Data Capacity Assessment Philippines-Mindanao FINAL REPORT PDF

EdData II
Task Order 11
Information for Education Policy,
Planning, and Management in the
Philippines
EdData II Technical and Managerial Assistance, Task Number 11

Contract Number AID-641-BC-11-00001-00
Strategic Objective 3
RTI Project No. 09354.011
May 2011
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by RTI International.
Task Order 11
Information for Education Policy,
Planning, and Management in the
Philippines
Prepared for
Bureau for Economic Growth, Agriculture and Trade (EGAT/ED), United States Agency
for International Development (USAID); and USAID/Philippines
Prepared by
Joseph DeStefano, Victor Levine, and Abhijit Nimbalkar
RTI International
3040 Cornwallis Road
Post Office Box 12194
Research Triangle Park, NC 27709-2194
RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.
The authors views expressed in this publication do not necessarily reflect the views of
the United States Agency for International Development or the United States
Government.
Acknowledgments
This study was conducted and the paper authored by Joseph DeStefano, Ed Data II project staff
and team leader; Victor Levine, Consultant; and Abhijit Nimbalkar, Ed Data II project staff. The
work was funded by the Ed Data II project of USAID. The work could not have been
accomplished without the collaboration and dedicated effort of Mirshariff Tillah, Aivan Leo
Amit, Maritoni Oanes and Shannon Stone of USAID/Philippines. Equally important were the
contributions of numerous officials of Filipino government agencies who were generous with
their time, frank and open in their discussions, and amicable and hospitable in their interactions
with our team. Colleagues from several development agencies and from nongovernmental
organizations (NGOs) and education projects based in Manila also provided vital help and
information to our team.
EdData II TO 11Information for Education Policy, Planning, and Management in the Philippines iii
Contents
Acknowledgments ........................................................................................................... iii
Acronyms ........................................................................................................................vi
1. Introduction ................................................................................................................ 1
2. Context ...................................................................................................................... 2
2.1 Overview of the Education Sector ................................................................... 3
2.2 USG Programming in Education ..................................................................... 7
2.3 Other Development Partners........................................................................... 8
3. Main Findings .......................................................................................................... 10
3.1 Availability and Use of Data .......................................................................... 10
3.2 Adequacy of Data and Data Systems ........................................................... 16
4. Recommendations to USAID and the Government of the Philippines ..................... 17
4.1 Recommendations for DepEd ....................................................................... 18
Recommendation 1: Analysis of use of resources in DepEd high-
priority divisions................................................................................. 18
Recommendation 2: Promoting dialogue around the implications and
requirements of K+12 ........................................................................ 19
Recommendation 3: Support NETRC in the management and use of
assessment data ............................................................................... 19
4.2 Recommendations for TESDA ...................................................................... 21
Recommendation 4: Improve the systematization of TESDA data
collection ........................................................................................... 21
Recommendation 5: Support improvements in TESDAs impact study
methodology ..................................................................................... 21
Recommendation 6: Assist TESDA in the development and
implementation of the PNQF ............................................................. 22
4.3 Recommendations for CHED ........................................................................ 22
Recommendation 7: Improve the systematization of CHED data
collection ........................................................................................... 23
Recommendation 8: Support analytical work that helps promote
rationalization of the provision of higher education ........................... 23
Recommendation 9: Assist in the development of a normative
funding model.................................................................................... 23
5. Detailed Findings on the Use of Data ...................................................................... 25
5.1 Use of Data in the National Policy and Priority Setting Process .................... 25
Role of Civil Society ................................................................................. 27
5.2 Use of Data in the Department of Education Priority Setting and Policy
Process ......................................................................................................... 29
Treatment of Mindanao and ARMM ......................................................... 31
5.3 Use of Data in the TEVT Priority Setting and Policy Process ........................ 32
5.4 Use of Data in the CHED Priority Setting and Policy Process ....................... 34
EdData II TO 11Information for Education Policy, Planning, and Management in the Philippines iv
6. Detailed Findings on Selected Specific Data Systems............................................. 36
6.1 Basic Education Information System ............................................................ 36
6.2 Assessment................................................................................................... 43
6.3 Data on Teaching and Learning Materials .................................................... 48
6.4 TESDA Data Systems on TVET Programs and Students ............................. 49
6.5 CHED Data Systems on Higher Education ................................................... 52
6.6 Human Resources Data in DepEd ................................................................ 54
6.7 Household Surveys ....................................................................................... 54
6.8 Employment and Labor-Related Surveys ...................................................... 55
6.9 Finance Data ................................................................................................. 55
6.10 The National Context for Data and Statistics................................................. 57
Bibliography .................................................................................................................. 58
EdData II TO 11Information for Education Policy, Planning, and Management in the Philippines v
Acronyms
ADB Asian Development Bank
AFP Armed Forces of the Philippines
ALS Alternative Learning System
ARMM Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
AusAID Australian Agency for International Development
BEAM Basic Education Assistance for Mindanao (project)
BEIS Basic Education Information System
BEPER Basic Education Public Expenditure Review
BESRA Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda
CDCS Country Development Cooperation Strategy
CHED Commission for Higher Education
CSO civil society organization
DBM Department of Budget Management
DOLE Department of Labor and Employment
DepEd Department of Education
EBEIS Enhanced BEIS
ECD early childhood development
EFA Education for All
EVS Education Voucher System
FAPE Fund for Assistance to Private Education
E-NET Education Network
ESC Education Service Contracts
FIES Family Income and Expenditure Survey
GDP gross domestic product
HR human resources
HRIS Human Resources Information System
JICA Japan International Cooperation Agency
IAC Interagency Committee
ILO International Labor Organization
IMCS Instructional Materials Council Secretariat
ISCED International Standard Classification of Education
LGU Local Government Unit
MDGs Millennium Development Goals
MOOE Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
MTEF Medium Term Expenditure Framework
MTPDP Medium-Term Philippines Development Plan
NAT National Achievement Test
NC National Certificate
NCAE National Career Assessment Examination
NCES National Center for Education Statistics (US Department of Education)
NCR National Capital Region
EdData II TO 11Information for Education Policy, Planning, and Management in the Philippines vi
NEDA National Economic and Development Authority
NETRC National Education Testing and Research Center
NGO nongovernmental organization
NSCB National Statistical Coordination Board
NSO National Statistics Office
NTESDP National Technical Education and Skills Development Plan
PBEd Philippines Business for Education
PCR percent of correct responses
PDF Philippines Donor Forum
PDP Philippines Development Plan
PER Public Expenditure Review
PIDS Philippines Institute for Development Studies
PNQF Philippines National Qualifications Framework
PSDP Philippine Statistical Development Program
PSS Philippines Statistical System
QMS Quality Management System
SEF Special Education Fund
SPED special education
TDIS Training and Development Information System
TESDA Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
TIMSS Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
TOP Taxonomy of Programs
TVET Technical and Vocational Education and Training
UIS unified information system
UNICEF United Nations International Childrens Education Fund
USAID United States Agency for International Development
USG U.S. Government
EdData II TO 11Information for Education Policy, Planning, and Management in the Philippines vii
1. Introduction
The U.S. Agency for International Development (USAID) is placing increased emphasis on
evidence and data based programming and reporting. USAID country offices are being urged to
develop five year strategies that rely on sound, empirical evidence to support programming
decisions. And the Agency is increasing its capacity to report to Congress and higher levels of
the executive branch on both the achievements of USAID programs and the development
progress of the countries receiving assistance. At the same time, Congress and USAID, in line
with the global consensus codified in the Paris Principles, are committed to aligning
development assistance to a country-owned set of priorities and plans, harmonizing and
coordinating external partners contributions to those priorities and plans, using a countrys own
systems for sector management, and requiring greater accountability for tangible results. In this
context, USAID has called on the Education Data for Decision Making (EdData II) project to
develop and pilot a sound technical approach to assessing how well a countrys own data
systems serve the following purposes:
Informing and supporting the development and implementation of the countrys
education sector policies, plans and strategies,
Providing the basis for coordinating and aligning external assistance and development
partners activities in support of the education sector,
Underpinning the development of USAIDs five year Country Development Cooperation
Strategy (CDCS), and
Producing data to report on progress in the education sector, including evaluating and
reporting on the outcomes and impacts of USAID assistance.
This report presents the results of applying the EdData II projects Data Capacity Assessment
framework and methodology to the Philippines, with special attention to the island of Mindanao.
The core concern of the Data Capacity Assessment is understanding the extent to which good
data are serving each countrys policy, planning, management and evaluation processes, and also
serving USAIDs (and other development partners) efforts to support a countrys plans.
Therefore, the framework begins with an approach to analyzing how data are used during high-
level aspects of education sector decision-making. The Data Capacity Assessment also examines
the degree to which production and use of data are systematized features of education sector
management and assistance programming. In addition, the assessment evaluates the content,
timeliness, reliability, and utility of a broad cross-section of data systems related to education.
The assessment reveals the specific strengths and weaknesses of the existing information systems
and concludes by recommending how USAID investments could improve education-related
information systems.
EdData II TO 11Information for Education Policy, Planning, and Management in the Philippines 1
2. Context
The Philippines has recently experienced relatively high rates of economic growth, an improved
government fiscal situation, emerging positive trends in business confidence, increased
investment in education, greater attention to the reduction of poverty and inequality, and
introduction of progressive reforms to the military and police forces. Despite recent progress, the
Philippines falls short of fulfilling its development potential. Growth has not attained a high
enough level to raise real incomes and reduce poverty. Forty percent of the population is
estimated to still live on less than $2.00 per day. The poorest areas of the country are
concentrated on the southern island of Mindanao, where as much of 70% of the population lives
in poverty. Armed conflict, violent crime and clan-based feuds exacerbate the disadvantages
confronting Mindanao. 1 The Muslim Filipino population is concentrated in this area, adding to a
sense of separateness from the rest of the country.
U.S. Government (USG) assistance aims to help the Philippines become a more prosperous,
well-governed and stable democracy this is able to meet the needs of its people, especially the
poor. 2 Pursuit of this objective in part requires both reduced conflict in Mindanao and improved
economic and social well-being of people residing there. This area of the Philippines has the
highest incidence of poverty and human development challenges. Criminal and terrorist activity
in Mindanao hampers development. The situation has improved somewhat in recent years, with a
suspension of offensive military operations by the Armed Forces of the Philippines (AFP) since
July 2009. However, as recently as 2008 there were as many as 60,000 internally displaced
families in the areas of Mindanao most affected by open conflict. The AFP, in addition to
securing vital public and private installations and businesses, supports local authorities in
implementing numerous pro-poor and development projects in Mindanao. Some target the
Muslim population of the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), such as the
Special Advocacy for Literacy/Livelihood Advancement for Muslims. 3
Mirroring the priority which the USG accords Mindanao within its overall strategy for the
Philippines, this Data Capacity Assessment also pays particular attention to the regions included
in that part of the country. The significance of the challenges facing the regions in Mindanao can
best be understood in comparison to the rest of the country. Therefore, the Data Capacity
Assessment evaluates the quality and use of national data systems, with particular attention to
how those systems treat the regions that make up Mindanao. Within those, the ARMM has
special status as an autonomous governing authority. Therefore, the assessment also ascertains
and evaluates the extent to which ARMM is developing and using its own education-related data
systems.
USAID/Philippines is in the process of revising its country assistance strategy. A new five year
Country Development Cooperation Strategy is being prepared and will be released before the
1
USG Country Assistance Strategy 2009-2013.
2
Ibid.
3
AFP briefing materials, Sept. 2010.
end of the current U.S. fiscal year. This strategy may include significant shifts in the focus of
USAIDs assistance, in particular in the education sector. Workforce development assistance
targeting technical and vocation education and training and/or higher education linked to the
Philippines economic growth strategies may play a more prominent role in the Agencys country
strategy. With that in mind, the Data Capacity Assessment includes analysis of data availability
and use in relation to policy making, management, and implementation monitoring in the
technical/vocation and higher education sub-sectors.
2.1 Overview of the Education Sector

