Professional Documents
Culture Documents
Teachers Supply and Demand in The Philippines.: Clementina Acedo, HDNED The World Bank
Teachers Supply and Demand in The Philippines.: Clementina Acedo, HDNED The World Bank
1.2) Relationship between teachers supply from training programs and school
needs
Shortage of teachers trained in mathematics and science, particularly in
physics and chemistry
Teachers teaching subjects for which they are not prepared
A deficient in-service program
IV. Bibliography
1
Teachers Supply and Demand in the Philippines.
Teacher salaries in the Philippines have been substantially increased 1 with the
hope that this measure would make the profession more attractive and would contribute
to improving the quality of teachers. However, it has been shown in the literature that a
policy of higher salaries by itself without improving teacher education and establishing
higher standards does not have an effect on improving teaching effectiveness (Sedlak
and Schlossman 1986; Darling-Hammond 1998). Apparently, better students have been
enrolling in the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSE) in the last years, but besides
from that there has not been significant improvement in the quality of teachers in the
Philippines after raising teacher salaries. One reason argued for the low quality of
teachers, are the years of neglect of and lack of attention at what happens at the school
level.2 But there are also serious reasons for the low performance of teachers, both on
the supply side of teacher education and on the demand side of schools’ teaching needs.
I. Key Issues
2
administration. The Teacher Education Institutions have so far produced more
graduates than required by the system. But the main problem is that the quality of the
teachers produced by these institutions is very low. The single most important factor
underlying the quality of basic education is the quality of teachers and this depends on
the quality of teacher education. Teacher education thus, is an area of urgent attention
in the Philippines.
The problem starts with the quality of intakes into teacher education. Only 25
percent of the high school seniors who passed the National Secondary Achievement
Test (NSAT) opted for teacher education as a career path (CHED 1997), meaning that
better students chose other career paths (CHED 1997). From those that start teacher
education programs, 71 percent complete the degrees. The other 29 percent drop out of
the program, mostly due to economic problems or lack of initial preference for teacher
education.
The main route by which a student in the Philippines can obtain a pre-service
qualification as an elementary teacher is through the Bachelor of Elementary Education
(BEE) degree and as a high school teacher through the Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSE) degree. The BSE degree is usually taken with a major in a single high
school subject. The alternative way to obtain qualification as a teacher is to complete a
regular Arts or Science degree (BA or BS) and then to enroll at a College of Education
for an 18 unit program of professional education. 6 Either route entitles the graduate to
sit the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).
Most of those graduating from TEIs do not pass the licensing test
6
The Teacher Professionalization Law (R.A. 7836) reduced the number of units of the professional
component of teacher education from 18 to 10 units, this measure was severely objected by the Philippine
Association for Teacher Education (PAFTE) at the Congressional hearings for the law, Teacher Education
Council (1998). We are not aware of its implementation yet.
7
Interview with Pre-Service Education Specialist, PROBE.
3
A comparison of the licensure test pass rates of different professions is
interesting. The pass rate for teachers exceeds only those for accountants (16 percent)
and dentists (25 percent). The highest pass rates were achieved by medical doctors (78
percent), pharmacists (65 percent) and metallurgical engineers (56 percent).8
The curriculum of both BEE and BSE degree programs has a heavy component
on general education (50 percent). This seems to be a compensatory measure for the
short years of basic education in the Philippines education system. From the other fifty
percent, about a third of the curriculum is devoted to professional courses and just
about 20 percent to specialization courses. The result thus, is that teacher education
graduates are in general quite weak on subject matter content (TEC, 1998).
Faculty members in the TEIs tend to have master’s degree, 90 percent of all
master’s degree are in education, but most of these teachers teach specialized courses
for which their MAs do not qualify them.9
Computers are utilized only in the TEIs located in wealthy urban centers (8 out of
10 institutions do not have computers or overhead projectors). Libraries are poorly
maintained and with outdated materials. Students rely mostly on handouts or lecture
notes. The majority of science laboratories are minimally equipped, even in the private
TEIs where student fees are quite low.
8
See Johanson, (1999) “Higher Education in the Philippines.” TBP. No. 3.
9
It is interesting to note that 87% of the graduate programs in the country are in education.
