful implementation of this program. The farmers, the parents, and other stakeholders.” (KII2.SH.L94-102)

Socio-Economic Study: Ethical and Socio-Cultural Considerations in Educational Projects Community Relevance. The proposed Rural Farm School aligns with the socio-economic context of the community, where Agriculture is the primary livelihood. This ensures the program is culturally relevant and caters to the community’s needs. By integrating agriculture into the curriculum, the school recognizes the dignity of farming, confronting societal prejudices that frequently devalue it as a “low-status” profession. According to an informant:

“I-emphasize jud sa mga bata, ibutang jud sa ilahang kaisipan na without the farmer, wala jud tay makaon, wala tay mabutang sa atong lamesa. So, maski sa inyong gamay, sa inyong lamesa lang, gamay na luna, pag maka-establish ka og small garden, value na na siya na gitudlo sa imoha sa isa ka teacher.” (KII1.TC.L54-57)

Equitable Access to Education. The program should also guarantee equitable access for all learners, irrespective of gender, socioeconomic status, or ethnicity, particularly within a varied and occasionally marginalized rural environment. Although the priority recipients of the RFS are the children and relatives of the Comprehensive Agrarian Reform Program (CARP) beneficiaries as stipulated in RA 10618, all learners who show interest in agriculture should still be catered. One teacher informant explained that although there might be a potential problem with student interest, there are still students willing to enroll in agriculture as evidenced by the number of Grade 11 Organic Agriculture students. Hence, the program should still accommodate them.

“Naa siyay problem, pero naa gihapon makuha. Tan-awa gud ang TVL-11 ma’am oh, kaabot gani ug 45.” (FGD2.TI5.L243-244)

Cultural Sensitivity and Indigenous Practices. Local farming traditions, indigenous knowledge systems, and other practices associated with farming should be acknowledged and integrated whenever suitable to facilitate the preservation of cultural identity while upgrading agricultural methods. The school should avoid imposing a “one-size-fits-all” model that overlooks local knowledge and traditions, which may alienate community elders and cultural leaders. This concern was raised by a teacher informant, stating:

“Dili tanan farmer sir mu-accept ug changes. Dili tanan mu-accept og innovation na ginaisip sa government..Mu-ingon jud na sila nga. ‘Dugay na ko ani, dong. Dili na ko nimo ma-convince ana kay experience nako na siya.’” (FGD2.TI5.L144-145,154-155)

Environmental and Social Responsibility.  Implementing sustainable farming practices like organic fertilizers encourages learners to become ethical land stewards. Advocating for these ideals enhances environmental education and social accountability.  The school head affirmed this in his statement:

“Through this program, the child will learn how to manage our limited resources or environment, especially at this time we are facing climate change. We are facing destructive method of farming. Through Rural Farm School, the child will be trained how to grow crops and animals through organic method.” (KII2.SH.L103-106)

Ethical Labor Practices. Since the program involves student fieldwork, the school should ensure that the farming activities remain educational and age-appropriate, not exploitative. Furthermore, proper supervision and safety measures should be enforced. This was raised by a key informant in the interview, stating:

“Ang health and safety standard jud. Kaya siyempre, mag-uyat man ug mga bolo, di ba? So paano nato ma-educate atoang mga bata na dili pwede dali-dali lang. Basig mag dula-dula sila, ilabay nila then maka-cause ug.injuries.” (FGD3.SGCI1.L107-109)

Balancing Academics and Practical Learning. The program should balance theoretical instruction and hands-on learning activities to ensure the holistic development of the learners. In the interview, an informant expressed concern about balancing the time spent in academics and practical activities.

“Kulang imong time sa planting ug sa mga subject nimo. Kulang ka sa time. Kailangan pud nimo ug balance sa time.” (FGD1.LI8.147-148)

The school should employ proper coordination and scheduling of activities to avoid overlapping tasks that may cause significant strain on the part of the learners.

Strengthening Family and Community Ties. Engaging parents and local farmers as mentors and coaches builds a strong school and community linkage. It promotes the bayanihan spirit and fosters a sense of shared ownership. The school head emphasized in his statement that:

“Through organized community events, workshops and open houses to foster engagement and collaboration by involving parents in the implementation can lead to improve student outcome.” (KII2.SH.L121-123)

Decision to Implement the Proposed Rural Farm School

Based on the findings of the feasibility study, it is highly recommended that the school move forward with implementing the RFS program in S.Y. 2025-2026. The data gathered from the market, technical, management, financial, and socio-economic studies strongly support the viability and benefits of establishing the program to wit:

The Market Study indicates that a considerable number of students are interested in joining an Agriculture program. Survey results revealed a significant proportion of learners who are ready to enroll and have considerable parent support, reflecting a robust market foundation. This interest is bolstered by parental support, which indicates an acknowledgment of the program’s relevance and capability to hone technical knowledge and practical skills in Agriculture among the learners.