As a result of the Philippines Congressional Commission on Education recommendation in the
early 1990s, the education sector in the Philippines is tri-focalized. The sector is divided into
three distinct sub-sectors, each governed by a different entity. The Department of Education
(DepEd) is responsible for basic education, which includes early childhood education and public
elementary and secondary schools. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA) is the governing body that oversees both public and private, post-secondary technical
and vocational education and training (TVET). The Commission for Higher Education (CHED)
oversees state (meaning national) and local degree granting universities and colleges as well as
all private higher education institutions.
Basic Education: The basic education system in the Philippines is vast with over 13 million
pupils enrolled in almost 45,000 elementary schools and 8,450 secondary schools serving 6.5
million students. Elementary schools are almost exclusively public, while 52% of secondary
schools are private (but accounting for only 21% of enrollment). Public basic education in the
Philippines is free. DepEd works to ensure that fees are not imposed, running media campaigns
each year to remind everyone that no fees should be collected for their child to attend school.
Families do incur a variety of indirect expenses associated with having their children enrolled in
school. DepEd is concerned about those cost barriers as well, for example, instituting a new
policy that makes school uniforms optional.
Education has consistently been underfinanced, especially when comparing the Philippines to
other countries in Southeast Asia. Progress towards Education for All has been steady and access
to elementary and secondary schooling is near universal. However, net enrollment rates for
elementary education have reached a plateau in recent years, and secondary gross enrollment
rates have begun to decline, especially for boys. The average scores on the National
Achievement Test (NAT) for both elementary and secondary students fall well below what is
defined as mastery of subject matter. Dropout rates in some parts of the country are unacceptably
high. Urban-rural and regional disparities in access, dropout, completion and learning outcomes
are pronounced.
The recently completed Basic Education Public Expenditure Review (BEPER) characterizes the
basic education subsector as having deteriorating/stagnating performance. Primary and
secondary net enrollment rates are essentially unchanged during the last seven years. Completion
rates have increased only modestly in the past five years, and the rate of transition for students
from primary to secondary actually declined in 2004 and 2005, but has since increased. The
public expenditure review highlights the regional disparities evident in access and completion for
both primary and secondary education. Disparities in access for households at different ends of
the income distribution are apparent in elementary education, but are most pronounced for
secondary. 4
System performancein terms of access, dropout, completion, and learningis poorest in the
schools on Mindanao. DepEd ranked divisions in the country according to enrollment,
completion, dropout and NAT scores in order to identify the lowest performing, and therefore
highest priority locations. Of the 40 highest priority divisions, 25 are on Mindanao. The six
lowest performing/highest priority divisions are in ARMM. In addition, the education system in
ARMM includes both schools that follow the national curriculum and use English and Filipino as
the media of instruction and sectarian, privately run Madaris that teach in Arabic and provide
Islamic religious instruction. Students attend Madaris on the weekends and may also be enrolled
in regular public school during the week.
The new administration accords a high priority to education. The budget for the current year
includes a 19% increase for the sector, an unprecedented jump in funding. Effort and resources
continue to be committed to achieving the EFA goals, with most resources being allocated to
expanding access. In addition, the Department of Educations reform agenda aims to bring the
education system more in line with international standards by adding two years to what has been
a 10-year basic education cycle. The government also intends to improve early childhood
education by adding universal kindergarten to basic education. The curriculum reforms, logistic
and infrastructure demands, and resource requirements of these reforms will place significant
strains on the sector for several years.
The recently completed BEPER found that the education sector is consistently underfunded.
Education funding as a percent of gross domestic product (GDP) has declined continuously from
1998 through 2008 and per pupil funding in real terms has declined during that time by 8%. The
report attributes these declines to a decreasing priority for education (which the recent increased
allocation may countervail), poor budget execution and population growth. Within DepEds
budget, the BEPER found that allocations have been rebalanced to align with the sectors needs
(namely away from personal services and more into maintenance and other operating expenses
essentially giving more resources to the local/school level). However, budget execution has been
inefficient, lessening the impact of any increases in allocation that have occurred. Additionally,
while DepEd has adopted policies that would more equitably take into account local government
units ability to raise revenue for education, analysis of allocations to regions does not
demonstrate a systematic attempt to balance national and local resources. 5
TVET: This subsector serves close to two million students in a large variety of training
programs and settings. TESDA uses its national training regulations to set standards for and
monitor delivery of TVET. In 2009 there were 4,041 training providers with TEDSA registered
4
Information on the BEPER is drawn from the World Bank/AusAID PowerPoint summary shared with the capacity
assessment team in April 2011.
5
Also drawn from the BEPER summary PowerPoint.
programs, of which 90% were private. Public TVET is delivered through secondary schools
(which are under the purview of DepEd), TESDA training centers, state and local universities
and local government-run programs. TESDA itself manages 126 training centers and has 17
regional and 86 provincial offices. Overall, public and privately provided training occurs in
formal school settings, training centers, non-formal programs, enterprise-based and community-
based programs, with most training being delivered though community run programs.
The majority of institutions and settings, public and private, through which training is being
provided are informal in nature, which makes systematic assessment of quality difficult.
Employers indicate that they have difficulties finding applicants with the right skills to fill jobs,
and identify poor links to industry, fields of study and low quality facilities as some of the
weaknesses of vocational schools. 6 TESDA is charged with the ongoing registration,
governance, and regulation of training programs, whether public or private. This involves
monitoring adherence to minimum standards, but should also include measures of training
effectiveness and external efficiency (notably, placement of graduates in jobs in the field for
which they are trained). A move to a competency-based TVET system by TESDA is intended to
more directly evaluate the acquisition of specific skill competencies as a way to monitor learner
progression through training and training output. In 2009, 1.9 million students graduated from
TVET programs. Less than 50% were formally assessed, of which 83% were certified in their
respective fields. But, that means only 36% of the graduates that year were certified. It is not
clear why more than half the graduates do not participate in the assessment that would provide
them certification. Available data indicate that only about 45% of TVET graduates were
employed one year after graduating, without indication of whether that employment was in the
field for which they were trained. 7
The coexistence of publicly and privately funded institutions and programs raises some critical
issues for this subsector, such as how the state can best make us of its resources. A large share of
TESDA funding goes to provincial and regional centers and TESDA-administered schools. Since
the state offers subsidized training (i.e., at less cost than private training), of primary concern
should be whether state funding of public institutions is used to assure equity in access to TVET.
Likewise, the state uses the provision of scholarships to orient students and institutions to certain
training/skills areas. Scholarships are allocated on the basis of need, for example the Private
Education Student Financial Assistance program distributes scholarships based on part on the
provincial poverty index. However, analysis of the benefit incidence of such programs is not
available. Private funding is spent on privately provided training. To no surprise, companies
direct their resources to their own training programs. 8 Thus, the funding and provision of TVET
is effectively segmentedpublicly run programs are primarily publically funded, and private
programs are privately funded.
6
World Bank, Skills for the Labor Market in the Philippines, 2010, p. 95; pp. 137-140.
7
TESDA, Impact Evaluation Study of TVET Programs, 2008, pp 13-14.
8
World Bank, Skills for the Labor Market in the Philippines, 2010, pp. 172-174.
More than a quarter of the TVET institutions in the country are in Metro Manila. Eighteen% are
located in Mindanao. There were 453,250 TVET graduates in the six regions of Mindanao in
2009. Of these, 142,336 were assessed, and 79% of those received certification in their skill area.
This represents only a quarter of the graduates that year. ARMM has the lowest TVET
enrollment, graduation and certification rate of any region.
Higher Education: Higher education, like TVET, is dominated by private providers. In fact, the
Philippines has one of the highest rates of private sector participation in higher education in the
world. 9 Of the 1,792 higher education institutions in the Philippines, over 1,500 are private,
serving about 61% of students. If all satellite campuses of state universities and colleges are
counted, then the total number of institutions reaches 2,180. 10 The public higher education sector
is divided among state universities and colleges (national institutions), local universities and
colleges, and a small number of other institutions. Over the past 10 years, the highest rate of
growth has been among local colleges and universities; their number has almost doubled from 40
to 79 since 2000. The number of satellite campuses of state universities and colleges has also
increased by about 50% during that time period. 11 The proliferation of local higher education
institutions, in particular in the public sector, raises critical issues regarding the role of CHED in
the licensing, accreditation and monitoring of quality.
Private sector institutions include the sectarian (about 20% of private sector) and non-sectarian.
The former are non-profit, and have small student-teacher ratios, selective admissions, high
tuition fees and funding from religious organizations. Non-sectarian institutions are for profit and
have large student-teacher ratios, less selective admissions and lower tuition fees. 12 Growth in
the private sector in the past 10 years has been among these non-sectarian colleges and
universities in response to increasing demand for higher education. This has raised additional
issues concerning quality control.
To address issues of quality, CHED promulgates policies, standards and guidelines for higher
education programs and is the official granter of permits or licenses to qualified institutions for
operation of programs that meet minimum standards. A total of 1,252 permits/recognition
certificates were issued by the regional offices of CHED in 2009. CHED also nominates and
provides support to 72 centers of excellence and 110 centers of development. These are
institutions that serve as models and resource centers for higher education institutions throughout
the country. Private institutions that are recognized for academic excellence and effective
management are granted autonomous status. As of 2009, 44 institutions met the criteria for
autonomous designation. Further efforts at quality control being pursued by CHED include a
process for institutional quality assurance through monitoring and evaluation and systematic
9
Ibid. pp. 144.
10
CHED data.
11
CHED data.
12
World Bank, Skills for the Labor Market in the Philippines, 2010 p. 144.
management of a formal process for accreditation. Data from 2009 indicate that only 20% of
higher education institutions have accredited programs. 13
In addition to concerns about quality, CHED accords priority to ensuring equity in access to
higher education. Financial assistance is offered to poor, deserving students, but only about 2%
of enrollees receive financial aid scholarships. Alternative models of learning are another avenue
through which access to higher education is being expanded to otherwise disadvantaged groups.
A tertiary equivalency accreditation program allows students to demonstrate knowledge and
skills acquired through other means, and in so doing obtain higher education credit. However,
only a very small number of students have taken advantage of this opportunity; in 2009, there
were 1,814 graduates from the program. 14 The introduction of ladderized 15 programs in higher
education have also made it possible for TVET students to transfer into colleges and universities
at various entry points and obtain academic credit for their completed training courses. From
2006 through 2008, there were 1,269 students in ladderized programs. 16
Higher education availability in Mindanao mirrors the rest of the country, with non-sectarian
private institutions making up the majority of higher education provision in the six regions.
There are some state universities or colleges in each of the six regions (a total of 27), but far
more satellite campuses located in Mindanao (82). Only a few local universities or colleges are
identified by CHED, a total of 12 in the six regions. There are almost 400 private higher
education institutions spread across the six regions of Mindanao. 17
2.2 USG Programming in Education

In education, USG assistance is targeted to improving access to basic education for children in
high-poverty zones and conflict-affected areas, particularly focusing on reducing the dropout rate
of school-age boys. Assistance is also designed to enhance the quality of instruction and support
underserved regions by developing better education governance, improving local government
capacity, increasing parental and teacher involvement in schools, and reinforcing supportive
community structures. In FY10, USG education programming reached 331,113 students from 37
municipalities and 4 cities in the three regions of ARMM, Western Mindanao, and Central
Mindanao.
Two small additional components were initiated in FY10: A pilot madrassah (Islamic schools)
program was launched for 21 schools to mainstream their curriculum to that of DepEd national
standards, and a book distribution program with a local group to provide all USG-supported
schools with dictionaries. A pilot host country-contracted initiative for typhoon-affected schools
was also started in FY10.
13
All data in this paragraph are based on the 2009 CHED Annual Report.
14
2009 CHED Annual Report.
15
Ladderized programs allow students who began their studies in TVET institutions to obtain credit for the courses
they have completed and transfer into higher education institutions.
16
TESDA, Current TVET Data and Related Statistics 2005-2009.
17
From CHED website, Mapping of Higher Education Institutions by Region and Province (August 2010).
USAIDs education program includes partnerships with the private sector through its Global
Development Alliances with Microsoft Philippines for computer literacy training for teachers;
Brothers Brother Foundation for the book distribution program; Petron Foundation for the
school building and classroom refurbishment program; and National Book Store Foundation for
the dictionary distribution program. The partnerships with other USG agencies include the US
Peace Corps for English language training for teachers from Mindanao, and the Joint Special
Operations Task Force in the Philippines for books and materials distribution to areas usually
inaccessible to implementing partners.
Recently, USAID/Philippines began considering how to expand its support for education beyond
basic education and outside the regional focus on Mindanao.
2.3 Other Development Partners

