2nd draft reflecting consensus of

the Roundtable Discussion, January

20, 2010

2010 Development Agenda: Education

Movement for Good Governance1

The contribution of basic education to development is not,

however confined to economic progress. Education has intrinsic
importance; the capability to read and write can deeply influence
one’s quality of life.

Amartya Sen
1998 Nobel
Laureate in Economics

Apart from being a basic human right, education is a way out of

poverty. Knowledge and skills increase productivity, enhance the opportunity
of an individual to gain employment, and earn income. Education can save a
child’s life. “Having a mother with primary education reduces child death
rates by almost half in the Philippines2.

Although numerous studies have shown that education provides

innumerable benefits for families and national economies, the state of
Philippine education leaves much to be desired. The educational system is as
dismal as ever regardless of “diagnosis, prognosis and reform initiatives”3.
The system is fraught with eighty-year-old problems4: low pupil performance,
1
Draft was prepared by Ivy Ong and Milwida M. Guevara; The roundtable discussion was
chaired by Prof. Solita Monsod, Chair of the Movement for Good Governance; Dr. Fe Hidalgo,
Former Secretary of Education, Mr. Juan Miguel Luz, Former Undersecretary of Education,
Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, S.J, Chair of the Presidential Task Force on Education, and
represented by Ms. Mel Oracion, Head of Ateneo ACED; Ms. Lynette Perez from the World
Bank, Mr. Wilfredo Prilles, Planning Officer of Naga City, Mr. Chito Salazar and Mr. Peter
Perfecto of PBED, and M. Guevara, Synergeia Foundation.
2
UNESCO, “Overcoming inequality: Why governance matters”, 2009
3
United Nations Development Program. The 2008-2009 Philippine Human
Development Report
4
Data were based on the 1925 Monroe Survey.
high dropout rates, poor teacher quality, excessive centralization,
inappropriate language of learning, irrelevant learning materials and
inadequate financial resources.

The inability of the country to successfully provide every Filipino child

with access and success in education is the theme of this paper. It presents
the key problems in the education system and highlights the major changes
that need to be introduced.

1. Equilibrium of Unequal Opportunities. Two out of ten children

who should be in elementary school are out of school. From 92.07 percent in
1995, participation rate dwindled to a low of 84.84 percent in 2009. Poverty
continues to be a major hindrance in enabling children to have access to
quality education. The distribution of children who are out of school is
skewed towards the poor. Based on 2003 data, the share of out-of-school
Filipino children in the poorest quintile is 53 percent. The richest quintile only
had 3 percent out-of-school children.

“Parents are delaying putting children in school. More children are

entering grade 1 at aged 7 or 8 years”5. UNESCO studies show that an over-
aged child is more likely to drop out of school while an under-aged child has
a higher propensity to repeat a grade.

Location hinders access to quality public education. “Availability of

financial resources is a predictor of increased access and completion of basic
education”6 By virtue of being born in a poor household in the rural area, a
child is likely to drop out of elementary school or repeat a grade. A student
who lives in Mindanao not only battles against poor socio-economic
inadequacies but is adversely affected by peace and order problems.

Inequity has a gender dimension. In the Philippines, the dropout rate is

higher for male students. Based on 2009 data, only 70.9 percent of boys who
enter grade 1 finish primary education, compared to 80.1 percent for girls. In
secondary education, 75.2 percent of boys who enter first year high school
finish schooling in contrast to 84.5 percent of girls. Child labour is more
prevalent among male students.7.

2. High enrolment, low survival. A high dropout rate has been a

constant barrier to universal basic education. Around 28 to 34 percent of the
population does not reach or complete grade 6.8 High school completion rate
for high school students is worse at less than 50 percent. For the poorest
5
Former Undersecretary Juan Miguel Luz
6
UNESCO, Philippine Education For All 2015: Implementation and Challenges
7
Ibid
8
UNESCO, “2009 EFA Global Monitoring report: “Why governance matters”.
region of the country like ARMM, only 10 percent of grade one students
reach fourth year high school. By 2015, it is estimated that at least 900,000
Filipino children will be out of school. 9

The Philippines is a worse performer compared to its Asia neighbors.

Completion rate in Laos is 75 percent, 87 percent in Cambodia, and 99
percent in Indonesia and Malaysia. 10 Studies show that if children are kept in
school until grade 4, chances for completion of primary and secondary
education improve.11 The dropout rate in the Philippines is highest in grade
2.

The Philippines is in danger of not reaching the Millennium

Development Goal of achieving universal primary education.12 The net
enrolment and literacy ratios have dwindled while the proportion of pupils
starting grade 1 who reach grade 5 remained stagnant at 74% in the last 14
years13.