4
1.2) Relationship between teachers supply from training programs and school
needs
Of those prospective teachers enrolled in BSE degrees, only 1.5 percent chose the
majors of mathematics and science. There are four BSE science programs (general
science, biology, chemistry and physics) and a single mathematics program. The
majority of universities focus on non-science BSE subjects and mathematics. The only
science major which is commonly offered in BSE programs is general science, which
prepares the teacher for the first year high school science curriculum. Programs which
prepare teachers for specialized science (biology, physics and chemistry, taught in
second, third and four school years) are only taught in a few institutions, in general in
the Centers of Excellence. (Somerset et al. 1998). This results in a general shortage of
teachers in priority areas such as mathematics and sciences, and within sciences,
especially in the specialization majors of physics and chemistry.
Besides this general shortage of teachers in these key areas, there is a lack of fit
between the formal qualifications of mathematics and science high school teachers and
the demands of the high school curriculum. In the sample of BSE programs studied by
Somerset, Alfafara et alias in Central Visayas, mathematics and biology teachers were
in adequate supply, but there were shortages of chemistry and physics teachers and a
substantial oversupply of general science teachers. General science teachers were
teaching physics or chemistry, areas for which they were not specifically trained, and
many mathematics teachers, who could easily teach physics were unwilling to do so.
These patterns are a legacy of the low enrollments in mathematics and science in pre-
service training programs. Very recently a targeted scholarships program in the teacher
education colleges is beginning to correct the problem. (Somerset et al. 1998, p. 21).
10
DECS “Masterplan for Continuing In-Service Training” (1998)
5
A deficient in-service program
This weak exposure that student teachers have to actual classroom situation
translates into poor classroom teaching methods: “many classrooms appear to be
operating in a very authoritarian, undemocratic, teacher-centered, hierarchical fashion”
(Brigham 1998). Other identified ineffective teacher practices include: teacher
dependence on guides and manuals; heavy emphasis on recall and repetition rather than
understanding; learning environments that elicit passive pupil behavior; under-
development of pupil problem-solving skills; lack of attention to individual learning
needs; and under-use of group methods to foster cooperative learning.12
Teachers have identified priority training needs which their pre-service education
has failed to meet, including the need for greater subject content; specific pedagogic
training, applicable to the subject they teach; knowledge and methods of student
assessment; and classroom management techniques. Also, teachers who teach multi-
grade classes feel overwhelmed by the lack of specific pedagogic preparation needed to
perform effectively in a multi-grade environment.13
There is a consensus that in-service training (INSET) programs have not been
adapted to teachers’ needs. Responding to this concern, DECS has transferred the
implementation of INSET to the divisional level and is willing to push it down further
to the school level. New expressed objectives of INSET are the following:
improvement in subject area teaching; upgrading teaching competencies in pre-school
education, multi-grade teaching and assessment at the classroom level, and capacity-
building for head teachers and principals in order to properly assess teachers’
performance (DECS 1998d). Some of these needs will be addressed in the INSET
training under TEEP. Instructional supervision should be enforced at the school level
with the joint work of master and experienced teachers, the principal and trained
teachers. Methods for instructional supervision include classroom observations,
coaching, team teaching and observation of experienced and co-trained teachers.
11
From Regel (1998), and interviews.
12
Taguiwalo, (1993) Background paper for TEEP, p. 46.
13
Idem. Interviews with Decs administrators staff bureaus, PROBE inservice specialist, and teachers.
6
1.3) Teacher allocation and teacher management
Teacher distribution
The student-teacher ratio is 1:34 but the average class size is much larger, 41 in
elementary education and 50 in secondary education. This does not seem to be a
serious problem either for student achievement or for cost–efficiency considerations,
but there are distributional disparities that lead to inequities in the system. For instance,
region-wide average class sizes in elementary education range from 50 in NCR to 33
and 34 in region 1 and CAR respectively. Schools in urban areas tend to have more
resources, more students, and therefore attract more teachers. Schools in sparsely
populated, as well as remote rural communities are less well-endowed and tend to be
smaller and incomplete, have fewer teachers and, in most instances, are headed by non-
principals. There are many more teachers on the pay roll than there are teachers
teaching. In urban widely populated schools, often many teachers are fulfilling non-
teaching functions, like clerical or administrative ones.