The major funding agencies providing support to the education sector are AusAID, the Japan
International Cooperation Agency (JICA), and USAID. In addition, the World Bank and Asian
Development Bank (ADB) extend substantial loans to support education, and the World Bank
provides analytical advisory services to the government, co-chairing the Philippine Development
Forum with the Department of Finance. Japanese assistance takes the form of grants targeting
poverty alleviation and capacity development and loans for school construction. AusAID, the
World Bank and UNICEF provide financial and technical support for the governments Basic
Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), participating in annual planning and review
meetings with DepEd. AusAID is also supporting enhancements to critical DepEd information
systems and is implementing a program for out-of-school youth. In addition to the resources it
contributes to BESRA, the World Bank underwrites and contributes to several important
reports/studies that concern the education sectore.g., a Public Expenditure Review for
education, an analysis of K12 financing, and a study of DepEds contracting for education
services, as well as employer surveys and other background papers on TVET and higher
education. The ADB also provides support to TESDA and the TVET sector. In addition, both
AusAID and the ADB have projects targeting educational improvements in Mindanao and
ARMM.
Civil society organizations (CSOs) are extremely active in the education sector in the
Philippines. The Government supports formal outreach activities to encourage CSO engagement
in policy dialogue and the Department of Budget Management has recently instituted new
procedures that invite CSO participation in the all stages of the budget process. The Philippines
Development Forum (PDF) brings together government, development partner, civil society,
academe, private sector, and legislative representatives. The Development Forum includes a
working group on Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and social progress, with a sub-
working group on education.
It was not possible to develop a list or count of education CSOs; however, there was evidence
that the network is extremely large. The Philippines Institute of Development Studies (PIDS)
maintains a roster of stakeholders organized by sector interests. PIDS organizes regular
engagements with stakeholder groups, particularly as it develops its research agenda. Social
Watch Philippines is an umbrella organization for 66 NGOs, many with a strong interest in
education.
There is also strong corporate engagement in the education sector. For example, the DepEd
Adopt-a-School program institutionalizes public-private partnerships between businesses and
schools. On a grander scale, the Philippines Business for Education (PBEd) is an umbrella and
advocacy group for the business community. In addition to advocacy, the organization mobilizes
private sector funding for education, including a scholarship program for prospective teachers
and a classroom building fund. Other CSOs, such as Synergeia Foundation, receive substantial
financial support from the private sector to support education.
The academic community is extremely vocal and active in civil society and this is role is
encouraged. Again, it is common for academics to move between senior government and
academic positions.
There is an education working group within the PDF which includes education development
partners, but it does not necessarily operate as a formalized Local Education Group. At present,
the education donor group meets irregularly, but there are plans to strengthen coordination
through more regular meetings chaired by DepEd. The PDF serves as a broader Paris Principle-
based venue for alignment, harmonization and coordination. In addition, the regular meetings
associated with the management and review of progress of BESRA also provides an opportunity
for stakeholder consultation regarding basic education. BESRA reviews tend to focus on
implementation of the specific activities being supported with funding from the participating
Agencies. This includes progress in implementing school-based management, awarding of
school grants, use of school report cards, the development of teacher competency-based
performance standards, establishment of learning resource centers, and a few others. Data
assembled for the implementation review reflect implementation progress (are more akin to
monitoring and evaluation) rather than measurement of the outputs, outcomes or impacts of
activities.
3. Main Findings
3.1 Availability and Use of Data
A stated in the introduction, this data capacity assessment aims to evaluate the extent to which
good data are supporting the Philippiness education policy, planning, management and
evaluation processes. Our findings in this regarding can be summarized in the following six
points:
1. A wealth of data is available and is used to guide government-wide decision-making,
priority setting, resource allocation and planning.
2. Decision-making, priority setting and planning in basic education are limited more by the
overarching sector development framework than by data availability.
3. TVET and higher education rely heavily on private institutions to assure delivery of
education and training and are therefore more institution than policy driven. Institutions
open and offer programs in response to demand or to public and private initiative, not
necessarily as manifestations of any particular policy priority within the sector.
4. All three parts of the education sector have data to support many key features of policy,
planning and management, but in all cases the data systems are severely limited. This is
in contrast to the national economic and planning related data systems (point 1 above). In
fact, existing education data systems are surprisingly rudimentary in their structure and
functionality for a country at this level of development.
5. Key concerns about efficiency in resource use, factors impacting learning outcomes,
equity and quality assurance cannot be addressed because of the limitations of the
existing data and data systems.
6. National data systems do allow regional disaggregation. Planning for and management of
the education sector in the six regions that make up Mindanao is informed by the national
data sources.
7. Current DepEd data systems with some modifications could provide information to track
and report on the impact of USAID assistance. Those in use in the TVET and higher
education sectors would need to be more substantially improved before they could be
relied on.
What follows is a brief discussion of each of these points. Section 4 presents a set of
recommendations for how USAID could strategically support improved data availability and use
in the education sector in the Philippines. Section 5 provides detailed analysis of the use of data
at the macro planning level and within each of the education sub-sectors. Section 6 assesses the
nature and quality of several key data systems.
1. A wealth of data is available and is used to guide government-wide decision-making, priority
setting, resource allocation and planning.
The National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA) and the Department of Budget
Management (DBM) develop the macro-financing framework that sets out the parameters for the
overall government budget and allocations to individual sectors. Revenue projections and policy
priorities are aligned to define the fiscal space available to each sector. Sound data underpin
these estimates and detailed regular household surveys allow equity and poverty issues to be
raised and addressed in overall and sector-specific planning. Full household surveys are
conducted approximately every two years, with some limited data collected in the intervening
periods. In particular levels of poverty, access to services and other key parameters are used to
highlight regions and sub-regions in the country that need to be targeted by poverty alleviation
strategies or for improved delivery of key services such as education.
Household surveys provide reliable geographic disaggregation only down to the provincial level
and for a few major metropolitan areas. Household-related measures are applied to census data to
generate poverty estimates down to the Barangay (local level). The most recent education
statistics still rely on 2000 population data. High levels of internal migration skew the census
data, particularly this far out from the baseline year. In areas of Mindanao, instability and
internal displacement of people further compromise the reliability of population data. The results
of the 2010 census are being finalized, so a much more reliable estimate of population and
population-related education indicators should be available this year.
A wealth of additional research and data analysis is also available from both internal sources, for
example the Philippines Institute of Development Studies (affiliated within the national planning
agency, NEDA), as well as from development partner-funded studies and activities. For example,
the World Bank has recently completed a Public Expenditure Review (PER) of overall
government expenditure as well as a second Basic Education PER. 18
2. Decision-making, priority setting and planning in basic education are limited more by the
overarching sector development framework than by data availability.
The EFA and MDGs form the overarching planning framework for basic education. Data are
primarily used for simple administrative accounting, planning based on first order projections,
and reporting on progress against a set of EFA-related indicators. Priorities are set and resources
are allocated to pursue improvements in intake, participation, completion and transition rates for
primary and secondary education. The departments budget request is based on a projection of
the classroom, furniture and teaching personnel requirements needed to achieve the 2015 targets.
Budget and implementation priority are given to geographic areas with the lowest performance
on the tracked indicators (or for example, where average pupil-teacher ratios are highest).
18
Both of these studies have been completed but were not available at the time of this assessment. The concept note
for the Basic Education PER was available and relevant information from it is included in this report.
Recently, DepEd created a composite index to identify the 40 highest priority divisions based on
combined performance on the following indicators for primary and secondary education: net
enrollment rates, completion rates, dropout rates, and National Achievement Test scores.
The Department of Education itself has limited capacity to do research and policy analysis.
Analyses of program or project implementation, comparative measures of program or project
effectiveness or cost-efficiency, and analyses of resource use are not available on a regular basis.
DepEd leadership indicated that data on use of resources is severely limited, with large aspects of
education expenditure not evaluated and even in some instances not accounted for (e.g., the
training budget, the textbook and materials budget, allocations for maintenance and other
operating expenses, and the locally generated and managed special education funds).
The Philippines Institute for Development Studies conducts research and analysis and produces
policy briefs on a variety of education related issues, often providing insight into the
relationships between educational attainment and student characteristics or household factors by
combining education data with the available national household surveys and other sources of
information. Individual development partners also fund these kinds of analyses. 19 High quality
studies are therefore available, but the extent to which those are used to inform policy decision
making or to guide sector priorities, plans and resource allocations is not apparent.
3. TVET and higher education priorities, policies and plans in the public sector are driven by
the proliferation of public and private institutions. Data and adequate accountability
frameworks are not in place to allow appropriate quality control of both public and private
institutions.
Allocation of resources for TVET and higher education in the public sector is primarily driven
by the funding of existing institutions and opening of new public universities and colleges. As
stated earlier, growth in the public sector has been dominated by the proliferation of local
training centers, TVET schools, and universities and colleges, as well as the opening of satellite
campuses of state institutions. This is not proceeding according to a master plan nor does it
appear guided by hard analysis of how best to allocate and make use of the limited public sector
funds for TVET and higher education. Opening of new institutions is driven to some extent by
political agendas and is not evidently based on analysis or any supply/demand data.
Additionally, the proliferation of private institutions has raised concerns regarding the quality of
training those institutions offer. The government sets standards for licensing, registration and
accreditation of TVET and higher education programs and institutions (whether in the public or
private sector). The focus is primarily on the quality of inputsqualifications of teaching staff,
appropriate staffing ratios, quality of facilities, etc. Output measures are used to evaluate
program or institutional effectiveness (for example the certification of graduates in their fields of
study, or the placement of graduates in employment). However, institutions are not held
19
PIDS documents are available at their website, www.pids.gov.ph. An example of a partner supported study is the
ADBs Education Outcomes in the Philippines, May 2010.
accountable in any tangible way for their performance. Existing legislation does state that higher
education institutions that do not have adequate performance (as measured by graduation and
pass rates) can be closed, or similarly non-effective fields of study/training programs could be
discontinued. However, this is not enforced.
CHED has developed a strategic plan which focuses on rationalizing the sector (e.g., looking to
impose stricter guidelines for opening of programs or institutions; enforcing standards related to
program performance; consolidating programs or institutions, etc). They are also concerned with
how to make the most productive use of existing public sector resourceswhether through
attention to cost-efficiency, better targeting, higher leverage investments in partnership with the
private sector, or other means. In principle, CHED has authority over public sector institutions
budgets, but in practice it plays no role in budget development or expenditure tracking so at
present has little influence over how the bulk of resources is allocated among institutions. CHED
is also trying to better align and coordinate external assistance to higher education.
4. All three parts of the education sector have data to support many key features of policy,
planning and management, but in all cases the data systems are severely limited. In fact,
existing education data systems are surprisingly rudimentary in their structure and
functionality for a country at this level of development.
DepEd, TESDA and CHED each collect and maintain basic administrative data for their
respective subsectors. Data are collected through the annual administration of a
school/institutional survey. The three governing bodies send out their questionnaires, which are
filled in by each school or institution. For TESDA and CHED, not all institutions fill out and
return the survey. All three rely on spreadsheet based systems for collecting and compiling data.
Data are housed in tabular form and none of the three authorities maintains a relational database.
Data are collected and compiled in ways that create cumbersome requirements for re-entering
data at various aggregation points and thus are open to manipulation and error. CHED and
TESDA are unable to collect data from the full universe of institutions and programs under their
respective purviews. Financial information, personnel information, test results, and information
on learning materials are all maintained in separate systems. Standardized procedures for critical
elements of data such as geographic coding, school identification, and student identification are
not in practice across the different systems.
Several plans and projects are addressing enhancements and comprehensive revamping of data
systems in the education sector (especially for DepEd), but it is not clear how different efforts
will coordinate and align to create a single system. Technology offers some possibility for
improving data systems (and a plan for doing so exists); however, more efficient and credible
collecting of basic administrative data would still leave the education sector wanting in terms of
policy analysis. Ways to link administrative data to other government data systems also need to
be developed and operationalized as regular features of data use in the sector.
5. Key concerns about efficiency in resource use, factors impacting learning outcomes, equity
and quality assurance cannot be addressed because of the limitations of the existing data
systems.
No data are systematically available to analyze the efficiency and effectiveness of expenditures
in any of the subsectors. In fact, large chunks of education resources are opaque, either because
their end use is not fully accounted for (e.g., the maintenance and other operating expenditure
line item) or because the funds are generated and spent locally (e.g., the special education fund).
DepEd has no authority over the use of these funds and the Department of Finance maintains
records only on the collection of the fund, not on the subsequent allocation and use of the
revenue. Allocations are driven for the most part by routine operationspaying staff, opening
new or operating and maintaining existing buildings, purchasing materials and equipment, etc.
with little ability to direct resources based on maximizing cost effectiveness or obtaining the
highest return on investment. Some analyses have been done of certain aspects of sector
financing and management (e.g., the study of education services contracting), but usually as a
one-off study and not as a regular feature of sector management. The greatest limitations are in
tracking impact over time as students or trainees are not uniquely identified in any of the DepEd,
TESDA or CHED data systems.
Institutions outside DepEd (for example PIDS) are able to analyze how equitably educational
access and outcomes are distributed by using additional data from national systems and
household surveys. DepEd, TESDA and CHED themselves do not conduct these sorts of
analyses because their existing data systems by themselves do not permit them.
6. National data systems allow regional disaggregation. Planning for and management of the
education sector in the six regions that make up Mindanao is informed by the national data
sources.
Five of the six regions in Mindanao are treated exactly as every other region within the country
as far as education planning, budgeting, management, monitoring and compilation and use of
data. Each region and the institutions within the regions feed their information into the national
data systems maintained by DepEd, TESDA and CHED. The ARMM, which has distinctly
different authority than the other five, still depends to a large extent on the national data systems.
The ARMM has its own Department of Education, but it works closely with the national DepEd
on setting policies, allocating resources and reporting on progress. The ARMM does feature
prominently within the overall policy context of improving access and equity and inclusive
growth, as it is the lowest ranking region in terms of education indicators.
The ARMM follows all national policies and procedures for most aspects of administration and
management. There are, however, reports of widespread violations of official personnel policy,
including political interference, nepotism, favoritism, payment for teaching posts, etc. With
support from AusAID, the ARMM DepEd is implementing a comprehensive Human Resources
Information System which, in principle, will provide on-line access to all staffing and posting
information. Officials in the ARMM DepEd report that there is a substantially lower national
allocation of per-capita grants to students in the region. The allocation for secondary schools for
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOEa significant portion of the discretionary
resources available for schools) is consistent with the rest of the country. However, the MOOE
for primary schools arrives as a lump sum, which ARMM officials divide up among the schools
under their jurisdiction. Education funds in the ARMM are audited by the national government.
The ARMM receives substantial projectized support from a range of development partners; this
support flows outside the formal national government systems. In August 2009, the ARMM
convened a donors conference involving AusAID, USAID, JICA, UNICEF, the International
Labor Organization (ILO) and various national government departments. The national
government supports this parallel, independent funding of education in the ARMM.
7. Current DepEd data systems with some modifications could provide information to track and
report on the impact of USAID assistance. Those in use in the TVET and higher education
sectors would need to be more substantially improved before they could be relied on.
The DepEd system for tracking basic indicators in the education sector is sufficient to allow
monitoring of changes in access, promotion and completion at fairly disaggregated levels. It
would be fairly easy to conduct analyses of how key indicators change over time in areas
receiving development assistance. Additionally, the information on learning achievement
maintained by the National Education Testing and Research Center (NETRC) could be used to
track changes in learning outcomes over time in targeted schools, districts, divisions or regions.
It would be worthwhile to invest in improving the ways in which learning achievement data are
analyzed and reported in order to allow more in depth portrayal of student performance in core
subjects. For example, rather than reporting the average percent of correct responses on the
national achievement test, it would be more informative to track the percentages of children
meeting different levels of subject area mastery (or, even different levels of mastery within
specific skill areas within each subject areafor example, reading comprehension).
The TESDA and CHED data systems, on the other hand, in their present forms are not sufficient
to easily allow tracking of the outcomes and impact of development assistance in those sectors.
CHEDs data system is cumbersome and essentially manually compiled, and is missing data
from a significant percentage of higher education institutions. TESDAs data system is also not
comprehensive. Both systems report on the outputs of trainingnumbers of graduates and
numbers of graduates able to meet certification or licensure standards in their fields of student.
TESDA does conduct a survey every two years to evaluate the outcomes of traininge.g.
percentage of graduates of different training programs employed in different fields. However,
that survey could be improved considerably by more precise identification of graduates fields of
study, fields of employment and some measure of the applicability of their training to the
demands of their jobs. A combination of graduate surveys and employer surveys would provide
better data on the impact of investments in TVET or higher education programs or institutions.
3.2 Adequacy of Data and Data Systems
DepEd has basically developed a data system that allows it to report on basic EFA indicators
gross and net intake rates, gross and net enrollment rates, repetition, dropout, completion and
other standard education system proxy indicators (such as student-to-teacher ratios, student-to-
textbook ratios, etc). A separate information system maintained by the National Education
Testing and Research Center provides data on student learning achievement for third, sixth and
sixth grade in elementary school and for second year of high school. These data systems are not
linked so reporting on school performance, and systematically relating school performance to a
variety of data about the conditions of the students, teachers and facilities at any school is not
easily done. 20 What this ends up meaning is that progress in the sector is measured in the most
perfunctory wayadvancement towards EFA goals and indicators, without attention to how
available resources could be distributed or targeted to better enhance outcomes, promote equity
or extract maximum benefit for each peso expended. Major policy decisions related to basic
education, such as the commitment to extend basic education by another two years (the K+12
reforms), are therefore made in the absence of sound analytical information about resource use
and the effectiveness and efficiency of any previous reforms, strategies or projects in the sector.
As for TVET and higher education, the governing authorities in those sectors have an even more
challenging policy and planning imperative than does DepEd. Since most education in the TVET
and higher education sectors is carried out by private institutions, public resources should be
allocated and used in ways that orient the sector to significant national prioritiese.g., targeting
areas of skills development or study, targeting some regions for economic development,
promoting access to training and higher education for certain target populations, creating
incentives for more effective and efficient programs and institutions. The data and data systems
currently maintained by TESDA and CHED are wholly inadequate for this kind of targeted
policy and planning.
20
The Philippines Institute for Development Studies has done analyses that make use of achievement data and Basic
Education Information System (BEIS0 information on school level conditions. However, linking those data was
neither easy, nor is it done as a matter of course.
4. Recommendations to USAID and the Government
of the Philippines
In addition to conducting the assessment of data availability and use in the education sector, this
team was charged with making specific recommendations for how USAID assistance could best
support the Government of the Philippines to make improvements in the information systems
and processes we reviewed. Analyses of the data and systems that support the priority setting,
resource allocation, planning and management processes in the public sector generally, and in
each of the education subsectors specifically, point to several ways in which things can be
improved. However, prior to compiling a list of suggested activities, it would be useful to point
out the principles guiding the teams selection of recommendations. These include the following.
Many actors and stakeholders, within Filipino institutions and from development partner
agencies, are already actively supporting improvements in information systems. Anything
proposed in this report tries to complement those activities and efforts. If possible,
opportunities to partner directly with other actors to leverage even greater support for
particular information system and data use process improvements would be wise to
pursue.
USAID/Philippines activities in the education sector have focused primarily on basic
education, and have targeted Mindanao. Direct involvement at the policy and planning
level with central DepEd has been limited, as have any connections to the TVET and
higher education subsectors. Recommendations that afford USAID an opportunity to
work with key counterparts in DepEd, TESDA and/or CHED are given priority.
Opportunities to reinforce (or help establish) key information system components and to
build the capacity to exploit those systems are given first priority. However
recommendations may also seek to identify how a particular study or piece of policy
analysis could demonstrate ways in which existing data could be put to more effective
use. For example, it may be useful to work on linking DepEd systems for tracking
resource use to the office that oversees local government finance to enable better tracking
of the Special Education Fund (SEF).
Large amounts of data and numerous studies on education in the Philippines exist. Not all
data are exploited to maximum benefit nor applied in ways that push the managers of the
education subsectors to the cutting edge of effectiveness and efficiency.
Recommendations therefore give priority to systematizing data use, rather than seeking to
generate additional reams of information, and look for ways that information can afford
additional insight and reveal opportunities for increased effectiveness and efficiency.
Recommendations will be offered for each of the subsectorsbasic education, TVET and
higher education.
In addition to these considerations, the team suggests that in supporting efforts to improve data
availability and use, USAID should seek to partner with local institutions that are already
involved in this kind of work. For example, the Philippine Institute for Development Studies has
conducted numerous analyses of education system information and data and is well positioned to
serve as a resource or partner on any suggested studies. Likewise, the University of the
Philippines has experience serving as an analytical and research resource for the education
sector. A motivated NGO like Philippine Business for Education that is using data to promote
improvement and reform in education could also be a key local partner in carrying out certain
recommended interventions. The details of exactly how to structure any particular intervention
remain to be worked out, but they would likely include some combination of contracted technical
assistance (either short, medium or long-term), investment in capacity building or the
underwriting of a particular set of activities seen as necessary for enhancing the availability or
use of data. The recommendations presented here do not elaborate on how they could be carried
out. It is anticipated that through dialogue with the relevant counterparts, USAID/Philippines
with the additional assistance of the EdData II project (already foreseen in this Task Order)
will define the specific nature of agreed upon interventions.
4.1 Recommendations for DepEd

There is already considerable assistance being provided to DepEd to improve a number of its
information systems and to help it develop and realize its vision for a unified, integrated
approach to data collection, management and use. 21 The timing of the implementation of
improvements to the main DepEd data system (Basic Education Information System, or BEIS) is
not explicit, but it is safe to assume that the piloted enhancements and other proposed
improvements to the system will be proceeding in the near and medium term, including DepEds
movement towards a unified information system (UIS). It therefore makes sense to consider
other, specifically targeted aspects of information availability and use that USAID could help
improve. USAIDs support to DepEd use of data should align with the most pressing sector
issues, namely:
Understanding factors that relate to under-performance in terms of access, persistence
and student outcomes in the DepEd identified high-priority divisions to assist DepEd in
targeting resources to those divisions;
Implementing the K+12 reform;
Improving learning outcomes on a broad scale; and
Using additional resources efficiently and effectively, including coordinating and
aligning external support.
Our recommendations to address some of these concerns include the following.
Recommendation 1: Analysis of use of resources in DepEd high-priority divisions

The public expenditure review of the education sector that was being finalized by the World
Bank and DepEd during the teams time in Manila should be available shortly. This will provide
a tremendous amount of data on the availability and use of resources in education. The specifics
21
DepEd PowerPoint presentation Unified Information System (UIS)January 2011.
of additional work exploring resource allocations in high-priority divisions and districts will need
to take that into account. However, it is clear that analysis of how locally generated resources
(such as the SEF), centrally allocated funds, donor financing and private contributions combine
in high-priority/high-need parts of the country (for example, several of the low-performing
divisions in Mindanao). A study of this nature, that examines expenditures at the division and
school level, would serve the longer-term interests of DepEd by helping identify ways through
which national resources can be better targeted. The study would include details on the levels of
funding allocated from the different sources, the criteria by which those allocations are made,
and analysis of the actual amount of resources therefore available for use at the division and
school levels. Most importantly, the study would also provide insight into the interaction
between central funding mechanisms and the management of SEF, contributing to dialogue
about and supporting improvements in how central funds are structured to best incite more
efficient and effective management of local funds. For example, the analysis would provide the
basis for establishing transparent, consistent criteria for transferring funds as part of a resource
allocation formula, and it would identify the data needed both to apply the formula and track
allocation and use of resources. This would be the basis for ultimately determining the impact of
additional resources on high priority divisions/schools.
Recommendation 2: Promoting dialogue around the implications and requirements of

K+12
The World Bank and AusAID are providing technical assistance to analyze the curricular,
institutional and financial implications of the K+12 reform. Additional assistance may not be
needed to carry out analytical work related to these reforms, but there may be an opportunity to
assist DepEd in facilitating public dialogue about the proposed reforms that is broad, inclusive
and well-informed. DepEd has requested that USAID provide the support that would help make
the results of technical studies of K+12 implications available in forms and formats that would
be suitable to broader, more diverse audiences. This could include working with NGOs to assist
in disseminating information, working with journalists, and even helping organize, facilitate and
underwrite targeted policy dialogue events around specific aspects of the reforms or findings of
the analytical studies.
Recommendation 3: Support NETRC in the management and use of assessment data