The Technical Study supports the feasibility of the program through strategic planning. Although the school already has the resources needed, upgrades and enhancements of facilities and equipment are still necessary. Building partnerships with government agencies, non-government organizations, local agricultural businesses, and other private entities can help bridge the resource gap. These partnerships also provide viable training and mentorship opportunities for teachers and students.

The Management Study identifies several challenges the program may encounter in its implementation. These challenges usually concentrate on fund allocation, learners’ interest in Agriculture, teacher competence, adequacy of resources, learner health and safety concerns, sustainability in crop production, and stakeholders’ support. The study proposes several strategies to mitigate the risks posed by the identified challenges. These include phased budgeting, diversified funding through partnerships, collaborations with other agencies for teacher training, sponsorships, crafting health and safety policies, implementing sustainable farm practices, and regular engagements with stakeholders. These measures are proactive to minimize risks and ensure the program’s success.

The Financial Study shows the program’s viability. Budgetary requirements for infrastructure, tools and equipment, farm inputs, teachers’ training, student projects and activities, curriculum delivery, and marketing and advocacy can be met through the identified fund sources, which include the school’s MOOE, government grants, and potential sponsorships from NGOs, local businesses, and other private entities. The cost-benefit analysis reveals that the program’s benefits, such as enhanced students’ competence in agriculture and agricultural productivity, make it a worthy investment for the school and the community.

The Socio-Economic Study strengthens the program’s value. Promoting community relevance, equitable access, sensitivity to cultural and indigenous practices, environmental and social responsibility, ethical labor practices, balance of academics and practical learning, and strengthened family and community ties positions the program’s socio-economic and cultural impact on the community. The program addresses the negative perceptions towards agriculture and puts a premium on agricultural education to enhance agricultural productivity in the community.

CONCLUSIONS

On Market Study: Educational Needs and Market Analysis: There is a strong interest in agricultural education among the surveyed learners, which translates to their willingness to enroll in the RFS program. Most parents also expressed willingness to enroll their children in the RFS, believing that the program will equip them with practical skills and prepare them for agriculture-related careers. The PTA and SGC also strongly support the program, stressing its role in fostering life skills that the learners can use in the future. Both quantitative and qualitative data showed clear interest in the program. Thus, the market feasibility is viable.

On Technical Study: Strategic Planning and Sustainability: The RFS is technically viable, provided that resource enhancement measures are prioritized. Though BNHS already has existing facilities, tools, and equipment, these resources should be upgraded to fully support the needs of the learners, particularly when doing their farm activities. Furthermore, additional infrastructure like vegetable gardens and laboratories, farm tools and equipment, and instructional materials are also needed. A strategic sustainability plan should be in place to sustain the program. This plan should include resource inventory, teachers’ capacity building, strengthened partnerships with stakeholders, and community involvement.

On Management Study: Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies: The significant challenges that may pose risks to the program implementation and sustainability lie in fund allocation, student interest in agriculture, teachers’ competence, adequacy of resources, learner health and safety concerns, sustainable crop production, and support from stakeholders. Proactive measures like diversified funding, advocacy campaigns, teacher training, health and safety policies, sustainable farming practices, and stakeholder engagement should be applied to address the risks.

On Financial Study: Financial Projection and Cost-Benefit Analysis: The program shows financial viability through strategic budgeting and diversified funding. Projected cost categories include additional farm infrastructure, farm tools, and equipment, student projects and activities, teachers’ professional development, reproduction of curriculum materials, marketing and advocacy, and farm inputs. The school can tap other government agencies and stakeholders to augment the funds for the identified cost categories. Furthermore, the cost-benefit analysis established that the program’s long-term benefits include enhancing students’ competence, boosting agricultural productivity and ethical environmental stewardship, and strengthening community engagements.

On Socio-Economic Study: Ethical and Socio-Cultural Considerations in Educational Projects: The ethical and socio-cultural considerations related to the program’s implementation include community relevance, equitable access to education, cultural sensitivity and indigenous practices, environmental and social responsibility, ethical labor practices, balance between academics and practical learning, and strengthened family and community ties. The study emphasizes the need to eliminate the negative perceptions towards agriculture by highlighting its relevance to the community and its economic viability.