DECS is the biggest single employer of teachers, employing 326,970 teachers for
elementary education, 20,572 supervisory staff (principals, head teachers, counselors)
and 13,034 administrative and support staff 14. More than 80 percent of the education
budget of DECS is devoted to teachers’ salaries. This leaves very little room for
improvement in other areas of education, but teachers are the key factor in education
delivery and the student-teachers ratio is relatively high and not particularly inefficient
in comparison to other countries. There are, however, inefficiencies in the deployment
of teachers than can be corrected by eliminating some of the obstacles of staffing and
placement policies and, at the same time, by creating an incentive structure that would
attract good teachers where they are most needed.
14
1997 data. DECS, Statistical Unit.
7
school. So principals in schools with high enrollments in urban areas exert pressure on
superintendents to allocate more teachers to their schools. It is common then to assign
teachers to non-teaching jobs rather than reducing actual classes. Many teachers are
used as clerks, supply officers and maintenance persons.
A revision of the Magna Carta for Teachers and an assessment of existing staffing
rules would be needed to give greater flexibility and make more efficient use of
teachers. The current policy of allocating teachers, according to enrollments and
assigning school head rank according to teacher numbers have created a number of
unintended behaviors, e.g. padding enrollment data, under-reporting dropouts,
condoning classes that are too small and using teachers for non teaching jobs.
Due partly to poor teacher deployment of this centrally managed system and to
the weakness of the local authorities to influence teacher placement and assignment,
divisions and municipalities tend to manage shortages by locally hiring supplementary
teachers, according to local preferences and school needs. These teachers hired by the
school boards while are paid less (because the salary comes from local sources) tend to
have similar qualifications than teachers recruited by DECS. Whereas this practice
may currently disadvantage locally hired teachers, the move towards greater autonomy
on the part of local schools and school boards and increased power to hire, fire and pay
teachers according to local preferences and local market conditions sets a precedent that
could be extended over time to cover all teachers. This would allow and promote real
school-based management and tend to improve efficiency in the basic education
system.
8
II. Accomplishments with regard the EDCOM recommendations
In 1988 the World Bank assisted the Department of Education, Culture and Sports
(DECS) to carry out a study of the education and training sector. This study was meant
to contribute ideas for reform to the newly-restored democratic Government of the
Philippines. A new Constitution was ratified that placed fundamental importance to
education to the point of including a provision that mandated the State to “assign the
highest budgetary priority to education.” Since then the Government has undertaken a
number of important steps.
Since 1988, there have been other studies undertaken by other donors, the
Government and civil society. The Congressional Commission on Education
(EDCOM) was probably the most influential one15. EDCOM comprehensive report
served as a framework for a wide range of policy actions, including legislation for the
new institutional framework of the educational sector. This new institutional
framework was the so-called “tri-focalization” of education that divided the
responsibilities of the education sector into three main agencies DECS, that would
devote itself only to improve the access and raise the quality of basic education, the
Commission of Higher Education (CHED) and the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA). Previously the three responsibilities were under
DECS.
In the first five years seven out of twelve legislative recommendations were
passed into laws. Three of these concerned teachers. Several other EDCOM policy
recommendations affecting teachers were also implemented either fully or partially. In
this section, we include the major EDCOM recommendations, consequent laws or
changes in policy and, finally some background information and evaluation of the
implementation.
15
Congressional Commission on Education (1993), Making Education Work.