As pointed out by the analysis of the National Education Testing and Research Centers current
data systems (see section 6.2), considerably more research and analysis could be conducted using
the available national assessment results. The assessment team identified four particular kinds of
improvements in the existing ways assessment data are used.
First, the existing historical data could be better mined to evaluate learning outcomes for specific
cohorts of students as they move through elementary and into secondary school. Better
management of the results of the student questionnaires administered in conjunction with the
National Achievement Test could allow ex post matching of students who, since 2005, will have
sat for the sequence of third-, sixth-, and eighth-grade examinations. Technical assistance could
be provided to NETRC to conduct this sort of data mining exercise, resulting in an analysis of
the learning gains experienced by students over time in Filipino schools.
Second, NETRC could be helped to negotiate and develop a student identification system that
would allow permanent, unique identifiers to be assigned to students. The whole reason the first
recommendation is necessary is because student ID numbers are re-assigned for each sitting of
the national exams. Establishing a system of unique identifiers that would stay with students
would allow time series of assessment results to be more easily analyzed. The educational
progress of individual cohorts of students could be then be tracked as a measure of system
effectiveness, and students and their families could see how their performance changes over
time. It would also enable DepEd to keep better track of student movement among schools, and
thereby have more accurate measures of dropout and completion.
Third, results of the NAT and the National Career Assessment Examination (NCAE) are
currently reported in ways that do not necessarily extract as much insight as may be possible. 22
Individual student scores provide a good deal of information, as do reports that are available to
schools. However, at the aggregate level, some of the granularity in meaning inherent in the
individualized test results is lost. For example, reliance on a single indicatorthe average
percent of correct responses, or PCR as it is referred toto measure school effectiveness (or to
aggregate as an indicator of district, division or region performance) masks what may be some
important information regarding how the system is performing. This could be improved on, for
example, by helping NETRC develop some reporting formats that allow simple, summary
presentations of the percent of students meeting different target levels of mastery. 23 Rather than
reporting an average of correct responses, such a measure would at least indicate what
percentages of students in a school (district, division or region) achieve desirable levels of
mastery in each subject area (or sub-area). Assistance could be provided to develop the means to
regularly produce a dashboard on student outcomes, or to help DepEd put in place a form of
school, district, division, and regional rankings. Additionally, as has been done in many
countries, item analysis can be conducted on the NAT and NCAE exam results. This would
allow identification of test items on which students perform badly (or strongly) and therefore
exam how overall performance relates to strengths and weaknesses in particular areas of
competency (e.g., do problems with basic math operations hinder students performance on
higher order math applications). Teacher training programs could then be informed by the results
of such an analysise.g., targeting areas of student weakness.
Fourth, aligning analyses of NAT and NCAE results with more detailed finance information (as
per recommendation 1 above) could shed additional light on whether targeting of resources leads
to measureable improvements in student learning.
22
DepEd does not issue an annual report that is a definitive statement on the status of education in the country, and
this recommendation could help move NETRC at least towards a report that provides comprehensive data on how
students/schools/divisions are performing.
23
On a related note, it could also prove useful to work with NETRC to review the existing definitions and hierarchy
of levels of mastery. For example, historical NAT data could be mined to check the validity of the distinctions
between mastery levels.
4.2 Recommendations for TESDA
The issues of primary concern for TESDA relate to two big things. First, TESDA is trying to
oversee and account for the quality of training provided through a vast, diverse array of
institutions and settings. Second, in managing a network of publicly funded training centers in a
subsector dominated by private providers, TESDA needs to be able to target how the public
contribution to the sector promotes the governments overarching goals of greater and more
equitable access to relevant TVET training. Both of these issues require TESDA to be much
more efficient in how it compiles, manages and uses data. Some specific recommendations for
how to assist TESDA therefore include the following.
Recommendation 4: Improve the systematization of TESDA data collection

The current, Excel-based approach to data collection and management is too cumbersome to
allow efficient compilation, storage, retrieval and use of data. The extent to which data are
incompletee.g. some institutions not reporting, or failing to report accuratelyalso
compromises basic planning and programming in the sector. TESDA could benefit from
assistance in setting up an entirely new data system. Such a system could improve monitoring of
course offerings in TVET, and in particular to determine which courses are under or
oversubscribed, and therefore determine how TESDA can best target resources and tailor policy
directives to improve efficiency in the sector.
In helping design an information system, USAID could provide support to review best practices
in the field, develop some options for how TESDA could develop a state-of-the-art data system,
and even assist in the development of specific terms of reference and specifications for such a
system. Helping design an explicit link between TESDA information on the supply of skills
development training and Department of Labor and Employment data on demand for skills
should be an important component of the development of an improved TESDA data system.
Also, of particular concern in redesigning TESDAs data systems would be ensuring that the
information that would enable better targeting of admissions to public institutions (i.e., that
would make it possible to promote development of programs and training provision in areas of
highest need, or to devise and enforce public institution entry requirements that target certain
populations).
Recommendation 5: Support improvements in TESDAs impact study methodology

The periodic collection of data on TVET graduates is an important monitoring tool of TESDA.
As currently configured, the study provides some good data on the employment and earnings of
TVET graduates who received training through different modalities and in different sectors.
However, the study does not allow detailed analysis of the effectiveness of different training
programs or institutions (or institutional settings). Modifications to the methodology could
provide considerably more data and thus more insight into program and institutional
effectiveness and cost-effectiveness. Technical assistance could be provided to revisit the
methodology, data collection instruments, and approaches to data compilation and analysis to
identify ways in which additional data and analysis could be generated without significantly
changing the cost of the study. One possibility would be to conduct a survey of workers and
employers in different sectors of the economy in order to construct backward maps on one
hand of the education and training obtained by the workers both prior to and since their
employment, and, on the other hand, of employers decisions regarding whom to hire and for
what reasons. This kind of study could help separate out the how specific TVET training
programs (compared to general educational attainment) contribute to employment in different
sectors.
Recommendation 6: Assist TESDA in the development and implementation of the PNQF

In conversations with TESDA leadership, it was suggested that USAID could provide technical
assistance to help complete the Philippines National Qualifications Framework (PNQF) and
design a roadmap for its implementation. TESDA is interested in USAID support in part because
of their interest in US approaches to skills development (see below) and because of a USAID
2005 report, Jobs for the 21st Century which TESDA found useful. A roadmap for
implementing the PNQF would greatly assist TESDA in monitoring the delivery and quality of
training. Additionally, TESDA is also interested in making greater use of the International
Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) codes. The application of ISCED makes it easier
to transform national education statistics on participants, providers and sponsors of education
into aggregate categories that are internationally comparable and that can be meaningfully
interpreted. 24 Furthermore, TESDA would like to move away from its present Taxonomy of
Programs (TOP) methodology (which uses a system of numerical codes to collect and report
information on programs and courses that have similar outcomes) and move towards the
Classification of Instructions methodology used by, for example, the U.S. Department of
Educations National Center for Education Statistics (NCES). TESDA officials specifically
asked for assistance in developing a system similar to that used by NCES.
4.3 Recommendations for CHED

Like TESDA, the issues confronting CHED that relate to the availability and use of data also
revolve around whether CHED has the data-based means to oversee, monitor and hold
institutions accountable for the quality of training provided. CHED needs to develop the
information tools that can help it better orient the development of the higher education sector so
that resources and institutional capacity are targeted to places and areas of study based on
identified needs and demand. Additionally, CHED needs also to be able to better monitor and
evaluate the effectiveness and efficiency of higher education institutions, and within institutions,
different fields and programs of study. This also requires collection and analysis of data which
CHED presently does not do. Recommendations related to addressing these issues include the
following.
24
See UNESCOs ample documentation on ISCED codes, the purpose, application and utility.
Recommendation 7: Improve the systematization of CHED data collection
CHEDs existing, Excel-based data system is cumbersome, prone to error and demands a huge
amount of person time to manage. Data are not housed in a relational database, severely limiting
how they can be used in analytical applications. CHED, like TESDA, could benefit from
assistance in setting up an entirely new data system. This recommendation therefore mirrors
recommendation 4 above, but as applied to CHED. USAID could provide support to a review of
best practices in the field, support the development of some options for a state-of-the-art data
system, and even assist in the development of the terms of reference and specifications for such a
system.
Recommendation 8: Support analytical work that helps promote rationalization of the

provision of higher education
In meeting with CHED officials, they expressed rationalization of the sector as one of their
primary strategic objectives. This is obviously a long term goal, but one that could be
strategically supported with critical pieces of analytical work. At present, CHED does not in its
data system have all the information that could guide rationalization of the sector. Therefore,
some immediate term work to gather additional data would help the sector advance its
rationalization objectives, while awaiting the development of a better information system. For
example, a study of experiences of graduates from higher education institutions and programs
could shed light on the their employability, the match between fields of study and demand for
educated labor in the workforce, and the direct applicability of the knowledge and skills acquired
through different fields of study to the jobs and other productive activities of graduates.
Additionally, an analysis of current patterns of funding (including sources of funds) for higher
education would serve as the basis for a discussion of how existing uses of resources promote or
hinder rationalization of the subsector. If these kinds of data are going to be available from the
recently conducted public expenditure review, then such a study would not be needed. If higher
education expenditures are not or are inadequately covered by the PER, then USAID could
support CHED in designing and conducting such an analysis.
Recommendation 9: Assist in the development of a normative funding model

Another area of interest expressed by CHED and that features in their strategic vision for how to
improve the higher education subsector concerns making improvements in the current higher
education normative funding formula and its applications. While a normative formula does exist,
at present, budgets are primarily driven by two thingsthe momentum of the status quo (i.e.,
once an institution is up and running, it draws resources each year just to keep its doors open)
and politics (the political interests affiliated with different institutions as well as the tendency of
politicians to see this subsector as a way to push resources to their constituencies). Building an
analytical base from which to recommend and implement improvements to the funding formula
and the structure of allocations to higher education institutions is something CHED is very
interested in pursuing. This could include helping design and carry out a comparative cost-
efficiency/cost-effectiveness study of a sample of higher education institutions. Such a study
would also shed light on the kinds of data that could be regularly collected as part of the ongoing
monitoring of the quality and effectiveness of higher education institutions. A funding formula
could be linked to effectiveness measures so as to drive improvements in use of resources and
institutional effectiveness (in terms of outcomes). CHED does analyze the performance of
graduates on licensure exams in particular fields as one measure of program effectiveness.
Additional measures of the skills of graduates and the responsiveness of those skills to demand
in the labor market could be introduced. Poor performance in producing graduates or in terms of
graduate performance on licensure exams has thus far not been able to be used to drive
improvements in effectiveness. Perhaps a more explicit link to the demands of employers could
create some additional pressure for improved program quality.
5. Detailed Findings on the Use of Data
5.1 Use of Data in the National Policy and Priority Setting Process
Overarching national priorities are defined in the Philippines Development Plan (PDP) with
annual plans articulated in the three-year rolling Medium Term Expenditure Framework
(MTEF). The revised PDP is has been approved and should be released shortly, replacing the
current plan which covers the period 2004-2010.
The priority of education in the PDP is reflected in the structure of the current plan itself. The
Plan is organized into five main parts: Growth, Energy, Social Justice, Education and
Governance. Within the confines of the existing governments political agenda, policy and
resource allocation options are developed based on policy analysis using available national and
sub-national data. The process is supported by broad consultation with stakeholders and regional
consultative meetings.
NEDA is the lead development agency of the Government and is responsible for policy, planning
and coordination among government agencies. NEDA advises the president on the annual
government expenditure program and sector budget ceilings. NEDA has six attached agencies.
With respect to policy formation, the key NEDA agencies are the National Statistics Office
(NSO), the National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB), and PIDS. NEDA formulates its
recommendations for policy and budget priorities based on data from a broad range of household
surveys, labor market studies, administrative data bases managed by implementing agencies, ad
hoc surveys and studies and policy studies conducted by its affiliates and various international
agencies. The convergence of fiscal space, national development priorities and the requirements
of each sector are used by NEDA and Department of Budget Management (DBM) to determine
each sectors budget ceiling.
A review of 2011 budget data provides some insights into governments allocation priorities over
the past three years (20082011). Overall, the budget reflects strong fiscal constraint, with real
expenditure growth on the order of 1.2% over the three-year period 20092011. The education
allocation has consistently been the single largest item in the budget and has increased at a faster
rate (2.6%) than the total budget. The allocation to State Colleges and Universities decreased by
almost 17% over this period, reflecting the priorities stated in the Philippine Development Plan.
There is clear evidence of an active budget process, with major realignment of priorities reflected
in allocations. The Philippines budget is clearly not solely based on incrementing historical
allocations. Social development, priority development assistance and health received major
increases, reflecting a pro-poor orientation in resource allocation. While the allocation to Local
Government Units (LGUs) was drastically reduced, the allocation to ARMM was relatively
unchanged.
The primary data source for monitoring implementation of programs is the Annual Reports of the
national and regional DepEds. In addition to the national DepEd Annual Report, individual
regions also prepare Annual Reports, which provide a basis for monitoring implementation. As
an example, we reviewed the 2010 Annual Report from Region XII in Mindanao (there was not
sufficient time to review all regional annual reports). We must note, however, that later we
realized the one report we were able to obtain and reviewfor Region XIIapparently is not
representative of other regions annual reports. It contains far more detail and information than is
typically found in other regions reports.
The 40-page Region XII report provides time-series data (2004/05 through 2009/10) on an array
of access, efficiency and quality indicators by sub-regional administrative areas (nine) and by
sub-sector. There are sections on staff development and training; school-based management;
MOOE disbursement; facilities construction, repair and maintenance; student nutritional status;
student anthropomorphic measures; teaching and learning materials; Alternative Learning
System (ALS) events; and assessment. Each section provides quantified information, typically
with several tables of indicators or data per section.
The report includes details on activity objectives with information on accomplishments against
goals for each of the regions 20 supervisory staff. There is also detailed financial information
including allocations and disbursements by project.
The report includes detailed, quantified information on eight EFA targets for a 10-year period
(2006/07 through 2015/16) with information on progress during the initial four years of the time
series. There is a summary of objectives, findings and recommendations of nine completed
research projects, and a description of the objectives and methodology for six additional studies
that are planned or in progress. 25
Several mechanisms are in place for high-level government review of progress in the education
and training sector. The principal responsibility for management of statistical data rests with the
NSCB. The Annual Report of the Philippines Statistical Development Program tracks a total of
121 indicators for the sector, as summarized below.
25
Information on PIDS research agenda and studies can be found at
http://dirp3.pids.gov.ph/about/rsd/PIDS_Research_Agenda_05_09.pdf .
Components Indicators
1 Student Population 21
2 Governance and Management/Personnel 12
3 Curriculum and Outcomes 14
4 Finance and Expenditure 11
5 Facilities/ Infrastructures, Technology & Services 9
6 Sports Services/Programs 11
7 Education Providers 16
8 Human Resource 27
TOTAL 121
Most of the data for these indicators come from DepEd, CHED and TESDA administrative
systems, although some data are also drawn from various household surveys and other sources.
At issue is not the sheer number of indicators (which actually is quite high in the Philippines),
but whether those indicators are applied in systematic ways to assess and evaluate effectiveness
and efficiency or other measures of system performance.
Role of Civil Society