9
UNDP, The 2008-2009 Philippine Human Development Report
10
Data from the World Bank
11
Statement was made by former Department of Education undersecretary Juan Miguel
“Mike” Luz in his PowerPoint presentation entitled “A Philippine Report Card for Education:
Social accountability in providing education for all”.
12
Indicators include “(i) literacy rate of 15-24 year olds (youth); (ii) proportion of pupils
starting grade 1 who
reach grade 5; and (iii) net enrolment ratio.”
13
Philippine Institute for Development Studies. Measures for Assessing Basic Education in
the Philippines.
 3. Poor Quality of Education. Elementary and high school
graduates “lack competencies to live responsible, productive and self-
fulfilling lives”14. Schools are graduating students who are learning less and
less.15 Achievement in formal basic education is described to be “pathetically
low”16. Only 15.3 percent of elementary school graduates scored 75 percent
in the National Achievement Test. To make matters worse, less than 1.0
percent of high schools made it past the 75 percent mark. In terms of quality
instruction in mathematics, a measly 25.3 percent crossed the mark while a
deplorable 8.4 percent did so in science. Data also showed that students
from one- half of the schools did not learn 60 percent of what they ought to
in both subjects.

Poor quality in the early levels of elementary education results to non-

readiness of students for secondary and tertiary education. According to
DepEd, incoming high school students in Metro Manila are reading at Grade 4
and Grade 5 levels. Due to this “delay”, only 2 out of every 100 fourth year

14
The 1991 Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) found in the 2008-2009
Philippine Human Development Report.
15
Former Undersecretary Miguel Juan Luz
16
UNDP, The 2008-2009 Philippine Human Development Report
high school students are fit to enter college. The current basic education
curriculum does not provide a strong foundation in subjects such as math
and science, especially biology and chemistry17. Philippine formal basic
education is one of the shortest in the Asia Pacific, with just ten years of
basic schooling compared to the typical 12 years. Twelve years of basic
education is a key ingredient of good education.18

4. An Underfinanced Public Education and Poor Budget

Execution... Investment in Philippine education remains low. The Philippine
government allocated a derisory P 7,000 or $150 per child each year against
$890 in Thailand and $1,500 in Malaysia. Compared to Asian countries, the
Philippines has one of the lowest education budgets amounting to only 2.5
percent of the country’s gross domestic product. Malaysia and Thailand,
allocate 7.4 percent and 4.0 percent respectively. The share of the
Department of Education in the national budget has been a constant 13.0
percent from 1995 to 2008.

About 80 percent of the DEPED budget is allotted to teacher

salaries leaving very little fund left for infrastructure, and teachers’ training.
Apart from the country having the most crowded classrooms in Asia, more
than one-third of students attend schools with insufficient toilets. Teachers
and learning materials are also lacking. In 2006, there was a shortfall of
41.32 million textbooks as well as a shortage of 10,517 teachers all over the
country. Sadly, a significant number of public school teachers are not
teaching the subject they have learned. More than fifty percent (56 percent)
of those who teach biology are non-majors while 66 percent of those who
teach chemistry are also non-majors.

The irony however is that education finance not only suffers

from inadequacy but under-utilization of funds. The utilization rate of
the DEPED budget was estimated at only 93.0 percent in 2006 with P8.9
billion19 of unused appropriations. “Lapsed” appropriations, or those that
were unspent within two years were at P5.4 billion in 2006. Institutional
inefficiencies such as long and circuitous processes prevent the DEPED from

17
Statement of former Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus found in the article of Ibarra
Mateo and Yvonne Chua entitled “Elect an ‘education president’, urge school reform
advocates”.

18
Statement of Ramon Del Rosario Jr., chairman of the Philippine Business for Education.
This was found in the article of Ibarra Mateo and Yvonne Chua entitled “Elect an ‘education
president’, urge school reform advocates”.
19
Abby Sanglay and Yasuhiko Matsuda, “Institutional Bottlenecks in Budget Execution:
Cases of Basic Education Programs in the Philippines”, September, 2008. The authors
estimated utilization rate by dividing Total Actual Obligation by Total Available
Appropriations.
fully disbursing its budget to hire new teachers and build more classrooms.
Guidelines in the purchase of furniture and equipment were only released
during the latter part of the year. Sub-allotments from the central to the
implementing agencies in the field took a maximum of ten months to be
issued. It took 9 to 10 months before teachers can be deployed.