9
2.2) Implementation of EDCOM recommendations regarding teaching
improvement
PBET LET
Civil Service Commission Professional Regulation Commission
Certified a teacher for life The license is only good for three years,
after which the teacher must renew the
license or produce evidence that she/he
has grown professionally
The same test was given to both Different tests for elementary and
elementary and high school. secondary school teachers
Allowed unlimited number of retakes Efforts are being made to convince the
Professional Regulation Commission to
accept the fact that three failures in the
exam indicate a need for additional
courses (as for most other professions)
The PBET was used only to assess public The LET applies to all teachers and is
school teachers also used to gauge the performance of
schools16
An evaluation of PBET results showed that, over the years, many students would
take the test but their answers to questions were blank. The reason for this was based
on a provision of the Magna Carta of 1966, that states that teachers who have taught for
10 consecutive years are given the option to forego taking the exam and nevertheless
become certified teachers. Many teachers then, would start teaching without the
needed qualifications and without passing the test under an “emergency credential” and
become certified teachers in 10 years without having shown any improvement or
upgrading of their teaching skills and knowledge. Also some teachers would go into
private schools first, since these school did not require taking the exam and then switch
to public schools. This is still a common practice since not all private schools enforce
taking the LET and public schools in general pay higher salaries. The LET cut off
16
There is a present attempt to freeze new admissions to schools that have not had more than one percent of
recent graduates pass the LET. Right now there is no authority in the country that can close teacher training
institutions. This would be a first step towards the closure of institutes with constant poor standards.
10
grade is still low and nevertheless only 28 percent of graduates pass the licensure
examination.
In August 1994, the RA 7784 instituted the Teacher Education Council, which
would establish criteria to base the selection of teacher education institutions as Centers
of Excellence, and created a seed fund of P100 million for development activities in
these Centers of Excellence (Taguiwalo 1999). The established criteria for identifying
schools as Centers of Excellence were: a) that they implemented their mandate, that
was, to provide “highly educated, professionally qualified and experienced faculty,” b)
well-selected students, c) adequate library, research and study facilities, d) competent
administrative and support staff, e) well planned and relevant curriculum, f) adequate
student development programs, g) percentage of graduates who became teachers.
These criteria were translated by CHED into:
11
one region has so far is three, this only in region VII. An evaluation of PBET results
helped to establish a ranking of teaching training schools (Ibe 1998). The private
sectarian schools in Metro Manila had the highest scores, second in rank were the state
colleges and universities in Metro Manila. State colleges and universities in the
provinces ranked 6th . The 9 original Normal Schools in the country ranked among the
best teacher-training colleges, most of them have been converted to state colleges and
universities. While these schools are the ones that produce quality teachers they do not
produce a sufficient number of mathematics and science majors. This ranking was one
of the original basis for identifying centers of excellence for teacher education, which
have been identified to provide a steady stream of qualified teachers in the market.
It is clear from the analysis of Somerset et al (1998) that in general BSE programs
have not been attractive to students. In the Silliman University, in which five BSE
programs were considered, there were on average only about three students per year in
each subject, and even less in chemistry and physics. Over the past two years due to the
impact of two scholarship programs there has been a striking rise of intakes. Whereas
without the scholarship program, there were one student in forth-year and 8 students in
third-year; with the scholarship program in first-year and second-year the cohorts are
made up of 17 and 29 students, respectively. These scholarship programs started in 1996-
1997 by the Commission of Higher Education (CHED) program and the PROBE
program.
CHED scholars receive a contribution towards their tuition fees of 3,500 pesos per
semester, which reduces the University fee of P 8,500 – P 10,000 to P 5,000- P 6,500.
There is also a living allowance of P 1,500 per month. CHED tends to attract more
science applicants because the standard fee is about P 3,000 higher than those for non-
science programs.
The PROBE program is financially more generous -- scholars receive full tuition
cost plus living allowance of P 2,500, but it is more restricted in its coverage. There are
only two PROBE science/mathematics scholars at Silliman University this year. The
formal criterion for acceptance is a score at or above 60th percentile. Most CHED and
PROBE scholars come from lower and middle income families, so without the assistance
provided by these scholarship programs it is doubtful that any of these 25 students would
have enrolled for the BSE program. The College of Education requires that the scholars
maintain a minimum honors-point average, that is, 2.3. Only one student has not met this
requirement. From the rest, only five have achieved mean HPAs of 3.25 or better.
12
The scholarship programs of the University of San Carlos analyzed by the same
authors show similar outputs. Financial support comes from three sources: Department
of Science and Technology DOST (18 double-major students); CHED, (28 double-major
and 22 in single major programs); and STEPS (17 full scholarships for the first year and
supplemented support for 18 DOST scholars.) For the second year, STEPS supplemented
the support provided to 28 CHED and 5 DOST scholars.