At this point it is still premature to assess the actual role and impact of Civil Society on National
policy and planning. CSOs report that their access at key points in the policy and budget cycle
has improved markedly under the new administration. For example, the Education Network
(E-NET) is a coalition of CSOs that participate in the formulation of policies and plans for the
achievement of EFA. However, from the perspective of the CSOs that we consulted, it is too
soon to determine whether there are real changes in terms of impact. There is certainly much
more engagement but it is not clear whether this is ceremonial or substantive.
There is evidence that CSO advocacy activities are loosely coupled to policy reform. For
example, Philippines Business for Education has been a long-term champion of extending
secondary schooling to six years and believes that its efforts were a key factor in the shift to the
proposed K12 extension of schooling. Other organizations attempt to influence national policy
through a bottom-up approach by strengthening governance and demand at the local level and
through engagement with political leaders at the municipal and provincial levels.
Members of the academic community are regularly engaged as consultants on government
studies, particularly those undertaken by the PIDS. Academics and consultants also participate in
the work of donor agencies, which has a direct impact on government policies.
There are also important informal linkages with movement of individuals in and out of
government organizations and NGOs, and the participation of senior government officials on the
boards of directors on major civil society organizations.
CSOs reported that, in general, they have excellent access to government data (outside the
education sector) through central department web sites, data disseminated through the NSCB,
and public use data files provided by the NSO. They reported, however, that gaining access to
DepEd administrative data is problematic. In interviews with selected CSOs the following issues
were flagged.
Access to education data, unlike other government information, is problematic; this is
particularly true of examination data where, as one CSO group reported the door is
closed.
Data that are released by the DepEd are often characterized as unreliable or misleading.
For example, as reported in interviews with NGOs, data on enrollment are regularly
fudged. School-level reports on exam results are not presented in a way that is easy to
understand. The league tables that are provided on the Internet actually obscure
underlying problemsfor example, a school may be listed in the highest performance
category but, on average, students are incorrectly answering 45% of the exam questions.
The system is monolithic and there are areas, such as problems in reporting teacher
attendance in more remote areas, where the DepEd is seen as actively resisting data
collection.
Position of Civil Society on Key Policy IssuesWhile civil society is extremely well-
organized and vocal, it would be a mistake to think of CSOs as speaking with a common voice
on most issues. The key civil society organizations are advocates for partisan issues and are often
in direct conflict with one another regarding policy direction and reform. For example:
K+12 Reform Philippines Business for Education has been a longstanding advocate of
extending the length of the basic education cycle. Synergeia Foundation feels that this is
the wrong approach and that teachers and principals lack the competency to deliver the
existing curriculum. Despite reassurances from DepEd that there is a comprehensive,
staged plan for the K+12 reform, even Philippines Business for Education has expressed
concerns that implementation plans differ substantially from the initial conceptualization
and that the reform may not actually have the intended impacts.
Subsidies for State-Owned Colleges and Universities There is a general perception
that the existing funding system is regressive in that it does not sufficiently target
resources in ways that favor students from lower-income households, may in fact actually
exacerbate inequities in access, and is excessively driven by political agendas of
members of Congress. However, Social Watch Philippines (an umbrella of 66 NGOs)
strongly advocates increasing subsidies and protecting congressional earmarks from
executive veto.
Education Service Contracts (ESC)The government extends contracts to private
schools to enroll students, with the government providing a contributionsubsidyto
the private school tuition to lower the cost. However,it is clear that ESC for private
secondary places are poorly targeted and, in all likelihood, regressive. The ESC was
initially conceived to be an income-targeted intervention. However, with the expansion of
public secondary, private providers have been facing declining enrollment and, as a
consequence, see the ESC scheme as an important source of additional revenue. It is
openly conceded that, although family income data are collected on the application form,
the principal criterion for selection is the likelihood that families will be able to continue
to meet the gap between the value of Government vouchers and private school fees. That
is, there is an in-built incentive to avoid low income students. Moreover, a block of
entitlements is allocated to each school but a school committee makes the actual
decisions about allocating entitlements. Although in principle the ESC approach has great
merit, there is a need to reform and tighten targeting mechanisms to avoid abuse. NGOs
such as Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE) represent and are advocates of
the private education sector and would therefore oppose reforms.
Common PositionsCSOs that are active in education do, in general, appear to agree on the
following points:
There is a crisis in Philippines education
The national DepEd is highly bureaucratic
There is a resistance to sharing data and engaging civil society in core research and
policy analysis and available data are under-utilized
There are pervasive problems of inefficiency and strong evidence of corruption and, in
some cases, a DepEd resistance to acknowledging problems or collecting relevant
information (e.g., teacher absenteeism)
In conclusion, data appear to be used much more systematically in broad government policy
making, planning and budgeting than in the education sector. In the education sector, data use is
more limited and, in fact, is constrained by the nature of the data systemsfor DepEd, TESDA
and CHED. The perception in the Philippines that DepEd is bureaucratic, not interested in
sharing information and prone to inefficiencies because of pure use of data, stems from a legacy
that predates the current administration. Current leadership in the department is to some extent
working to overcome that perception.
5.2 Use of Data in the Department of Education Priority Setting and Policy
Process
Administrative data drawn from the BEIS are used to project resource requirements. The
defining framework for determining basic education funding is the continued push to achieve the
EFA objectives and related MDGs by 2015. DepEd uses BEIS data to produce projections of
additional teachers, classrooms and furniture needed to achieve those goals, with defined
valuesfor example, of pupil-teacher ratios for different levels of the system. These projections
form the basis of the departments funding request. The collection and compilation of school
statistics is in part organized so that a sub-section of the school statistics, referred to as the
quick count, is processed early enough to feed data into the budget and planning process.
Departments submit their budget bids in two sections: highest priorities that conform to the
budget ceiling and a separate section with requests and justification for additional funds to
initiate or expand programs. Bids are reviewed by sector experts in DBM. There is a series of
technical budget hearings and line departments are asked to provide additional data and analysis
to support their bids.
DepEd (and most other departments) and DBM engage in the usual dance that involves
requesting more than the indicated available ceiling and negotiating from there a final budget
allocation. For example, last year DBM allocated a ceiling of Php 180 billion for basic education.
DepEd developed a request of Php 380 billion, which included the full amount of funding needed
to maintain steady progress towards 100% net enrollment and completion by 2015. The final
budget awarded to the sector was Php 207 billion and plans and levels of programming were
adjusted accordingly.
DepEd relies only on simple estimates of standard inputs (for example, relying on basic ratios to
determine the number of books, desks or classrooms needed) for calculating its budget
requirements based on the administrative data collected through BEIS. Additionally, various
projects and programs are put forward through the office of the Undersecretary for Programs and
Projects. There is no database of projects, and most project-related information is retained by the
individual office or development partner that is funding and managing each specific set of
activities.
Resource allocation decisions within the basic education subsector are primarily driven by the
routine expenditure requirements associated with a given level of operation of the systema
certain number of teachers expected to teach in a given number of schools in order to serve a
target number of students sitting at the required number of desks. Inputs are targeted to divisions
with the highest needs. A geographic plotting is used to identify and color-code divisions
according to the degrees of projected shortages of in each main input areateachers, classrooms
and furnitureso that allocations can be appropriately targeted. No analysis is available that
evaluates the extent to which targeting is indeed effective. The existence of the color-coded
divisions implies that the data are available to determine the extent to which targeting over time
alleviates shortages in certain geographic areas. Such an analysis is not done.
In addition to the funds allocated to basic education from the national budget, each local
government generates revenue earmarked for education through the Special Education Fund. The
SEF is an additional 1% levy that is collected together with real property taxes paid to the local
government. While the national government does have data on the revenue generated through
SEF, the Department of Education has no data on how these funds are then allocated and
expended at the local level. The SEF favors wealthy parts of the country. Localities with high
property values and higher concentrations of businesses (which by definition are richer places)
generate more revenue, allowing them to have greater levels of expenditure. No data are
currently used to attempt to redress this inherent inequity.
The present EFA-oriented policy and planning context will need to accommodate the
governments commitment to implementing its Enhanced K+12 Program. This involves, as a
first priority, adding kindergarten for all students entering elementary school and progressively
introducing curriculum reforms that would result in the addition of two years (grades 11 and 12)
to secondary schooling. The system, intended to be fully operational by 2017, would then
conform to a K-6-4-2 model. The set of full budget and implementation requirements for the
move to this new configuration are to be worked out in the coming months and will likely come
to dominate sector planning for the foreseeable future.
Treatment of Mindanao and ARMM

At the central level, there are no special or specific policies related to the ARMM. There used to
be an Undersecretary for Mindanao Affairs at the national DepEd, but the position was abolished
under the new administration. The particular concerns and issues for education in
Mindanao/ARMM have been assigned to the office of the Undersecretary for Programs and
Projects and the person who served as the Undersecretary for Mindanao is now a consultant in
that office. National policies apply to ARMM and the default position of that region is to follow
national guidelines and practices. The ARMM Department of Education uses the national data
system and does not have the data capacity to support independent decision-making, policy
formulation and planning. ARMM does, however, feature prominently within the overall policy
context of improving access and equity and inclusive growth, as it is the lowest ranking region in
terms of education indicators.
There is some evidence of a disconnect between stated national policies and implementation
on the ground in ARMM. Much of this evidence of disconnect is anecdotal and difficult to
confirm, using official, published data sources. Some examples include the following:
Teacher Selection and PostingIn meetings with DepEd-ARMM officials, it was
asserted that the ARMM follows all national policies and procedures in teacher selection
and posting. In theory, each potential candidate must be selected from the Qualified
Candidate List. Division superintendants make appointments from a register of qualified
teachers. Candidates are assessed on the basis of results of the Licensure Exam for
Teachers, interviews, and their rating during demonstration teaching. Then, the
appointment decision is based on subject specialty needs; policy of localization; dialect;
culture of community; etc. For locally funded teachers there is a school-based Hiring
Committee and candidates must qualify using the same criteria as used for nationally
funded teachers. To be considered, they must have a minimum 50 points. The process is
described as transparent and postings are published. There are, however, reports (from
a number of independent respondents) of a lack of transparency in teacher hiring, in
ARMM as well as in other parts of the country.
With support from AusAID, the ARMM DepEd is implementing a comprehensive
Human Resources Information System (HRIS) which, in principle, will provide on-line
access to all staffing and posting information. Creating the incentives that ensure data are
used to inform more transparent hiring and assignment of teachers will be as important as
the construction of the data system itself.
MOOE One of the only discretionary allocations for divisions, districts and schools is
the portion of the DepEd budget labeled as Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenditures. The MOOE funds are allocated on a per-student basis, but for elementary
schools the allocation is aggregated by division or district. Whether the resources then
flow down to schools exactly as called for by the allocation formula is unclear. Officials
in the ARMM DepEd report that there is a substantially lower national allocation of the
per-capita MOOE allocation to schools in the region. This is an issue that requires further
investigation and possibly a broader Public Expenditure Tracking Study.
Auditing Education funds in the ARMM are audited by the national government. The
most recent audit found widespread discrepancies, particularly in the management of
personnel funds, and concluded that systems (in place at the time of the audit) were
inadequate and that errors in debiting DepEd ARMM accounts [were] deemed
continuous.
Relations with Development Partners the ARMM receives substantial projectized
support from a range of development partners; this support flows outside the formal
national government systems. In August 2009, ARMM convened a donors conference
involving AusAID, USAID, JICA, UNICEF, the ILO and various national government
departments. The national government supports this parallel, independent funding of
education in the ARMM.
Setting of policy priorities and development of plans for basic education are essentially driven by
simple, administrative calculations of what it will take to reach EFA goalshow many schools
will need to be built, how many teachers hired, etc. Rigorous analysis of the costs or the
effectiveness of different policies and strategies is not conducted. No informed consideration of
the cost-benefit tradeoffs associated with different approaches to managing system expansion
and improvement is apparent.
5.3 Use of Data in the TEVT Priority Setting and Policy Process
The 2004-2010 Medium-Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP) emphasizes two areas
that the TVET sector should focus on contributing to job creation and the delivery of basic
education and training services for all Filipino people. A new Philippines Development Plan
approved, but yet to be released. Technical and vocational education and training in the
Philippines is the jurisdiction of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority, as
mandated by RA 7796otherwise known as the TESDA Actsigned into law on August 25,
1994. Central to TESDAs role as an authority and national leader in TVET is to provide a clear
sense of direction and program priorities through policies and plans for the TVET sector.
TESDA falls under the purview of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), and is
mandated with formulating a national skills development plan; addressing key growth and skills
shortages industries (identified by the industry through the labor market survey that is conducted
quarterly by NSO and the annual enterprise surveys conducted by DOLE); and monitoring and
coordinating all skills development related activities in the country.
DOLE also has its own bureaus, such as the Bureau of Labor Relation, the Bureau of Labor
Employment and Statistics, and the Institute for Labor Studies, which conduct research to aid
policy formulation. Further, it leads a consultative tripartite body that meets quarterly and
brings together members of labor, management, other government departments, and NGOs, to
aid in TVET policy formulation.
Key strategic planning documents include:
the National Technical Education and Skills Development Plan (NTESDP),
the TESDA corporate plan,
the TESDA Human Resources (HR) plan,
the TESDA Quality Management System (QMS),
the DOLE Project Gap Study,
the Project JOBS FIT DOLE 2020 vision (which identifies priority growth sectors for the
Philippines economy over the next 10 years), and
Labor Market Monitor (which is a quarterly publication of DOLEs Bureau of Local
Employment that provides key performance indicators on labor market supply and
demand for the purpose of labor market signaling and policy/program interventions). 26
TESDA is responsible for ensuring quality in all aspects of TVET. Quality standards, developed
and promulgated by TESDA, serve as benchmarks against which performance of graduates and
students are measured. Assessments are administered as students move through their training, as
well as to certify graduates of technical and vocational programs.
TESDA strengthens its provision of reasonable supervision over private technical and vocational
schools in accordance with the existing Manual of Regulations for Private TVET Institutions.
TESDA ensures that TVET programs are compliant to promulgated standards and that
appropriate TVET opportunities are available from both public and private TVET providers.
Focus is also given in building the capability and capacity of TVET providers including the
LGUs. Career guidance and scholarships (Training for Works Scholarships program) are made
available to enhance access and equity to quality TVET opportunities.
TESDA has an internal Quality Management System at all levels that is used to improve the
efficiency and effectiveness of the different systems and processes in the organization.
26
However, the Labor Market Monitor relies on employers posting their needs online. Thus, the degree of self-
selection for reporting inherent in the system means that it is not truly representative of labor demand in the country.
The Competency Assessment and Certification System, a major pillar in TESDAs authority
role, is among the essential quality assurance mechanisms in TVET. It ensures that TVET
graduates and skilled workers have the competence necessary to perform the tasks consistent
with workplace standards . The system gathers information through a range of methods
including, but not limited to observation, questioning, demonstration, third-party reporting, and
portfolio and written tests to prove possession of competencies according to industry standards.
The system requires the accreditation of assessors, assessment centers/venues, development of
assessment tools, qualifications of TVET trainers as assessors, and recognition/accreditation of
National Assessment Boards across various sectors, among others. Attainment of all
competencies in the qualification warrants a worker a National Certificate (NC) at a particular
qualification level. A Certificate of Competency, however, is a proof of possession of a
particular competency but below the level set for a national qualification.
All training programs need to register with TESDA. However, this does not include institution
registration. Training institutions have to meet mandatory minimum standards which are inputs-
based under a Phase I registration; and in a Phase II, which is voluntary, they can opt to adopt
additional quality measures that are still inputs-based, which in turn allow the institutions to
receive incentives. The fact that quality measures rely solely on input criteria weakens the
system, as there are no measures of how well an institution or program makes use of the inputs to
produce graduates that can meet specific skill requirements.
An impact evaluation is conducted every two years to assess the effectiveness of TESDA
training programs (the most recent one was done in 2008). A sampling process is used for
respondents who are graduates of TESDA training programs. The impact evaluation also
includes a survey of employer satisfaction.
A compliance audit is done by DOLE at TESDA every year.
TESDA has limited data to inform its policy formulation and plan development. Annual plans
are driven by the maintenance of the publicly run institutions which fall under TESDAs
purview. Determining how best to target public resources so as to incentivize a supply response
among private providers is something TESDA does only to a limited extent (for example, by
awarding scholarships for students to study in private institutions in certain target skills areas).
5.4 Use of Data in the CHED Priority Setting and Policy Process
Distinct from the other two subsectors, CHED does not directly manage any institutions.
Budgets, planning and management for higher education are handled directly by the institutions,
be they public or private. CHED develops annual plans for carrying out its mandates to promote
access and equity, assure quality and excellence, promote relevance and responsiveness of higher
education programs, and pursue greater efficiency and effectiveness of its own operations.
CHED uses data to:
Identify students for CHED granted financial assistance/scholarships. National Career
Assessment Examination (mandatory for all 10 graders) scores are used to award full and
half merit scholarships. High school class rank and parent income are also taken into
account. Additional grants-in-aid are available to certain target populations such as single
parents and their children, dependents of killed-in-action or disabled military personnel,
and former rebels.
Track the number of students receiving financial assistance/scholarships
Track the number of participants in the ladderized education programs
Track the number of students benefiting from the expanded tertiary education
equivalency and accreditation program
Issue permits and certificates of recognition for programs meeting minimum quality
requirements and standards
Designate Centers of Excellence and Centers of Development
Confer autonomous and deregulated status on private institutions meeting standards for
excellence
Track faculty participation in professional development programs
Monitor performance of graduates on the licensure examinations for their fields of study
CHED does not have a mandate to more proactively plan development of the higher education
sector, but it is interested in promoting greater efficiency and effectiveness among institutions
and programs. Its oversight authority does extend to those concerns, but its information system
needs extensive upgrading to enable it to make more systematic evaluations of the quality of
higher education provision in public and private institutions.
6. Detailed Findings on Selected Specific Data
Systems
Section 5 above provides a review of how data are used by the three authorities that are the
subject of this review: DepEd, TESDA and CHED. This section of the report provides analysis
of the nature and quality of data available in several key information and data systems. We also
comment on the functionality of these data systems as systems (i.e., the extent to which they
standardize collection, compilation and analysis and whether and to what extent they facilitate or
enable certain data applications).
6.1 Basic Education Information System (BEIS)