5. Poor Governance in a Rigid and Authoritative System.

Governance of DEPED suffers from the lack of transparency, accountability,
and broad-based participation. Instead of widely disseminating information
on NAT scores, DEPED has imposed bureaucratic and rigid procedures which
virtually restrict access to information on how well or poorly schools perform.
Instead of promoting broader participation in school management, DEPED
restricted membership to “Parent Teachers’ Association” to parents with
children enrolled in a school. PTAs used to be PTCA that invited greater
involvement of community members other than parents.20

The lack of transparency at DEPED contributes significantly to well-

documented cases of corruption in procurement. “Publishers and agents
revealed that bribery is still the norm in the awarding of contracts for
textbooks to schools divisions and to local school boards. Payoffs and perks
(including overseas trips for school officials) are prime considerations in the
purchase of textbooks for public schools. The amounts remain hefty from 15
to 30 percent for textbooks and from 40 to 55 percent for supplementary
materials. In 2001, the DepEd posted the biggest audit suspensions,
totalling P6.9 billion or a quarter of all audit suspensions.”21

The power that Superintendents exert over the purse and the
budget can explain why some of them resent greater oversight over how
resources are managed. Well meaning LGUs and NGOs have reported great
difficulties in expanding membership of the Local School Boards and making
budgeting of the Special Education Fund more participative. The resistance
of Superintendents is strengthened by the provisions of law that restrict
membership of SEF and vests the Local School Board with the power to
disburse the Special Education Fund without scrutiny of the local legislature.
One governor notes the lack of oversight makes the SEF budget especially
prone to corruption.

Superintendents have always been a reckoning force at DEPED,

more so with the decentralization of powers and responsibilities at the local
level. Superintendents wield enormous powers on promotion, recruitment,
and the purse. Without any accountability to local communities, they have
very little incentive to make decision-making participatory and transparent.
A case in point is the practice to download the MOOE allocation of P250.00
per student through Superintendents. While 23 division superintendents
20
DEPED order 54 s. 2009.
21
Yvonne T. Chua, “A Cleanup at the Top but Corruption in Field offices” <
agreed to do so, only five division superintendents actually did.22 Since LGUs
and principals have no knowledge of how much MOOE should go to individual
schools, there are no checks on MOOE disbursement. Double financing of
projects does occur with the LGU spending funds on projects that were
intended to be MOOE- financed. The worst part is the MOOE landing in
private pockets. “The traditional DEPED finance system allowed division
superintendents much flexibility and did not require an accounting of how
much of their budget was actually spent for particular schools.”23

School-based management was initially seen to make the system

transparent and participatory. However, participation from the community
remains nominal, symbolical, and limited to resource generation. Very few
local government officials and parents understand the crisis in education and
see them from the eyes of the Superintendents, and school officials. Mayor J.
Robredo of Naga City thought for example that everything went well because
the Superintendent reported that the city was first in achievement in the
division. It was only later when he found out that being first meant an
average score of 45 percent. Current restrictions on access to and use of
NAT scores will further limit the capability of the public to understand how
schools perform.

The Monroe survey in 1925 reported the “excessive centralized

control” of the education system. Today, the system remains highly
centralized which is impervious to “alternative educational principles,
creative processes and resourceful practices to the status quo”. Despite the
presence “of many experienced and insightful DEPED officials and staff with
reformist philosophical orientation and a deep sense of mission, their
position in the DEPED’s hierchical bureaucracy ….has rendered them
powerless to reform even the practices and mindsets within their turfs.”24

It could be that the DEPED has a perverse incentive system. School

officials are not rated based on how schools under their care perform.
Political patronage has a strong influence on their appointment and
promotion. Teachers are not spared from political interference since there
are reports that a certain number of new positions is allotted to members of
Congress as a quid pro quo for their pork barrel.

It was also observed that the DEPED seems to wholly rely on externally
induced reform. “The DepEd’s almost absolute dependence on the
implementation of foreign-assisted programs that have reform activities built
into pilot project components was clearly discernible in the last 20 years.

22
Human Development Network, Philippine Human Development Report, 2008/2009.
23
Ibid.
24
Human Development Network, Philippine Human Development Report, 2008/2009.
Thus, it seems that reform activities were undertaken only as the DepEd
moved from one foreign-assisted program to another.”25

6. Education Agenda

6.1. Education Governance. The poor performance of the

educational system is driven by bad governance. Genuine reforms
are only possible if governance is at the centre of the reform
program.

6.1.1. Transparency. At the very least, the DEPED budget, MOOE and
NAT scores of individual schools, bidding results, and prices of
major equipment and supplies must be posted and made
available through the web.

At the local level:

• Superintendents should provide governors, mayors, and

principals a copy of the MOOE per school for transparency
and for better budgeting.