The graduates in Table 1 started their programs before the new scholarship
programs funded by CHED and other institutions at the Centers of Excellence were
initiated. Before the scholarships programs started the pattern of enrollment had not
improved the teacher supply for the areas in which most science teachers were needed.
Of 152 students to graduate from math and science BSE degrees, only two would have
majored in biology, 5 in the double majors of chemistry and biology, and none in physics
or chemistry. The remaining 95 percent of the total group would have majored in
mathematics (92) and general science (53), which was the current pattern. Also, of the
152 math and science graduates, only 9 percent would graduate from the three Centers of
Excellence. The reason is that the Centers of Excellence have tuitions twice as much
higher than other Universities. Given these patterns, plus the fact that the Centers of
Excellence are the only training institutions in the region offering BSE degrees in the
shortage subjects, “it is evident that initiatives to lower economic barriers to recruitment
must be a key component of any strategy to produce more teachers in these fields” (p.24).
This recommendation must have been heard since most CHED scholarships for this year
will be given to students enrolled in Centers of Excellence.
13
Table 2: BSE mathematics/science programs at the three Centers of
Excellence. Region VII, 1997-1998, first-year and fourth-year enrolments
The impact of the program is particularly strong in University of San Carlos where
the two new double-major programs have attracted substantial enrollments. This is not
surprising given the full financial support provided in this University by the combination
of CHED,DOST and STEPS scholarships. Somerset's evaluation of the scholarship
programs concludes by recommending further but more focalized scholarship programs:
The scholarship programs will provide an increase of qualify teachers in the high-
shortage subjects of physics and chemistry. However this increase will be insufficient to
meet the needs of the high schools in the short and medium term. The study also suggests
that the program would have a stronger impact if priority in the allocation of
scholarships were given to students enrolling in physics or chemistry programs with a
second priority to those enrolling mathematics and biology. Evidence does not justify
providing support to general sciences recruits. Highest priority however, should be given
to those taking the programs that combine the two high-shortage subjects, that is double
qualification in physics and chemistry. These graduates would be highly demanded in
any high school, but would be specially valuable in smaller schools where the teaching
loads are too light to justify the appointment of single subjects specialists. Finally, these
programs should increase both their geographical scope (teachers and students in
isolated schools did not know the availability of the scholarships) and there should be an
active promotion between the recruiting university and the high schools. (Somerset et al.,
1998, pp. 20- 28)
14
Two leading INSET experiences
Even though government inset programs tend to be deficient, two leading INSET
experiences deserve to be mentioned as demonstration cases:
The materials seem to be the single most appreciated part of the program by the
trainees. There are two types of materials: (a) The ‘multi-grade instructional package’
for trainees, that is for teachers, school administrators and supervisors. These materials
are particularly valued by the teachers because they reduce the number of hours that
teachers have to put into developing lesson plans (a few teachers trained complained that
they did not receive the materials and had to xerox the lesson plans for their own use).
(b) Equally important were the ‘self-instructional multi-level materials’ for students
because they provide desk work activities “for remediation, reinforcement or enrichment
of new learning based on the pupil’s ability level” (p. 8). These materials made the
classes more interesting for students who can teach themselves, the fast learners can
cooperate with the other students and they are useful in helping the teacher to manage the
class. Also since there is a general lack of teaching materials, teaching aids, school
supplies, like pens, pencil, paper, notebooks, such learning materials become extremely
important.
18
Barsaga, Eligio and Lacuesta, Debbie. 1996. An Evaluation of the Multigrade Program in Philippine
Education. UNICEF/SAMEO INNOTECH, Manila.
15
Dropouts seem to have been reduced, even though students still become absent
during plantation or harvesting periods. The "multi-level materials" have helped to
improve student learning in particular for the lowest levels. Specially in grade II, multi-
grade students achieve better learning outcomes that students in single grade classrooms.
There seems to be not much difference however on student achievement for the higher
grades. Monitoring and supervision continues to be a problem.