The BEIS is DepEds system for annual collection and processing of administrative data. The
Office of Planning and Services mails (or emails) out three questionnaires, one for government
elementary schools, one for government secondary schools and one for private schools. These
include the following data:
Government elementary school questionnaire:
School ID, District ID 27
Type of school:
Regular; Regular with special education (SPED); Regular w/SPED center; SPED
center; special school; integrated school (school catering to special needs)
Current Year Enrollment:
Total enrollment by gradegender disaggregated
Sub-categories by gradegender disaggregated, including repeaters, transfers in,
students coming back to school after a one-year absence or more, Muslim pupils,
Arabic Language (as a subject) and Islamic Values Education enrollees, indigenous
people,
By age, by grade and gender disaggregated
First graders by age, gender and early childhood development (ECD) experience
Previous Year Enrollment:
Completers, promotes, graduates (as a single category)
Dropouts
Data on Shiftingnumber of students enrolled in different shifts (if school operates on
shifts)
Infrastructure
27
DepEd districts are school districts, not geographic districts. This is an issue for matching up to other government
data systems that use geographic not school district categories.
Numbers of instructional and non-instructional rooms categorized by different uses
Numbers of furniture (desks, tables and chairs)
Number and type of toilets (male and female)
Waterclassification of source
Electricityclassification of source
Staff:
Total number of locally funded teachers by different category of employment
Total nationally funded non-teaching staff by position title disaggregated by gender,
by status, and number of vacancies by position title
Total nationally funded teaching staff by position title disaggregated by gender, by
status and number of vacancies by position title
Total number of nationally funded teachers by position title categorized by full, part-
time, or ancillary status
Pupil/teacher data by regular v. SPED
Total students by grade and disaggregated by gender
Total teachers by grade and disaggregated by gender
SPED enrollment by grade and area of exceptionality, disaggregated by gender
Government Secondary School Questionnaire
Type of school:
Nationally or locally funded
Curricular offering (regular and SPED)
Curricular offering tech vocand within that arts and trade, or agriculture, or
fisheries
Regular; Regular with SPED; Regular w/SPED center; SPED center; special school;
integrated school (school catering to special needs)
Sub categories by gradegender disaggregated, including repeaters, transfers in,
Arabic Language and Islamic Values Education enrollees, indigenous people,
Promotees, graduates (as a single category)
Dropouts
shifts)
Infrastructure:
Waterclassification of source
Electricityclassification of source
Staff:
Total number of locally funded teachers by different category of employment
Total nationally funded non-teaching staff by position title disaggregated by gender,
by status, and number of vacancies by position title
Total nationally funded teaching staff by position title disaggregated by gender, by
status and number of vacancies by position title
Total number of nationally funded teachers by position title categorized by full, part-
time, or ancillary status
Teachers by Assignment:
Total teachers by grade by subjects (English, math, Filipino, science, Makabayan)
Total teachers by teacher areas of specialization (as major or minor)note areas of
specialization track to subjects
Student Data by Program:
Regular curriculum
Within regularscience and technology; arts; sports; SPED
Technical and vocational, and within technical and vocationarts and trade;
agriculture; fisheries
Special curriculum
Regional science high school
School for the arts
Division science high school
SPED
Technical and vocational, and within technical and vocation arts and trade;
agriculture; fisheries
Private School Questionnaire
Type of school:
By type of permit (permit, recognition, permit in process)
By level of education offered (pre, elementary, secondary)
Sub categories by gradegender disaggregated, including repeaters, transfers in,
Arabic Language and Islamic Values Education enrollees, indigenous people, SPED
First graders by age, gender and ECD experience
Completers, promotes, graduates (as a single category)
Dropouts
Transfer-outs
Enrollment of Service Contracting and Voucher System Students:
Total current enrollment by the two categories (ESC, Education Voucher System
[EVS]) by grade (secondary), disaggregated by gender
Total previous year enrollment by the two categories including (disaggregated by
gender)
Promotes
Graduates
Dropouts
Transferred out
Transferred in
Total combined ESC and EVS by age, grade, disaggregated by gender
shifts)
Infrastructure:
Staff:
Total number of full time teachers by level (pre, elementary, secondary)
disaggregated by gender
Total number part-time teachers by level, disaggregated by gender
Total number admin and support staff by level, disaggregated by gender
Data are entered by individual schools directly into the forms and aggregated at the district level
for primary schools and division level for secondary and private schools. At these aggregation
points, data are entered into spreadsheets that are defined and distributed by the DepEd Office of
Planning and Services, which is responsible for managing the BEIS and for supporting data
collection and reporting.
The current BEIS has been in place since 2002. Annual compilation of data begins with the start
of the school year in June. Schools receive questionnaires in June, but data are official as of end
of July (official counts). Forms are filled out in August and September, compiled in December.
The school is the unit of analysis, with unique school IDs. Data can be aggregated by school
district, legislative district, division, and region. Reporting of data is usually by region and
division. Districts, divisions and regions are pass-through points for data. There is supposedly
processing and validation at each of these levels (although it is not clear how or even if that is
done). Districts are coded as urban, semi-urban and rural. All data are also disaggregated by
gender.
There are three modules for data collection and reporting:
Quick countjust enrollment, teachers, classrooms and furniture. This is used as basic
input to the budget/planning process. Scenarios are generated using these basic input data
and estimates of what is needed to provide teachers, classrooms and desks to the schools
in the divisions that are identified as having critical shortages. Color-coded maps are
used to identify these divisions.
School statistics modulestandard annual report that includes all the collected
information reported by region and division
Indicators modulemeant as measure of progress with respect to EFA goals and MDG2.
Report includes intake, gross and net enrollment rates, grade survival, repetition, dropout,
gender parity, completion, transition (elementary to secondary)
The quick count is available in January of the same school year. The full statistics and indicators
reports are available by that March.
The DepEd Office of Planning and Services claims that BEIS data meet a standard of 95%
accuracy, supposedly based on spot checks and trend analyses. There is no third party,
independent check of data validity. However, many stakeholders when interviewed questioned
the validity of BEIS data. Data are not consistent and appear to get modified as they move up the
system. For example, there are strong incentives for districts and divisions to inflate enrollment
figures as funds for maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE)which are funds they
receive and can control at their levelsare based on enrollment.
DepEd produces a set of indicators based on the annual survey returns. The indicators report
includes the following:
Primary Education Secondary Education
Grade one gross and net intake rate
% Grade one with ECD Transition rate (primary to secondary)
Transition rate (grade IV to grade V)
Gross and net enrollment rates
Dropout rate
Failure rate
Promotion rate
Cohort survival rate
Retention rate
Graduate rate
Many of these are computed using only reported data and thus can be calculated for each level of
disaggregation down to the school level. Note that all are presented disaggregated by gender.
Indicators that require population data can only be computed at the division level because the
disaggregated population data from the NSO are only available to that level. DepEd expends a
lot of effort to compute and report these different indicators each year, even though some of
them essentially are measures of the same thing (for example, dropout, cohort survival, failure,
promotion, and retention are highly interdependent measures of system through put).
An ADB study of educational outcomes in 2010 reviewed and critiqued the accuracy of reported
primary education net enrollment figures and found three sources of possible errors in the DepEd
figures: population projections for the 6- to 11-year-old age group; inaccuracies in total
enrollment; or failure to account for cross-provincial enrollment. The ADB analysis showed that
age band specific population projections rely on the average national population growth rate,
thus incorporating two errors: The growth rate may in fact differ for different regions/divisions,
and the age-specific growth rate may also differ from the overall population rate. In both cases,
the analysis indicates that the 6- to 11-year-old population projection may be overestimated,
meaning that the net enrollment rate could be underestimated. The analysis also verified that
total enrollment figures are fairly accurate (by comparing DepEd figures to those obtained
through household surveys). However, examination of household survey data does reveal that a
substantial number of 6-year-olds were not enrolled in first grade. Those data indicate that
families are enrolling children at a later age than the official primary school starting age of 6
years. 28
28
ADB, Education Outcomes in the Philippines, May 2010, pp. 8-12.
The BEIS only includes totals of staff in different categories (as indicated above). Individual
teacher data and specific class and grade assignments are not accounted for in the BEIS.
Nationally funded and locally funded teachers are counted separately, allowing BEIS to
determine the total number of teachers and therefore calculate the overall pupil-teacher ratio for
each school. Actual teacher personnel records are maintained separately (and are discussed
below). No cross-checking is done to verify teacher data in the BEIS, the human resources data
system, or the payroll.
While DepEd officials reported that the current BEIS system represents a vast improvement over
what was in place prior to 2002, as a data management and reporting system it leaves much to be
desired. Data are stored in a very large number of Excel files, organized according to the
different groups of information gathered through the DepEd questionnaires. It is not clear if the
tables that are included as separate tabs within each Excel file are generated automatically, or if
data are hand entered. The maintenance and documentation of this many separate files for
holding and reporting data presents an enormous burden, which could easily be handled better by
a true relational database.
Encouragingly, DepEd is already piloting some improvements to the existing BEIS and is
working with external support to develop other features of a more comprehensive approach to
data collection and management in the basic education sub-sector. For example:
A web-based, Enhanced BEIS (EBEIS), as part of an AusAID project, is being pilot
tested in Regions VI, VII and VIII. The EBEIS allows on-line data entry either directly
by a school that has computers and web access or by the district or division offices.
Aggregation and computation of education performance indicators (the ones in the
indicators module of BEIS) are automated. The enhanced system includes a web-based
front end for data entry connected to a relational database backend. National rollout is
intended for the coming school yearJune 2011.
Future plans include development of School information System (SIS) that would bring
together student data, student performance, individual teacher data, information on
materials and other inputs etc). This would supersede the BEIS. This raises serious
concerns about what schools themselves would be expected to do to input and manage
data (and what sort of ICT infrastructure and capacity they would need to have to take
full advantage of such as system).
DepEd is also piloting a Learning Resources Management and Development System
Portal (LRMDS Portal) also in Regions VI, VII and VIII. This portal provides web-based
access to print and electronic materials and other resources beyond textbooks.
An assess management database is also proposed to allow regular inventory of
infrastructure, furniture and equipment
A Training and Development Information System (TDIS) is also being piloted in Regions
VI, VII and VIII by DepEd. It provides access to a web-based database of training
programs and professional development materials. Teachers and other staff have direct
access to these on-line resources, and the system is supposed to be able to track and
report on participation/use of these professional development programs.
A human resource information system is also being piloted in three regions in Mindanao.
The proliferation of pilot information systems and the pursuit of numerous improvements to a
variety of them in parallel do raise some concern as to how all the pieces would eventually fit
together (or not). Currently, the BEIS does not link directly to the assessment data maintained by
the National Education Testing and Research Center or the textbook and materials data
maintained by the Instructional Materials Council Secretariat (IMCS). At least they do use a
consistent set of school codes, so data from these three different data systems can be combined
manually, although at present it is only done manually (more information on these important
other DepEd data system is presented below).
6.2 Assessment
Primary responsibility for assessment lies with the DepEd National Educational Testing and
Research Center. The NETRC administers the National Achievement Test, the National Career
Assessment Examination, and assessments associated with DepEds Alternative Learning
Systems.
The National Achievement Test is a norm-referenced, curriculum based, multiple-choice test
administered in grades three and six and in the second year of secondary (grade eight). Tests are
administered in March and results are available by May of the same year. All public school
students take the NAT in grade 3, and all public and private school students take it in grades 6
and second year of high school. The test is structured as indicated below:
NAT G3 NAT G4 NAT Y2
Science Science Science
Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics
English English English
Filipino Filipino Filipino
HeKaSi Araling Panlipunan
30 items per subject 40 items per subject 60 items per subject
120 items total 200 items total 300 items total
Each subject area is sub-divided into specific competencies. Raw scores and percentile ranks are
reported for each student and subject. Raw scores are presented on a standardized scale with a
mean of 500 and a standard deviation of 100. The percent of correct responses is also reported
for each subject and, within those, for each learning competency. These percent of correct
response scores are aligned to specific levels of achievement of mastery in that competency area
as indicated below.
Percent
Descriptive Equivalent
Correct Responses
96 to 100 Mastered
86 to 95 Closely Approximating Mastery
66 to 85 Moving Towards Mastery
35 to 65 Average Mastery
16 to 34 Low Mastery
5 to 15 Very Low Mastery
0 to 4 Absolutely No Mastery
The categories were much simpler beforethree categories included mastery (75 to 100),
average mastery (50 to 74) and low mastery (below 50). DepEd was in fact criticized when it
introduced the new classification in the table above, as it seemed to stakeholders in the
Philippines that standards were being lowered.
Scores are reported for individual students (the report is called a Certificate of Rating), schools,
divisions, regions and nationally. DepEd reviews annual performance based on NAT scores as
part of its regular management committee meeting (regrouping all regional education directors.
Divisions, regions and schools can be ranked within comparison groups, called clusters based on
their average percent of correct responses. Clusters are based on the size of the region or
division, or on the number of examinees for schools. Three different clusters are used for regions
and divisions (small, medium and large). Six clusters are used for schools (> 400; 200 to 399;
100 to 199; 55 to 99; 20 to 54, 19 or less). However neither NETRC nor DepEd produces league
tables. Only the highest performers are identified in each cluster.
The Test Development Division within NETRC develops the tests. This appraisal of the data
systems was not able to evaluate the tests to analyze them for accuracy, degree of
standardization, comparability of scores over time or any other appreciation of the quality of the
tests. NETC lets contracts for the processing of tests and but manages itself the presentation of
the information obtained from the contractor (in the form of a file containing compiled test
results). NETRC does some analysis of the NAT results, but the Director indicated that loss of
staff has reduced the capacity of the research and evaluation division.
NETRC is affiliated with some ad hoc projects that have looked more closely at performance. An
example is the TURN (Turning around low performing schools) project, which was designed to
address low performance in English. Schools that had less than 34% (average percent correct in
English) were identified and teachers were made to take a proficiency test in English, and then
attend a training course. A similar project was also launched for math and science. All of these
were done in collaboration with the University of the Philippines. NAT results are also intended
to be used in school improvement planning processes at the school level, and for division and
regional improvement plans at those levels. No indication of the extent to which this is done.
The National Career Assessment Examination is given to all fourth (final) year high school
students in August, with results available by November of the same year. All private and public
school students must take the test. It is a standardized, norm-referenced aptitude test intended to
assess the skills of high school seniors and help orient them for post-secondary education (results
are used for counseling students and making recommendations for possible areas of study, but
are not used for strict streaming of students into different post-secondary programs). Scores are
standardized and normalized around a mean of 500 with a standard deviation of 100. High scores
are in the 700s, low scores in the 300s.
The NCAE is also used to select scholarship awardees and recipients of study grants from CHED
and TESDA. Students scoring in the 99th percentile in scholastic aptitude or in technical-
vocational aptitude are identified as eligible for scholarships. NETRC data show 35,570 students
with general scholastic aptitude and 32,789 with technical-vocational aptitude who meet this
criterioni.e., who may qualify for scholarships. Beginning with SY 2010-11, NCAE scores
will be one part of the requirements for admission to tertiary education.
The NCAE includes the following components:
Number of
Domains Measured
Test Items
1. General Scholastic Aptitude 180
scientific ability
reading comprehension
verbal ability
math ability
2. Technical-Vocational Aptitude 40
Clerical ability
Visual manipulative skills
3. Entrepreneurial Skills 20
Planning and decision-making
Budgeting, marketing and forecasting
Creativity
Number of
Domains Measured
Test Items
4. Logical Reasoning 15
5. Nonverbal Ability 20
6. Occupational Interest 23
Data from the NAT and NCAE are not automatically linked to information retained in the BEIS.
Analysis that requires combining these data sets, such as the ranking of divisions which the
Office of Planning and Services does for DepEd, relies on the manual association of data.
Observations about the nature and availability of the data maintained by NETRC include the
following:
The current system does not permit tracking of individual students over time. Individual
student IDs are generated for each student at each sitting of the test. No consistent student
identifier is maintained.
The NETRC adopted the BEIS school codes in order to allow their data sets to match up
at the school level. NETRC feels those codes are less informative than the codes they
used to use (which included alphanumeric signals for region, division, district, type of
school, etc).
Test results are publically available on line in summary formnational, regional,
divisional
Individual school data are available on line through a secure log in (schools are given log
in information).
Scores are used to identify and target divisions for different interventions such as the food
for school program.
High performing schools, based on the average percent of correct responses, are
identified in each cluster (as mentioned above) but full rankings/league tables are
produced neither for schools, nor for divisions. Division directors are reported to be
resistant to such rankings.
The reliance on percent correct as an indicator of school performance does not make full
use of the information generated by the NAT. Reporting the percent of students obtaining
different levels of mastery would give a better indication of how well schools, districts
and divisions are performing. Also conducting item analysis of the test results would
provide greater insight into student areas of strength and weakness.
Current data on private school performance are limited because not all schools have
participated. There is some self-selection bias for those private schools that were the first
to opt into the NAT. This is in part why all public and private schools are required to
have their students take the grade 6 and year two NATs and the NCAE.
All exam papers include an Examinees Descriptive Questions Section with students
names, school demographic data, etc. This presents an opportunity to analyze results with
respect to income and other demographic data. No evidence of NETRC doing that was
available, and they declined to share information about the data set generated from these
questions.
NETRC has a policy of not sharing data. They indicated that they have not shared data
with NEDA, PIDS, the academic community or other stakeholders.
NETRC does produce an annual report.
NETRC claims that all student-level data are available for the past nine years (20022010). This
represents an extremely rich potential source of time-series student achievement data but there is
no evidence that it is used for policy analysis. Allowing for the changes implemented in the
benchmark assessment grades (in 2005), it should still be possible to construct a cohort analysis
to determine how a group of students achieve as they move through primary and into secondary
school. There are isolated instances of aggregate achievement data having been used by the
academic and donor community to attempt to better understand the relationship between inputs
and learning outcomes. 29 NETRC student-level data were not available to support any of these
studies.
Given the available time series of data across the three grades in which the NAT is administered,
it would be possible, in principle, to look at individual progress of distinct cohorts of students as
they move from grade 3 to grade 6 to year 2 in high school. One could examine the progress and
value added associated with six cohorts as they move from third to sixth grade, and another
four cohorts as they moved through the first two years of high school by comparing NAT
performance in grades and years as indicated below.
29
A study in specific regions can be found in: Bacolod, Marigee P; Tobias, Justin L. Schools, School Quality and
Achievement Growth: Evidence from the Philippines. Economics of Education Review, vol. 25, no. 6, December
2006, pp.619-32. A study of a nationally representative sample of schools is provided in: Maligalig, Dalisay, Rhona
B. Caoli-Rodriguez, Arturo Martinez, Jr., and Sining Cuevas. Education Outcomes in the Philippines. ADB
Economics Working Paper Series No, 199. Manila: ADB, May 2010. An analysis of education at the high school
level, focusing on the impact of Education Service Contracts is presented in: Porio, Carolina C. and Abraham I.
Felipe. Learning Competencies of Educational Service Contracting (ESC) Students. Philippines Education Research
Journal, January 21, 2011. The Philippines Institute of Development Studies has also recently completed a draft
education production function study which will be released after peer review.
Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 8
2002 2005 2007
2003 2006 2008
2004 2007 2009
2005 2008 2010
2006 2009
2007 2010
The lack of consistent, unique individual student IDs could be overcome by matching students
across years. Matching, based on names, sex and date of birth should be a manageable task, as it
could be confined within schools for grades 3 and 6 and within districts for grade 8. Software
exist that can automate this kind of look up and match task.
Other Assessment Data. In addition to the NAT and NCAE, NETRC administers a test that
certifies student achievement of a desired level of education through participation in the
Alternative Learning Systems. These are non-formal training programs targeting out-of-school
youth, covering functional literacy and high school equivalency. This report was not able to
include analysis of these other assessment data.
Lastly, the Philippines participated in the Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study
(TIMSS) in 1999 and 2003. It did not participate in the 2007 study nor is it scheduled to
participate in 2011. Compared to other participating countries, the Philippines performance was
poor. For example:
Philippines International Ranking on TIMSS