• The ranking for promotion of

teachers/principals/supervisors and superintendents must
be made public.

6.1.2. Merit System. The incentive structure must reward

performance and discourage/sanction non-performance.
Performance of school officials should be measured in terms of
outcomes instead of inputs, i.e. improvement in completion
rates, and achievement levels, records of governance as
measured by a community report card system.

• Reserving or allocating new teaching positions for the

recommendees of Congressmen should stop.

• The assignment of Superintendents and Regional Directors

must be regularly rotated.

• School officials, including superintendents must be subject

to lifestyle check.

25
UNDP, The 2008-2009 Philippine Human Development Report
 6.1.3. Reinventing Local School Boards. Local School Boards must
be reinvented and made functional through an amendment of
the Local Government Code.. Membership in the board should
be expanded to include as many stakeholders who can share the
responsibility of providing quality education, e.g. business sector,
non-governmental organizations; academic community; alumni
associations, among others. The functions of the Board should
be broadened to include: 1) working with the local treasury and
assessment offices in implementing programs that will improve
collection and efficient disbursement of the Special Education
Fund tax; 2) formulating an SEF budget that reflects the
consensus of community members in education summits; 3)
drawing up and implementing non-traditional sources of
financing to support the learning system; 4) provision of
oversight on good governance of schools, 5) development of a
five-year basic Education Development Plan; 6) conducting
education summits at least once a year that will report to the
community progress in implementing education reforms and
consulting community members on issues on basic education;7)
development of a report card system where the performance of
the Local School Board, schools, officials, and parents in
education governance will be benchmarked with respect to
specific success indicators; and, 8) development of a
performance-based teacher incentive system that will be
financed by the SEF.

6.1.4. Devolution. The administration and governance of basic

education must gradually be devolved to community levels that26

meet performance standards. The DEPED’s responsibility should

include the design of the curriculum, standards setting, provision
of technical assistance, monitoring and evaluation. Local
divisions should be responsible for: 1) maintaining information-
openness and participation in developing a common LGU-DEPED
database of local education statistics and sources of school
funds; 2) conducting transparent and merit-based recruitment
and promotion; 3)maintaining parents’ desk in schools; 4)
participating in a report card system where community members
can express their observations and suggestions to improve
learning performance; 5) supporting greater community

26
Op. cit
 collaboration with community members in decision making on
school policies and programs. Local governments should be
responsible for : 1) allocating additional resources from the
General Fund to support quality basic education; 2) mobilizing
other resource from the local governments, e.g, Sangguniang
Bayan, Sangguniang Kabataan, and Sangguniang Barangay; 3)
reinventing Local School Boards; 4) promulgating ordinances that
will institutionalize reform processes in improving governance of
education; and 5) and construction and maintenance of schools

6.2. Structure of Basic Education. Since the view of quality education

must be holistic, it is of utmost importance to “build all parts of the
system to address different objectives”27:

• For Pre-school through Grades 1-3: Focus on making every child

a reader in both English and Filipino with a good foundation in
arithmetic
• For Grades 4-7: Focus on equipping them with higher order
thinking and learning skills, including a strong foundation in
science (e.g. an inquisitive mind)
• Junior High School (First to Third Year): Teach core subjects that
are fundamental to life-long learning and will provide a well-
rounded education – English and Filipino communication skills,
general and specific sciences, mathematics (algebra and
trigonometry), social studies, history and geography of the
Philippines and the World.
• Senior High School (Fourth to Fifth Year): A complete set of
electives in three streams of study which students (and parents)
can select based on their own life objectives
• For those interested in going on to university: College
preparatory electives in all five core subjects. (College placement
exams could be administered. Those passing specific tests could
be exempted from taking those general education subjects later
in college. This would be significant and real savings for parents.)
• For those desiring to work or set up their own enterprises:
Business electives including accounting, economics, marketing,
packaging, etc.
• For those looking to work in an agricultural setting: Agri-business
electives include farming, fishing, forestry and fishpond
technologies.

27
Juan Miguel Luz, “To be Competitive, We need a 12-Year Basic Education Cycle”. The Road to Quality Education
(Philippine Business for Education), June 2008.
 6.2.1. Pre-School Education. We need a much organized effort to
get all children ready for school by age six by funding and
organizing a wide variety of early childhood care and
development interventions at homes, communities, and
institutions. DEPED and DSWD should work together in
formulating an early childhood curriculum, defining standards for
recruitment of teachers for pre-school education; and developing
templates for training programs that can be implemented at the
local level. The DILG and the League of Local Governments
should mobilize barangays and NGOs that provide early-child
care education in adopting the curriculum and in training
teachers. This initiative will cost around Php 41.4 billion and if
done incrementally over the next four years, it will cost from 9.6
to 11.1 billion a year. In the absence of new funds, pres-school
education can be financed by the pork barrel.