Two strategies lie at the heart of PROBE: a) The establishment of Teacher Support
Units (TSUs) which provide well-equipped resource bases for teachers in in-service
training, and b) The appointment of selected teachers as In-service Facilitators (ISFs),
that constitute the essential human resource that provides direct support, encouragement
and training of teachers. There are TSUs in 98 Elementary lead Schools and in the 50
Divisional Leader Schools. 346 teachers have been selected as In-service Facilitators
after receiving training at the University of Queensland in Australia. PROBE is a joint
venture that includes EDPITAF, DECS, the Bureau of Secondary Education, the Bureau
of Elementary Education and AusAID through GRM International.
The secondary school system before 1986 was much more diverse that it is today.
This variation was not just between the public and private sectors but also within the
public sector itself. Schools differed by source of finance. There were nationally-funded
schools and locally funded schools. The nationally-funded schools were of two types,
those administered by DECS and those attached to state universities and colleges. The
locally-funded schools were of four types, three financed by provincial, city and
municipal governments and one -- the barangay school -- financed by local communities
with financial transfers from the central government. This implied a wider variation in
teacher’s salaries, too. This diversity in the public sector disappeared with the
nationalization of the salaries of teachers in local schools and the abolition in 1988 of
tuition fees in all public schools. (WB, 1988, p. 28). A desire to narrow the wide
disparities in the system (despite government subsides to poorer local schools) was
probably the reason for the shift in the policies since 1986 to the nationalization of the
salaries of local school teachers.
16
Graph 1
Primary teachers' salaries, 1996
3.5
Ratio of starting salary to percapita GDP
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
A comparison of teacher salaries by countries shows some interesting results: (i) The
ratio of starting salary in the Philippines is the highest of all the countries considered.
When comparing the Philippines with other Asian countries the difference is extreme and
even higher than Korea, it is higher than Latin American and OECD countries, as well.
Only Jordan has similar starting salary with respect to GDP per-capita. (ii) The other
interesting finding is that in the Philippines, there is almost no increase of salary after 15
years of experience. If you compare with other countries with initially high salaries with
respect GDP per-capita, salaries after 15 years almost double (Korea and Jordan). The
case of the Philippines shows that there is little room for improvement in terms of
creating teacher incentives, since initial salary is so high. Even years of experience will
be little rewarded. The other distinctive feature of the Philippine system is that it pays the
same salary to primary and secondary teachers even though the required qualifications
are not the same. A chart of secondary teachers salaries for the same countries shows a
similar distribution, with the exception that salaries of secondary school teachers are
higher than salaries of primary school teachers. The only Asian country for which this is
not the case is the Philippines.
17
qualification, added responsibilities in schools and professional development. The recent
policy of moving the entire pay structure upward, in order to make the teaching
profession more attractive to more qualified applicants and better teachers, without
differentiating among teachers according to what they know and do, do not elicit greater
effort from the current teacher force.
18
III. Policy recommendations
First, it is important to let teachers teach, that is to make teaching their primary
activity eliminating present distractions that remove teachers from the classrooms under
regular basis. These include the current practice of assigning teachers to administrative
and clerical functions in schools and local district offices, involving teachers in school
fund raising activities in school hours, and the tradition of heavily engaging teachers in
the electoral process.
Second, expand the mandate of local school boards (beyond the administration of
the Special Education Fund, which is their only responsibility today) 19 to include
decision making over teacher deployment, promotions and incentives seems holds
promise for the improvement of the quality of teaching. In order to increase both
quality and the internal efficiency of the basic education sector more power should be
devolved to the local school boards (LSBs), especially redirecting DECS budget and
the functions of placement and deployment of teachers, so as to reflect more closely the
19
The Special Education Fund (SEF) consists of locally raise funds for basic education coming from a levy
of real state in every division and municipality. The SEF is primarily devoted to construction, repair and
maintenance of school buildings and facilities, extension classes and sporting activities.
19
circumstances and aspirations of particular communities and schools. There are limits
to the power of school boards giving the fact that teachers belong to the national civil
service and minimum qualification standards are set centrally by DECS, but within
these parameters there is scope for greater local autonomy, participation and
responsibility. For instance, school principals should be empowered and provided with
needed training and incentives to develop their managerial capacity and motivation to
foster a more student-center school environment focussed on learning. They should
also support their teachers to improve and consider relevant in-service school cluster
based training options.