On the Decision to Implement the Proposed Rural Farm School (RFS): It is concluded that the establishment of RFS at BNHS is feasible. There is a strong interest among the learners and parents in agricultural education, which is the focus of the RFS. The school has existing technical support and teaching staff to keep the program running. Although there is a need for additional resources, potential sources of funds have been identified. Risks were assessed, and mitigating strategies were suggested. A monitoring and evaluation system can also help assess the program’s efficiency and effectiveness. The program is relevant to the community and promotes equitable access, sensitivity to indigenous practices, environmental and social responsibility, and ethical labor practices. It also balances academic and practical learning and strengthens family and community engagements. The RFS program will provide avenues for skill enhancement and open career opportunities for the learners while fostering agricultural productivity in the community.

RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the findings of the study, several key recommendations are proposed for the successful establishment and implementation of the RFS at BNHS:

Market Study: Educational Needs and Market Analysis

The school should launch an enrollment advocacy campaign about the Rural Farm School program not only to the nearest feeder school in the barangay but also to other elementary schools in neighboring barangay, targeting students who might be interested in taking agriculture-related careers or those who are generally interested in agriculture. The school can also conduct annual career expos to elevate learners’ interest in agriculture. It is equally essential that the school gets regular updates on the market trends to adapt the curriculum to new technologies and practices.

Furthermore, building community engagement programs like weekend markets, agri-fairs, or training for parents and local farmers can help the school sustain the program’s relevance, establish rapport with the community, and ultimately win the community’s support. To make the program even more appealing to the learners, the school may offer scholarships through its stakeholders to support the learners’ needs while enrolled.

Technical Study: Strategic Planning and Sustainability

To address the resource gaps, the school can implement phased construction and procurement of facilities, tools, and equipment, prioritizing those facilities and materials that learners most commonly use in their farm activities, like plant nurseries, demo farm plots, composting areas, and farm inputs. Learning materials can be produced gradually until a 1:1 book or module and student ratio is achieved. Subsequent phases may include procuring additional tools so students can make them readily available for student use.

It is also essential to form partnership plans for teachers’ training to enhance their competencies in teaching agriculture subjects and other allied disciplines. The school can tap TESDA to provide NC training and assessment to teachers. The school can request additional teachers with specialization in agriculture from the DepEd Division Office to augment the number of specialized teachers.

Furthermore, the school should forge more partnerships with local businesses and other private entities to support the program’s needs. Memoranda of Agreement (MOA) should be secured to ensure regular support. Feedback and engagement mechanisms should be established to sustain stakeholder partnerships.

Management Study: Risk Assessment and Mitigation Strategies

It is recommended that the school establish a Rural Farm School Implementation Task Force that will oversee the program’s operation, provide regular updates on the implementation status, identify areas of potential problems, and provide solutions to address those problems. The school can also create a manual of operations for the farm school program to standardize its operations. One important part of this manual should be the protection of learner well-being since concerns about learner health and safety have been raised. Moreover, it is essential to institutionalize regular feedback mechanisms from students, parents, community, and partners to improve the program.

Financial Study: Financial Projections and Cost-Benefit Analysis

To help kickstart the program, particularly in procuring additional farm resources and building farm facilities, the school can ask for initial funding from the LGU, allied government agencies, DepEd Division Office, and partners. The school can also plan for income-generating activities like vegetables selling, seedling production, and processing farm products to fund the farm’s daily operations.

Additionally, the school should have a financial reporting system that tracks the expenditures and revenues to build trust and accountability among its stakeholders. Regular meetings with parents and community partners should also be done to communicate the school’s financial standing and ask for additional support.

Socio-economic Study: Ethical and Socio-Cultural Considerations in Educational Projects

The school should strive to preserve and strengthen the program’s link to the community’s agricultural way of life. It is also important to emphasize the worth of farming and its crucial role in ensuring food security to change negative attitudes towards agriculture and foster pride in agricultural occupations. This can be done through lesson integration and advocacy campaigns, incorporating the stories of local farmers and alums who pursued agriculture-related careers.

To ensure inclusive access to the program, the school can provide scholarships or subsidies through their partners for economically disadvantaged students.

Meanwhile, to preserve indigenous and local knowledge related to farming, the school may consult community elders or local farmers in curriculum development. The school should also promote and implement sustainable farm practices like composting pits, rainwater harvesting systems, and the use of organic farming methods to foster environmental and social responsibility.

To ensure safety in farm work and foster ethical labor, the school should craft a Farm Safety Manual and conduct regular orientation to students and parents.

Furthermore, to avoid overlapping schedules and activities and prevent burnout, the school may implement a modular or rotational class system where students alternate between fieldwork and classroom learning.

Lastly, the school should conduct regular parent-teacher-farmer fora and integrate mentorship programs to foster partnerships with parents and the local community.