6.2.2. Lengthening the Basic Education Program. No consensus

was reached with respect to lengthening the basic education
cycle from 10 to 12 years. The Presidential Task Force for
Education chaired by Fr. Bienvenido Nebres stresses that
increasing basic education from ten to twelve years will only
benefit the 20 percent to 30 percent of those who enter Grade 1
and eventually go to post-secondary education. Statistics show
that only 20 percent to 30 percent of those entering Grade 1
goes to post-secondary level. Over 30 percent of those who
enter Grade 1 does not finish Grade 6, and over 50 percent of
those who enter Grade 1 does not finish high school. “The more
fundamental concern should be the 70 percent t0 80 percent
who does not go on to post-secondary education. They must be
provided with “resources and interventions to improve
participation rate, retention rate and academic achievement28.”
Due to the enormity of the challenges for elementary and
secondary education, adding two more years should not get the
highest high priority. If the addition of two years is the concern,
the recommendation of the Presidential Task Force is “to address
the needs of specific programs that require additional years for
international recognition specifically Engineering, Architecture
and Accountancy.
28
Fr. Bienvenido Nebres S.J., “Roundtable Discussion: Education Agenda” on January 20,
2010.
 The Philippine Business for Education (PBEd) considers that the
highest priority should be given to expanding the basic education
cycle from ten to twelve years. Cramming what should
be learned into ten years instead of twelve29 results into a
smorgasbord of lessons and little or poor learning by our
children. The country has the shortest education cycle preparatory
to university compared to its Asian neighbours – “10 years (6
years elementary plus 4 years secondary) versus 13 in
Singapore and Brunei; 12 in Malaysia, Thailand, Indonesia, and
Vietnam; and 11 in Cambodia, Laos and Myanmar.”30 The global norm
according to UNESCO is 12 years of basic education. The
expanded 12-year cycle will enable students who do not have
any interest to go on to university to have sufficient basic
education to prepare them for the world of work. “At 18 years of age,
high school graduates should have the tools and the emotional and
mental maturity that would make them better prepared for work
than 16 year olds graduating under a 10-year cycle.”

6.2.3 Medium of Instruction. We must have effective mother

language education to achieve early mastery of literacy skills
before children transition to national and English language
education. In the span of eight decades, studies have constantly
recommended the usage of native, local, mother or the child’s
language. DepEd however has completely ignored the plethora
of international and local research that asserts that “good
language abilities will broker good learning since systems that
are already in place in the child’s cognitive makeup mediate the
learning of a subject matter”. Simply put, use of a child’s native
language as the medium of instruction enhances retention and
learning in the early years.31

6.2.4 Evaluation of Performance. An independent and credible body

for testing, assessment and research must be organized.

6.2.5 Alternative Learning System. The development and funding

of large scale, nonformal basic education system in ARMM and
disadvantaged communities must be in the agenda of reform for
education instead of being the repository of residual resources.

29
Juan Miguel Luz, “To be Competitive, We Need a 12-Year Basic Education Cycle”. The Road
to Quality Education (Philippine Business for Education), June 2008
30
Ibid.
31
UNDP, op. cit
 6.3. Efficiency in the Delivery of Education.

6.3.1. Sustaining the Conditional Cash Transfer. The Pantawid

Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) “provides conditional cash
grants32 to extremely poor households to improve their health,
nutrition and education particularly of children aged 0-14.”
Target households receive P500.00 as health and nutrition grant
andP300.00 per child as an education grant, on a monthly basis.
The cash transfer is made after compliance to specific conditions
such as 85 percent attendance of children in school, and regular
preventive health check-ups of mother and children. The CCT has
proved successful in reducing poverty in Latin America and
African countries.

The CCT should be seen as mechanism to reduce dropout rates

and improve completion rates in basic education. It should be
part of the regular budget of the central government.

6.3.2. Streamlining Systems in the Procurement of Goods and

Services. Significant reduction in delays in procurement and
appointment of teachers at DEPED are possible through timely
implementation of guidelines, reduction in the number of
signatories, elimination of steps in appointment of teachers, e.g.
attestation of CSC of teacher-candidates since significant reviews
have previously been made33, building in-house capacity of
procurement and disbursing officers; improvement in record
keeping, and devolution of school construction to local
governments and principals.

32
Department of Social Welfare and Development, “4Ps Concept Paper for MCC”, January 21,
2009.
33
Sanglay and Matsuda, op. cit.