Additionally, setting aside a small share of the total education budget (1-2
percent) for special bonuses that reward schools and their teachers for outstanding
performance would be an incentive that teachers and school principals will respond to.
For instance, bonuses could be paid to schools where a high percentage of teachers
complete recommended in-service training programs, especially in mathematics and
science instruction; to schools where teachers missed very few school days; and to
those where students perform better in value-added terms on standardized achievement
tests. A key requirement to make this reward system work is to determine carefully
what results are valued (learning achievement, broader student artistic or atletic
development, inclucating moral values and citizenship) to measure and reward those.
Another important element is to include a correction for poorer schools and family
income level in order not to discriminate less favored schools. (Mizala and Romaguera
1999, Odden 1997).
20
Bibliography
Arellano, Busto V. 1991. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government
Code of 1991, Republic Act No. 7160. Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1993. Philippines Nonformal Education Project (Loan 1254-
PHI). Appraisal Report. Manila.
Asian Institute of Management. 1998a. “Is the Education System up the Task of
Competitiveness? Investing in Education: What Should the Estrada
Administration Do to Improve Philippine Education?” A Policy Report prepared
by the Washington SyCip Policy Forum of the Asian Institute of Management
together with the CEO Forum on Education. Manila
Asian Institute of Management. 1998b. “Notes for the CEO Forum on Education.”
Manila.
Barsaga, Eligio and Debbie Lacuesta. 1996. An Evaluation of the Multigrade Program
in Philippine Education. UNICEF/SAMEO INNOTECH, Manila.
Barsaga, Eligio B. 1998. “An Overview of the Performance of the Education Sector in
the Philippines.” Washington SyCip Policy Forum of the Asian Institute of
Management. May, 1998. Manila.
Carnoy, Martin and Michel Welmond. 1996. “Do Teachers Get Paid too Much? A
Worldwide Comparison of Teacher Pay.” Draft.
Carnoy, Martin et al. 1996. Impact of Structural Training of Teachers. ILO. Geneva.
21
Congressional Commission on Education. 1993. Making Education Work: An Agenda
for Reform. Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. Quezon City,
Philippines.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Various years. DECS Statistical Bulletin.
Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1996a. Master Plan for Basic Education
(1996-2005): Modernizing Philippine Education. Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1998c. Fact Sheet. Office of Planning
Service. Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1998d. “Master Plan for Continuing In-
Service Training”. Manila.
Department of Science and Technology. 1998. “Science Education and Training on the
Philippines.” Paper. Manila.
Filmer, Deon and Lant Pritchett. 1998a. “The Effect of Household Wealth on
Educational Attainment around the World: Demographic and Health Survey Evidence.”
Policy Research Working Paper No. 1980. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
Filmer, Deon and Lant Pritchett. 1998b. “Estimating Wealth Effects without
Expenditure Data – or Tears.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 1994. World
Bank. Washington, D.C.
22
Fund for Assistance to Private Education. 1995. FAPE Survey 1994-1995. Manila.
Fund for Assistance to Private Education. 1997. “Study of Tracer Study of 1995 Higher
Education Graduates.” Manila
Gonzalez, C.T. and C.V. Pijano. 1996. “Non-Formal Education in the Philippines: A
Fundamental Step Towards Lifelong Learning.” APEC HUDIT Internet Site.
Government of the Philippines. 1997b. National Budget Circular, No. 458 Series.
Manila.
Heyneman, Stephen, Dean Jamison, and Zenia Montenegro. 1984. “Textbooks in the
Philippines: Evaluation of the Pedagogical Impact of a Nationwide Investment.”
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 6(2): 139-150.
Ibe, Milagros. 1998. “Discussion on PBET and LET.” In CEO 3rd Roundtable
Discussion: Why Can’t We Attract Good Teachers? ACCEED. Manila.
Ibe, Milagros D. and Ester B Ogena. November, 1998. “Science Education in the
Philippines: An Overview.” Department of Science and Technology. Manila.
23
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS International Study Center,
Boston College. Boston, MA.