Subject 1999 2003
th th
Mathematics 36 of 38 countries 39 of 45 countries
th nd
Science 36 of 38 countries 42 of 45 countries
Source: Michael Alba, The Education Service Contracting Program of the Philippines,
PowerPoint
6.3 Data on Teaching and Learning Materials

The Instructional Materials Council Secretariat handles the procurement and record keeping
related to major materials (primarily textbooks) purchases for DepEd. IMCS uses BEIS
information on enrollment in elementary and secondary schools to put together terms of
reference for textbook development, printing and delivery. They use individual school data for
high schools, but rely on district aggregates for elementary schools. However, they only receive
total enrollment data, so must run an estimate to determine what the approximate numbers of
students are in each grade. They also run their own five-year enrollment projections (based on
existing trends) so that estimated textbook quantities can correspond to anticipated increases in
the number of students.
That IMCS must estimate grade-specific enrollment, rather than obtain that information from
BEIS, introduces an unnecessary degree of uncertainty into the determination of textbook
quantities. And that IMCS is independently running its own enrollment projects also raises a
couple of questions. First, it is not clear why IMCS runs its own enrollment projections rather
than relying on the projections that must be developed in conjunction with DepEds long-term
plans for achieving the 2015 EFA objectives. Second, it is also not clear if ICMS is incorporating
population projections in any way into its estimates (and if they are, one wonders whether they
are using NSO projections, some other source, or their own). This needlessly inserts additional
uncertainty into the planning for textbook procurement.
Relying on district aggregate data for estimates of the quantity of elementary textbooks to
procure, and then leaving it up to districts to distribute books out to schools, creates another
potential source of misallocation of these essential materials. IMCS ends up not knowing how
many books are allocated to each individual elementary schoolthey only maintain a record of
how many were distributed to a district. Therefore they lack a basic school level accounting of
the stocks of textbooks. If decentralized management of textbooks is the intention, then clearer
guidelines and procedures for allocating and managing materials need to be in place at the
division level, with DepEd focusing on designing systems of incentives and sanctions to ensure
prudent management of learning resources and to promote equity.
IMCS maintains a set of Excel spreadsheets on which it tries to keep track of existing stocks of
textbooks at individual high schools and for all elementary schools in a district so that
replacements or additional copies can be ordered as needed. Since these data are not collected as
part of the BEIS annual survey (and one has to wonder why they are not), high schools fax
information on their existing inventories and additional needs direct to IMCS, and districts
collect information from their elementary schools and then fax or email the lists to IMCS. Given
the thousands of schools concerned, all this creates way too many opportunities for miscounting,
errors and miscommunication, and it unnecessarily leaves ICMS and DepEd uninformed about
how equitably materials are distributed across divisions, districts and schools.
6.4 TESDA Data Systems on TVET Programs and Students

TESDA monitors and coordinates all skill development related activities in the Philippines. All
training providers need to register with TESDA and are officially registered based on adherence
to specific training provision regulations, which are defined for 230 training program areas of
study. Accreditation standards are based on those of the Colombo Staff College and the Asia-
Pacific Institute. TESDA also maintains a registry of certified TVET trainers and of certified
workers in specific sectors/skill areas. TESDA does not have a proactive policy for promoting
development of programs in certain skill areas or regions of the country. The impression is that
TESDA follows the evolution of the sector, providing certification as programs and institutions
crop out.
The Planning Office of TESDA attempts to maintain statistics on TVET providers, programs,
and trainees. Since training programs are of varying lengths, cover a variety of fields, are
delivered through numerous different venues, and target different populations in terms of levels
of education, collecting these data is no easy feat.
TVET schools, centers and training providers prepare monthly reports for TESDA in email, CD
and hard copy formats. Through its network of provincial and district offices TESDA then
collects these data (monthly reports).TESDA provincial offices submit their provincial reports to
the 17 Regional TESDA offices. The provincial reports are consolidated into regional reports by
the regional offices and submitted to the TESDA corporate office. The corporate office then
consolidates these regional reports into a corporate plan and statistical report. Data are collected
on the following:
Technical education / skills development outputs (numbers enrolled and graduates from
different training programs);
Graduates assessed and certified by TESDA (by region and by economic sector
corresponding to their field of training);
TVET programs registered with TESDA (the number of programs being offered in each
sector according to the Unified TVET Program Registration and Accreditation System)
The 21 sectors included in TESDAs data compilations are:
Agriculture and fishery Heating, ventilation and air conditioning

Automotive Information and communication technology
Aviation and land transportation Manufacturing
Construction Metals and engineering
Decorative crafts, gifts, toys and housewares Printing
Decorative craftsjewelry Processed food and beverages
Electronics Pyrotechnics
Footwear and leather goods Shipbuilding
Furniture and fixtures Tourism (hotel and restaurant)
Garments Utilities
Health, social and other community development
services
The TESDA system employs standard reporting templates and list of mandatory data fields.
These are arranged in Excel spreadsheets, which are transmitted to provincial offices and training
providers via e-mail or in hard copy. The forms are not electronically protected nor do they
make use of a data entry interface. Rows and columns are simply arrayed on open spreadsheets.
Fitting information into the allotted space on the spreadsheets undoubtedly slows down and
probably causes errors in data entry at the source. Spreadsheets are essentially being used as
forms and data are then re-entered to create the provincial, regional and national level
aggregations. Aggregation is therefore also prone to human error in encoding or repetitive entries
(the modular nature of TVET programs and courses increases the likelihood of mistaken double
counting of trainees).
The entry and re-entry of data at each point of aggregation leads to voluminous and unnecessary,
repetitive encoding tasks. Countless person hours are needed to complete these tasks (and it is
frightening to think of the volume of work needed to essentially manually update the data from
some 10,000 TVET programs being offered by close to 5,000 training providers on a monthly
basis). To then turn these raw data into useful information, additional summarizing, rearranging
and filtering needs to take place. There is no TVET database per se. Information is merely stored
in various Excel files.
TESDA reports that they are undertaking some data system automation initiatives, which include
the following:
Establishment of reporting standards and procedures;
Establishment of data sets and reporting templates;
Establishment of TVET data dictionary;
They have also requested government funding to develop a web-based system for data collection.
However, this has not yet been approved. TESDA is committed to strengthening the capacity of
its regional and provincial offices to analyze and use data and to formalizing its performance
measurement and management system. This system is designed to evaluate the performance of
TESDA staff and offices by identifying measureable targets for TVET provision and outcomes.
Furthermore, TESDA staff suggested that technical assistance from USAID could help them
complete the Philippines National Qualifications Framework and design a roadmap for its
implementation. The PNQF was approved by DepEd, TESDA and CHED in April 2005, but was
never operationalized. Use of International Standard Classification of Education codes in TVET
was also suggested as a possible agenda for TESDA-USAID collaboration in the future. TESDA
expressed an interest to develop its own equivalent of the U.S. National Center for Education
Statistics classification of instructional programs.
TESDA does conduct a periodic impact evaluation to measure the relevance and effectiveness
of TVET programs. Their aim is to conduct such a study every two years. The most recent
evaluation was completed in 2008 (the fourth carried out since 2000). Specifically, the studys
objectives were to: 30
Estimate the employment and skills utilization rates of TVET graduates
Determine the income levels of employed graduates
Establish the average length of job search
Identify training programs for which graduates have better chances of employment
Analyze the types of employment obtained by TVET graduates
30
TESDA, Impact Evaluation Study of TVET Programs, 2008, p. 1.
Identify reasons graduates give for not looking for work.
Precise information on the structure and size of the sample of graduates contacted for this study
is not provided. Results are reported for 216,940 people who graduated from school, center or
enterprise based TVET programs in 2007. Data are presented on the number of graduates, their
certification and employment status, their earnings by occupation, and a variety of other data.
Overall, 45% of the surveyed graduates were employed at the time of the survey. The region
with the highest rate of employment was Region IV-B (66%). The lowest was ARMM (18%).
The sector with a significant number of graduates and the highest rate of employment was land
transportation (68%). The lowest was garments (24%). Missing from this report is an accounting
of the true/total cost of training (costs borne by TESDA or TESDA institutions, costs borne by
enrollees themselves, costs borne by private providers/enterprises). A first order cost-benefit
assessment is presented, but because of the gross under-calculation of training costs, it is far
from an accurate portrayal of the cost effectiveness of the TVET programs included in the
study. 31
DOLE conducts an enterprise/establishment survey to collect data pertaining to employment.
This does not include data on employee levels or types of education and training (this is collected
by the Department of Science and technology through a separate survey). Questions asked of
employers relate to the number of establishments, number of employees, revenue, inventories,
etc. This provides some information on employers, but unfortunately, there is no linkage between
these data and those on TVET collected by TESDA. This DOLE survey could be modified to
include collection of data on the education and training histories of samples of employees at each
firm. That would allow TESDA to have additional information about which graduates from
which programs are being employed in which sectors.
6.5 CHED Data Systems on Higher Education

CHED is charged with managing the data system for higher education in the Philippines,
collecting basic statistics from all public and private higher education institutions in the country
each year. These statistics include:
Enrollments and graduates (disaggregated by gender), by
public and private
type of institution
program level
region
academic discipline
A running time series of these basic data, going back to the 1990s (data on the number
and types of institutions goes back to the 1950s).
31
Figures are from TESDA, Impact Evaluation Study of TVET Programs, 2008, pp. 13-14. The report presents an
oversimplified returns and benefits analysis on p. 24.
Data on all higher education staff (disaggregated by gender) for public and private
institutions by level of credential, region, and academic discipline.
The registry of centers of excellence and centers of development (public and private) by
region, and discipline
The registry of institutions granted deregulated or autonomous status, by region
The numbers of recipients for each different program of financial assistance and
scholarship
The annual higher education statistical bulletin also includes some basic computed indicators,
such as:
gross enrollment (relative to the population of 16- to 21-year-olds),
gross survival (% of first year students able to reach fourth-, fifth-, and sixth-year levels),
graduate rate (% of first-year students who were able to graduate),
Exam pass rate by discipline,
Licensure exam pass rates by discipline,
Some of these data are accessible on the CHED website
(http://202.57.63.198/chedwww/index.php/eng).
To compile these data, CHED sends out Excel-based forms to every higher education institution,
public and private, in the country. As was the case with TESDA, these forms are simple pre-
formatted Excel spreadsheets, into which data need to be directly entered. The usual problems of
typographical errors, mistakes and the like abound. Each institution sends in its forms, which
then have to be manually combined by CHED office of planning staff. This effectively involves
reentering each institutions data into summary spreadsheetsthereby multiplying the
possibilities of errors. The data are organized into summary tables (based on the standard
presentation of data required for the annual statistical bulletin). They are not stored in a database
(needless to say, no relational queries or cross-tabulations are possible).
CHED publishes a comprehensive data element manual (last revised in 2005). This over 400-
page document provides names and precise definitions for each element of data that CHED seeks
to collect regarding higher education institutions, students and programs. The manual also
defines the coding to use for each data element when entering data.
The CHED compiled data are presented as a comprehensive view of the higher education sector.
However, large numbers of institutions do not submit completed forms. For the academic year
2010/11, a total of 809 institutions did not submit data. This represents 45% of the recognized
institutions in the Philippines. Of these not reporting data, 170 are public and 639 are private.
These represent 78% and 41% of those two segments of the higher education subsector. This
much under-reporting severely compromises the utility of the CHED data set, especially since
both reporting and non-reporting schools are self-selected.
6.6 Human Resources Data in DepEd
Responsibility for various aspects of human resources management in DepEd is shared between
the central department (the Personnel Division) and the Superintendents of Education in each
division of the country. HR information in the current system is updated manually, AND
individual employee personnel files are maintained, but no personnel database exists. Hiring and
management of personnel within divisions are handled at that level. It is not clear what data, if
any, are maintained on staff performance or participation in professional development and
training either by the division or central DepEd.
The personnel office in DepEd was traditionally only responsible for managing department
cadres working in headquarters. Under the new administration, DepEd is trying to move to a
more comprehensive approach to human resources management that would enable the central
department to drive rationalization of staffing throughout the sector.
In that context, an HRIS is being piloted. The idea is to create a centralized, web-based system
built around a central database (repository) of personnel records. The concept was originally
implemented at the regional level in Region XI (on Mindanao) under the Basic Education
Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM) project. This system is designed to allow more timely
updating and retrieval of more accurate HR data. Movement of personnel would be easier to
monitor as would salary, benefits and performance. The current pilot is being extended to
Regions III, IV-A, IV-B and the National Capital Region (NCR). Part of this process involves
the initial encoding of personnel records for the DepEd employees in those regions. 95% of
employees records have been encoded (some 178,000 records) and of those, 41% have had their
content validated (the process of validating records as they are encoded is time consuming, but it
offers DepEd an opportunity to clean up its personnel ranks).
6.7 Household Surveys