Decision to Implement the Rural Farm School

The study recommends the establishment of the Rural Farm School Program at Baluan National High School. The school should secure additional resources, capacitate the teachers, and strengthen stakeholder partnerships to prepare for this. The school may adopt a phased program implementation, starting with the Grade 7 learners for the incoming S.Y. 2025-2026 and offering only one major in TVE specialization, preferably Agri-Crop Production.

REFERENCES

1. Almanzor, J. Almanzor, C. (2024). Factors that Influence Senior High School Students’ Decision to Enroll in Agriculture Courses in Davao Del Norte. Psychology and Education, 23(6):827-840. doi:10.5281/zenodo.13309815
2. Agricultural Training Institute. (2023). Youth in Agriculture: Its Vitality and Perspectives. https://ati2.da.gov.ph/ati-4a/content/TCSnode13
3. Alcantara, S.T. (2024) Perception of Filipino Farmers’ Children on Farming and their Involvement in the Family Farm. Asia-Pacific Journal of Human Development and Family Studies., 3(1), 109 117.https://ahead.uplb.edu.ph/?jet_download=865c315e1d123b18858f1b26822fbe9e02dc1469
4. Knobloch, N. A., Ball, A. L., & Allen, C. (2007). The Benefits Of Teaching And Learning About Agriculture In Elementary And Junior High Schools. Journal of Agricultural Education, 48(3), 25–36. https://doi.org/10.5032/jae.2007.03025
5. Briones, R. (2021). Philippine Agriculture: Current State, Challenges, and Ways Forward. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, 2012(12). https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATION/Pidspn2112.pdf
6. DepEd Order No. 36. (2015). https://www.deped.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/08/DO_s2015_36.pdf
7. Echalar, L., & Fajardo, A. (2023). CNN’s Resnet, Yolo, and Faster R-CNN Architectures on the Disease and Pest Classification of Local Agricultural Vegetables Towards Sustainable Production. Social Science Research Network. http://dx.doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.4487146
8. Geza, W., Ngidi, M., Ojo, T., Adetoro, A. A., Slotow, R., & Mabhaudhi, T. (2021). Youth Participation in Agriculture: A Scoping Review. MDPI Sustainability, 13(16), 9120. https://doi.org/10.3390/su13169120
9. Karani, A., Miriam, K., & Mironga, John. (2021) Teaching Competence-based Agriculture Subject in Primary Schools in Kenya: A Review of Institutional Preparedness. International Journal of Education, Technology, and Science, 1(1) https://www.ijets.org/index.php/IJETS/article/view/5.
10. Lari, S., Yamagani, P., Pandiyan, A., Vanka, J., Naidu, M., Senthil Kumar, B., Jee, B., & Jonnalagadda, PR. (2023). The impact of the use of personal-protective-equipment on the minimization of effects of exposure to pesticides among farm-workers in India. Front Public Health. doi: 10.3389/fpubh.2023.1075448.
11. Mendoza, C.R., & Garcia, R. (2023). Phenomenological Research on the Youth’s Experiences on Agriculture in the Philippines. Qualitative Research: Practices and Challenges, 16. https://doi.org/10.36367/ntqr.16.2023.e767
12. Mercado, K.M., & Osbahr, H. (2023). Feeding the Future: Knowledge and Perceptions of the Filipino Youth Toward Agriculture. Asian Journal of Agriculture and Development. 20(2), 31-50. 10.22004/ag.econ.339168
13. National Integrated Climate Exchange Database and Information Exchange System. (2025). Agriculture. https://niccdies.climate.gov.ph/mitigation/agriculture#:~:text=The%20agriculture%20sector%20has%20always,reduced%20to%209.43%25%20in%202015.
14. Philippine Statistics Authority. (2025, January) Agriculture, forestry and fishing declines anew in the fourth quarter of 2024. http://psa.gov.ph/statistics/national-accounts/sector/Agriculture%2C%20Forestry%20and%20Fishing
15. Rivera, D. (2023, June 20). Agriculture sector remains lowest GDP contributor. The Philippine Star. https://www.philstar.com/business/2023/06/20/2275068/agriculture-sector-remains-lowest-gdp-contributor.
16. Rural Farm Schools Act, H. No.6050, OG No.46, 7747. (2013). https://elibrary.judiciary.gov.ph/thebookshelf/showdocs/2/5821
17. Secretario, M.L. (2021). Perception of Filipino Youth towards Agriculture: Eradicating Agri Stereotypes through Education. 10.13140/RG.2.2.27148.03209.
18. Stratton, S. (2024). Purposeful Sampling: Advantages and Pitfalls. Prehospital and Disaster Medicine. 39(2):121-122. doi:10.1017/S1049023X24000281
19. World Food Programme. (2021). Philippine Climate Change and Food Security Analysis. https://www.wfp.org/publications/philippine-climate-change-and-food-security-analysis