King, Elizabeth M. and Berk Ozler. 1998. “What’s Decentralization Got to Do with
Learning? The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.” Working Paper
Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms Paper No. 9. Development
Research Group. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
Lockheed, Marlaine and Qinghua Zhao. 1993. “The Empty Opportunity: Local Control
and Secondry School Achievement in the Philipines.” International Journal of
Educational Development 13(1): 45-62.
Nebres, Bienvenido F. 1998. “Why Can’t We Attract Good Teachers?” CEO 3rd
Roundtable Discussion. Manila.
24
NEDA. 1998. “On the Need for a Successor Plan for Science and Math Education.”
Interagency Think paper. Manila.
Odden, Allan and Carolyn Kelley. 1997. Paying Teachers for What They Know and Do.
Corwin Press.
Ordonez, Victor. 1998. “Gearing Up for the Global Future.” The Asian Manager.
March-April 1998. 39 – 41.
Republic of the Philippines. 1998b. “National Expenditure Program, Fiscal Year 1999.”
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1997. National Budget Circular No. 458 series 1997.
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1997. Report Card to the Nation. Manila: DECS. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1996. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
Republic Act No. 4670. Manila.
Ribero, Rocio and Jaime Tenjo with Pablo Santamaria. 1997. “Evaluacion del Programa
de Becas PACES,” Processed, CEDE, The University of the Andes, Bogota,
Colombia.
Saniel, Montana C and Ed van den Berg. 1998. “Case Studies of Science and
Mathematics Teaching in the Philippines: Lessons for Teacher and School
25
Development.” Science and Mathematics Education Institute, University of San
Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines.
Santos, Augusto B and Napoleon B Imperial. 1997. “Visions and Challenges of the
Philippine Elementary School for the Next Millenium.” NEDA, Manila.
Somerset, Anthony et al. 1998. “Teaching and Learning Secondary Mathematics and
Science. Study carried out in Central Visayas Region, Philippines.” Manila.
Draft.
Taguiwalo, Mario. 1998. “The EDCOM Report: What Was Recommended? What Was
Implemented?” (draft)
Tan, Jee-Peng, Julie Lane and Gerard Lassibille. 1998. “Schooling Outcomes in
Philippine Elementary Schools: The Impact of Experiments.” Processed. World
Bank. Washington, D.C
Task Force on Higher Education. 1998. “Philippine Higher Education in the 21st
Century: Strategies for Excellence and Equity.” DECS. Manila
Teacher Education Council. 1998. Master Plan for Teacher Education, 1998-2008.
Manila
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. 1998a. “1997 Annual Report.”
Manila.
UNESCO. Various years. Statistical. UNESCO Publishing & Bernan Press. Paris.
26
UNESCO. 1998. World Education Report. Teachers and Teaching in a Changing
World. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
World Bank. 1988. The Philippines Education Sector Study. Part I, II. World Bank
Report No. 7473-PH. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1994. Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1995b. World Development Report. Oxford University Press. New York.
World Bank. 1995c. Philippines Public Expenditure Management for Sustained and
Equitable Growth. Vol. 1, Report No. 14680-PH. September. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1996. Philippines Education Financing and Social Equity: A Reform
Agenda. Report No. 15898-PH. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1997b. Sector Strategy for Basic Education. Draft. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1998a. Philippines Draft Education Sector Strategy. Draft. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 1998b. Philippines -- Social Expenditure Priorities. Report No. 18562-
PH, Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1998d. The Philippines Social Expenditure Review. Draft. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 1998e. World Development Report, Knowledge for Development, 1998/99.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Other PESS Technical Background Papers (TBPs) and Policy Notes (PNs)
Acedo, Clementina. “Philippines Education Sector Study: Statistical Annex.” TBP No. 1.
Brigham, Susan and Emma S. Castillo. “Language Policy for Education in the
Philippines.” TBP No. 6.
Jimenez, Emmanuel Y. “Private Education and Public Policy in the Philippines.” PN No.
1
27
Johanson, Richard. “Higher Education in the Philippines.” TBP No. 3.
Maglen, Leo and Rosario Manasan. “Education Costs and Financing in the Philippines.”
TBP No.2.
Somerset, Anthony. “Mathematics and Science Education in the Philippines.” TBP No.5.
28