The National Statistics Office regularly conducts household surveys which include information
on education and/or are directly related to the education and training sector. Nine key surveys,
which are collected on a regular basis, include:
Survey on Children
Family Income and Expenditure Survey (FIES)
Annual Poverty Indicator Survey (administered years when there is no FIES)
Sub-Regional Multiple Indicator Cluster Survey
Domestic Visitors
Overseas Filipinos
Census of Population and Housing
Functional Literacy and Mass Media Survey
National Demographic and Health Survey
The NSO provided hard and electronic copies of all survey instruments and also provided a
PowerPoint presentation showing the specific education variables in each survey. Surveys are
usually sampled so as to be representative down to the division level.
6.8 Employment and Labor-Related Surveys

The Department of Labor and Employment maintains a central data system, drawing on surveys
and administrative data from 12 Government agencies and the central bank. Reports and data are
available on their web site, organized into the following linked categories:
Economic Structure
Demography
Labor and Employment
Income, Wages and Salaries
Education and Manpower Development
Overseas Employment
Filipinos Overseas
Investments
DOLE Administrative Statistics
Employment Opportunities
Education Enrollment by year, level, gender, public/private
The primary tools for collection of data on the labor market are the household-based Labor
Market Survey, conducted quarterly by the NSO and annual enterprise surveys conducted by
DOLE.
6.9 Finance Data

Financial data are available in PDF format from the annual budget documents. The NSO also
prepares an annual Philippines Statistical Yearbook (available on CD) with time-series data on
allocations by sector. Unfortunately, the Statistical Yearbook data are incomplete. We anticipate
that there will be detailed time series data in the recently-completed World Bank PER and Basic
Education PER documents. The need for such data has been flagged at various points in this
report and, if data are not available from other sources, working with the results of the PER is a
priority activity addressed in this reports recommendations.
Within DepEd, the Budget Division is responsible for monitoring department expenditures. This
division does maintain a database that allows them to consolidate and update in real time the
expenditures of DepEds central offices. Information on expenditures incurred at other levels of
the system is not tracked by the central DepEd. Districts, divisions and regions track and report
on the execution of their own budgets. Capital expenditures can be consolidated and tracked
centrally, but only at years end.
Region IV-A has developed its own web-based system for consolidating expenditures at the
regional level for each operating unit within the region. This system uses a visual-basic front end
for data entry into an MS Access back-end database. Such a system allows up-to-date accounting
for resource use. This may serve as a model for improved financial information systems for the
country.
The equitable allocation and use of maintenance and other operating expenditure grants (MOOE)
are areas of education finance that improved information tracking systems. This represents one
discretionary part of divisions, districts and schools budgets. Better targeting and management
of these resources could impact operations throughout the system.
The Undersecretary for Finance expressed particular concern about being able to account for
how efficiently and effectively funds for training and materials are also allocated and used.
In addition to concerns about better management of certain categories of expenditures, DepEd
may also lack adequate information to appropriately manage and account for the distribution of
funds between regions, divisions, districts and schools.
One problem stems from the suspected inaccuracy of enrollment data. As is the case in virtually
all countries where resource allocations are responsive to enrollment figures, there are incentives
to game the system by over-reporting enrollment. This is further intensified by political and
donor needs to demonstrate progress toward meeting EFA and MDG targets. The DepEd is
aware of the extent of the problem, which is referred to in official internal DepEd
communications as a lingering concern. 32 In August 2010, DepEd launched a study intended to
validate enrollment figures in a sample of schools, but no results have been reported from that
effort.
Not surprisingly, payroll costs dominate expenditure in the education sector. Yet, there is no
master list of teachers or consolidated payroll system in place and there are reasons to believe
that the payroll allocations could be rationalized to better match the system requirements. Over-
reporting of enrollment may cause a concomitant inflation of staffing requirements. Estimates,
for example in the Armed Forces of the Philippines, suggest that these kinds of issues may
inflate the budget by as much as 20%.
It is also acknowledged that there are serious problems in the data and criteria used for allocating
school construction funds. 33 The criteria for allocating and targeting construction funds are based
on estimates of total enrolment by level combined with information on the existing facilities
stock. This completely overlooks the common practice of double (and sometimes triple) shifts in
urban areas. As a result, estimates of the total need for classrooms are overstated (for urban
areas) and resources may thus end up being targeted to the wrong areas of the country.
32
DepEd memo of 31 May 2010.
33
Data from the Department of Budget indicate a 50% reduction in the school building fund between 2010 and
2011, because of concerns over misallocation/misuse of funds.
6.10 The National Context for Data and Statistics
At the national level, the overarching framework for collection and management of statistical
data is the Philippines Statistical System (PSS). The PSS is a decentralized system consisting of
the various statistical organizations at all administrative levels. It is composed of a policy-
making and coordinating body which is the National Statistical Coordination Board; the
statistical agencies comprising the National Statistics Office, Bureau of Agricultural Statistics,
Bureau of Labor and Employment Statistics, Department of Economic Statistics, and the
Statistical Research and Training Center; other data producers and agencies (such as DepEd,
CHED and TESDA) that generate data as part of their administrative or regulatory functions.
The PSS is guided by the national Philippine Statistical Development Program (PSDP), a plan
that is updated every six years to reflect the needs and priorities of the national Medium-Term
Philippine Development Plan. The latest draft PSDP covers the period 2007-2015 34 and will be
updated to reflect the new MTPDP, which is being finalized.
Overall responsibility for data standards and coordination rests with the National Statistical
Coordination Board. Representatives of all government agencies and departments participate in
the NSCB collaborative process. The overall PSS includes data from a range of sources
including economic, census, household and labor market surveys, and surveys of overseas
citizens, as well data from various line agency administrative databases, such as the DepEd
BIES, CHED and TESDA data sources, described above.
There is an Interagency Committee (IAC) on education statistics with participants form
approximately 20 agencies represented. Ten members of the Education IAC are from education
agencies (DepEd, CHED, TEDSA); others members represent the legislature and central
government planning agencies. The education IAC is chaired by DepEd Assistant Secretary for
Planning with co-chairs representing CHED and TESDA. The IAC is scheduled to meet on a
quarterly basis. As discussed elsewhere in this report, there are major technical obstacles to
merging education administrative files with national data from other sources and issues related to
the reliability, completeness and timeliness of these administrative data sources.
34
There is some discrepancy regarding the period covered by the PSDPweb-based information states 2005-2011,
meeting with NSCB states 2011-2015.
Bibliography
Alba, Michael M. (2010), The Education Service Contracting (ESC) Program of the Philippines,
PowerPoint presentation given on 6/21/10 by Michael Alba of De La Salle University,
Philippines.
Australian Agency for International Development (2009), Annual Program Performance Report
for the Philippines 2008, Canberra: AusAID.
Bureau of Local Employment, Department of Labor and Employment (2010), Project JOBSFIT:
DOLE 2020 Vision. Summary of Findings and Recommendations, Manila: DOLE.
Caoli-Rodriquez, Rhona B. (2007), The Philippines country case study, Country profile prepared
for the EFA Global Monitoring Report 2008, Paris: UNESCO.
Commission on Higher Education (2005), Revised CHED Data Element Manual, Manila:
CHED.
Commission on Higher Education (2009), 2009 Annual Report, Manila: CHED.
Commission on Higher Education (2010), Mapping of Higher Education Institutions by Region,

Province and Type (AY 2009/10), Downloaded from the CHED website:
http://202.57.63.198/chedwww/index.php/eng
Department of Education (2009), DepEd-ARMM held first-ever Education Donors Forum,

DepEd Bulletin posted on 29 August 2009, http://armm.depedonline.net/?p=20.
Department of Education (2010), Discussion Paper on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education
Program, Manila: DepEd.
Department of Education (2010), Discussion Paper on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education
Program, Manila: DepEd.
Department of Education (2011), Policies and Guidelines on the Implementation of the

Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE), DepEd
Order No. 8, s.2011.
Department of Education (2011), The Human Resource Management Plan of the Department of
Education, PowerPoint presentation obtained from DepEd, Human Resources Development
Service.
Department of Education(2010) Region XII: Annual Report 2010, Koronadal City: DepEd.
Department of Social Welfare and Development (date unknown), Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino
Program (4Ps): Program Profile. Manila: DepEd.
di Gropello, Emanuela (2010), Skills for the Labor Market in the Philippines, Directions in
Development, Human Development, Washington DC: World Bank.
Government of the Philippines (2009), Philippines Human Development Report 2008/2009,

Manila: HDN.
Government of the Philippines (2010), Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS Project Indigenous Peoples

Planning Framework (electronic copy obtained from ARMM DepEd).
Government of the Philippines (date unknown), Philippines: ARMM Social Fund Project
Additional Financing: Indigenous Peoples Planning Framework (electronic copy obtained
from ARMM DepEd).
International Qualifications Assessment Service (2007), International Education Guide for the
Assessment of Education from the Philippines, Alberta: IQAS.
James-Wilson, David (2010), Tracking the Impact of Returning to Education: How Re-
connecting Young People with Educational Opportunities Contributes to Peace Building in
Mindanao, Education Quality and Access for Learning and Livelihood Skills Project,
USAID Project, Manila: EQUALLS.
Luo, Xubei and Takanobu Terada (2009), Education and Wage Differentials in the Philippines,
Policy Research Working Paper 5120, Washington DC: World Bank.
Luz, Juan Miguel (2009), The Challenge of Governance in a Large Bureaucracy (Department of
Education): Linking governance to performance in an under-performing sector, HDN
Discussion Paper No. 1, Manila: HDN.
Maligalig, Dalisay S. and Jose Ramon G. Albert (2008), Measures for Assessing Basic
Education in the Philippines, Discussion Paper Series No. 2008-16, Manila: PIDS.
Maligalig, Dalisay S. and Sining Cuevas (2010), Is the Net Enrollment Rate Estimate of the
Philippines Accurate? ADB Briefs No. 2, Manila: ADB.
Maligalig, Dalisay S. et al (2010), Education Outcomes in the Philippines, ADB Economics

Working Paper Series No. 199, Manila: ADB.
National Economic and Development Authority (2004), Medium-Term Philippine Development

Plan (MTPDP) 2004-2010. Manila: Accessed at http://www.neda5.net/MTPDP%202004-
2010%20NEDA%20v11-12.pdf
National Statistics Office (2008), Philippines National Demographic and Health Survey 2008,
Manila: NSO.
Philippine Business for Social ProgressCenter for Corporate Citizenship (2009), Lack of
Skilled Labor in the ARMM: A Problem of Supply and Demand. Philippines, Accessed at
http://issuu.com/pbsp/docs/armm_education_monograph.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (2008), Making reforms truly transform: the case of
Philippine basic education, Policy Notes No.2009-12, Manila: PIDS.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (2008), Restructuring the Philippine statistical
system in response to new challenges, Policy Notes No. 2008-08, Manila: PIDS.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (2010), The Filipino Child: A glimpse at the school
dropout problem, Policy Brief No. 4, Manila: PIDS.
Philippine Institute for Development Studies (2010), The Filipino Child: School disparities: an
early life lever for better (or worse) equity in the future, Policy Brief No. 6, Manila: PIDS.
Riester, Andrea (2009), Impact of the global recession on international labor migration and
remittances: Implications for poverty reduction and development in Nepal, Philippines,
Tajikistan and Uzbekistan, Background Paper prepared for the 3rd ASEAN Forum on Social
Development, Manila: ADB.
Syjuco, A.B. Secretary, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2006), The
Philippine Technical Vocational Education and Training (TVET) System. Philippines.
Presented at the Fourth Saudi Technical Conference and Exhibition 2006, Riyadh, Saudi
Arabia. December 2-6, 2006.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2010), Current TVET Data and Related
Statistics 2005-2009, Manila: TESDA.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2010). Global Competencies Global
Opportunities. The National Technical Education and Skills Development Plan 2005 -2009,
Manila: TESDA.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2010). 2008 Impact Evaluation Study of
TVET Programs. Manila: TESDA.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2011), Performance Measurement and
Management System (PMMS), FY22010 Agency Performance Measures as of December
2010, document obtained from TESDA.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (2011), The Philippine Technical and
Vocation Education and Training System, downloaded from the TESDA website:
http://www.tesda.gov.ph/
U.S. Government (2009), Country Assistance Strategy Philippines: 2009-2013, Manila: U.S.
Mission to the Philippines.
U.S. Government (2010), FY 2009 Foreign Operations Performance Report & FY 2011
Performance Plan, Washington DC: USAID.
USAID (2005), Jobs for the 21st Century: Philippines/ Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao
(ARMM) Assessment, Final Report. Prepared for USAID/Asia and Near East Bureau, Jobs
for the 21st Century Initiative, Manila: USAID.
USAID (2006), Education and Fragility: an Assessment Tool, Washington DC: USAID.
USAID (2010), Education Quality and Access for Learning and Livelihoods Skills Project
(EQuALLS2): Project Profile, Manila: USAID.
USAID (2010), Education Quality and Access for Learning and Livelihoods Skills Project
(EQuALLS2): Learning Series, Volume 1 Series 1, Manila: USAID.
World Bank (2003), Out-of-School Children and Youth in the Philippines: Issues and
Opportunities, Report No. 23132-PH, Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2007), Implementation Completion and Results Report, Third Elementary
Education Project, Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2007), Mindanao Trust Fund Reconstruction and Development Program Annual
Report 2006, Manila: World Bank.
World Bank (2008), Implementation Completion and Results Report, Second Social Expenditure
Management Project, Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2009), Project Appraisal Document, Social Welfare Development Reform Project,
Washington DC: World Bank.
World Bank (2010), Industry and Skill Wage Premiums in East Asia, Policy Research Working
Paper No. 5379, Washington DC: World Bank
World Bank (2010), Philippines Education Service Contracting Study, Washington DC: World
Bank
World Bank and AusAID (2011), Basic Education Public Expenditure Review, PowerPoint
presentation of summary findings.

Data Capacity Assessment Philippines-Mindanao FINAL REPORT PDF

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Data Capacity Assessment Philippines-Mindanao FINAL REPORT PDF

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

EdData II

EdData II Technical and Managerial Assistance, Task Number 11

RTI International is a trade name of Research Triangle Institute.

2.1 Overview of the Education Sector

2.2 USG Programming in Education

2.3 Other Development Partners

4.1 Recommendations for DepEd

Recommendation 1: Analysis of use of resources in DepEd high-priority divisions

Recommendation 2: Promoting dialogue around the implications and requirements of

Recommendation 3: Support NETRC in the management and use of assessment data

Recommendation 4: Improve the systematization of TESDA data collection

Recommendation 5: Support improvements in TESDAs impact study methodology

Recommendation 6: Assist TESDA in the development and implementation of the PNQF

4.3 Recommendations for CHED

Recommendation 8: Support analytical work that helps promote rationalization of the

Recommendation 9: Assist in the development of a normative funding model

2 Governance and Management/Personnel 12

3 Curriculum and Outcomes 14

4 Finance and Expenditure 11

5 Facilities/ Infrastructures, Technology & Services 9

Role of Civil Society

Treatment of Mindanao and ARMM

6.1 Basic Education Information System (BEIS)

Grade one gross and net intake rate

% Grade one with ECD Transition rate (primary to secondary)

Transition rate (grade IV to grade V)

Gross and net enrollment rates

Cohort survival rate

NAT G3 NAT G4 NAT Y2

Science Science Science

Mathematics Mathematics Mathematics

English English English

Filipino Filipino Filipino

HeKaSi Araling Panlipunan

30 items per subject 40 items per subject 60 items per subject

120 items total 200 items total 300 items total

86 to 95 Closely Approximating Mastery

66 to 85 Moving Towards Mastery

5 to 15 Very Low Mastery

1. General Scholastic Aptitude 180

Visual manipulative skills

Planning and decision-making

Budgeting, marketing and forecasting

2002 2005 2007

2003 2006 2008

2004 2007 2009

2005 2008 2010

Philippines International Ranking on TIMSS

6.3 Data on Teaching and Learning Materials

6.4 TESDA Data Systems on TVET Programs and Students

The 21 sectors included in TESDAs data compilations are:

Agriculture and fishery Heating, ventilation and air conditioning

6.5 CHED Data Systems on Higher Education

6.7 Household Surveys

6.8 Employment and Labor-Related Surveys

6.9 Finance Data

Commission on Higher Education (2009), 2009 Annual Report, Manila: CHED.

Commission on Higher Education (2010), Mapping of Higher Education Institutions by Region,

Department of Education (2009), DepEd-ARMM held first-ever Education Donors Forum,

Department of Education (2011), Policies and Guidelines on the Implementation of the

Government of the Philippines (2009), Philippines Human Development Report 2008/2009,

Government of the Philippines (2010), Philippines: KALAHI-CIDSS Project Indigenous Peoples

Maligalig, Dalisay S. et al (2010), Education Outcomes in the Philippines, ADB Economics