Educational Research for Policy and Practice (2006) 5:55–71 © Springer 2006

DOI 10.1007/s10671-006-6985-2

Reforms in Philippine Basic Education Viewed from Key Elements of

Successful School-Based Management (SBM) Schools

Allan B. de Guzman
Center for Educational Research and Development
Graduate School and College of Education
University of Santo Tomas
Manila, Philippines 1015
E-mail: abdeguzman@mnl.ust.edu.ph

Abstract

While it is true that SBM shapes and charts the direction of school operations, it is
interesting to discuss how a developing country like the Philippines is influenced by
this reform strategy as a structural and procedural framework in managing its sys-
tem of education, particularly, its basic education sector which through the years has
been criticized for its alarming state as shown by its performance indicators rates. This
paper purports to provide a panorama on how school-based management as a restruc-
turing framework is viewed and interpreted by the basic education sector which con-
stitutes the largest portion of the country’s educational system. Specifically, the eight
key elements of successful SBM schools, namely: (1) an active vision; (2) meaning-
ful decision-making authority; (3) distribution of power; (4) development and use of
knowledge and skills; (5) collecting and communicating information; (6) rewards for
progress; (7) shared leadership; and (8) cultivating resources, were used to serve the
purpose of this discourse.

Key Words: basic education, school-based management

Introduction

Go to the people.
Learn from them.
Love them. Help them in their work.
And when their work is done
The best that they will say about it is:
“We did it all by ourselves.”
(Chinese Proverb)
Systems of education around the world, particularly those of developing
and underdeveloped countries, are beset with restraining trends such as
low performance of students, recurrent shortages in resources (Bullough
56 ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

et al., 1997), graft and corruption, unmotivated teachers and principals,

myopic view of the system, low accountability level and poor monitor-
ing and evaluation system, among others. With such trends, institutions of
learning are challenged to identify how power and authority can be appro-
priately shared for purposes of facilitating self-management and improved
decision-making. As a matter of fact, as early as the 1980s, several major
shifts, collectively known as megatrends (Naisbitt, 1982; Naisbitt & Aburd-
ene, 1990) have been adopted to identify directions toward which education
is moving. One of these shifts is characterized by change from centraliza-
tion to decentralization. True enough, this shift is a moving force that has
helped shape educational reform efforts in most parts of the globe.
The centrality of and the need to reconcile decision-making with respon-
sibility and accountability has given rise to site-based management. Given
several nomenclatures in literature, school or site-based management, as a
revolutionary educational construct, has been described as the centerpiece
for school restructuring (Caldwell & Spinks, 1992; Sackney & Dibsky, 1994;
Townsend, 1997); as a reform strategy (Beck & Murphy, 1988, 1999); and
as a means of altering the capacity of the school and community to make
improvement (Fullan & Watson, 2000).
Considering various studies initiated by the Philippine government to
assess the performance of its educational system through the years, not to
mention the high degree of openness of the country to changes in social,
economic, cultural, technological and political milieus, there is need to
describe synoptically how reform efforts initiated at the macro level mirror
the key elements of successful school-based management implementation.

The Philippine Educational System

Today, the Philippine School system is said to be one of the largest in

the world. The Congressional Commission on Education Study, popularly
known as the EDCOM Report (1991) disclosed that enrolment at all levels
was 16.5 million as of 1991. Recent statistics from the Department of Edu-
cation (DepEd) alone reveals that as of Curriculum Year 2003–2004, the
combined enrolment size in the basic education is 19,252,557 (DepEd Fact
Sheet, 2005) implying a dramatic increase in and demand for education in
the country. This is the resulting scenario of the country’s Education for
All (EFA) policy and the explicit provision of the 1987 Philippine Consti-
tution.
The Philippine educational ladder follows the 6-4-4 Plan of education
and is considered as one of the shortest education cycle in the world.
The 6 years elementary schooling and the 4 years of secondary education
are under the control, regulation and supervision of the Department of
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 57

Education (DepEd). The concept of resource dependency explains why the

Education Department exercises supervision and regulation over 7790 pri-
vate schools in the country as compared to its power to control, regulate
and supervise the operations of 41,989 public elementary and secondary
schools (DepEd Fact Sheet, 2005).

Some Historical Data on SBM in the Philippines

The century-old Philippine Education system started to operate when Act

No. 74 was first instituted in 1901. This milestone in Philippine history
established a highly centralized public school system with all schools and
colleges under the direct regulation and supervision of the Bureau of Pub-
lic Schools and the Bureau of Private Schools. It was only in 1975 when
a massive reorganization was implemented in conformity with the Inte-
grated Reorganization Plan of the government. This event signaled the
beginning of the Education Department’s decentralization. Since then, the
Department has undergone a series of changes in structure, management
operations and bureaucratic procedures aimed at increasing its effective-
ness and efficiency. Operating on the concept of decentralization, the task
of responding to the varying needs of the different regions was given to
the regional directors exercising line functions. As a result of this move,
top officials at the Central Office were given more time for policy making
and attending to higher administrative issues. Consistent with the provi-
sions of the Education Act of 1982, Executive Order 117, s. 1987, oth-
erwise known as the Reorganization Act of the Ministry of Education,
Culture and Sports, has made it clear that the Ministry, now the Depart-
ment of Education, “shall be primarily responsible for the formulation,
planning and implementation, and the coordination of policies, plans, pro-
grams, projects, in formal and non-formal education at all levels and areas
including elementary, secondary, technical–vocational and non-formal edu-
cation, and supervising all educational institutions, public and private, and
providing for the establishment and maintenance of a complete, adequate
and integrated system of education relevant to the goals of national devel-
opment”.
Moreover, the passage of Republic Act No. 7160, otherwise known as
the Local Government Code of 1991, expanded the participation of stake-
holders in education. Consequently, the Department of Education has gone
through several organization moves toward the sharing of authority, power
and influence in appropriate levels.
Reform efforts to improve the structural delivery of the Philippine edu-
cational system were facilitated through various education studies initiated
by the government and other agencies. As an outcome of these studies, the
58 ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) pursued major reform

initiatives in the three-tier education system of the country. The EDCOM
was tasked to undertake a national review and assessment of the education
and manpower training in the country with a view to: (a) enhancing the
system’s internal capability to satisfactorily implement the constitutional
provisions on education; (b) providing the system with the needed finan-
cial and other infrastructure support; strengthening its linkages with all sec-
tors concerned with human resource development; and assisting education
in achieving its sectoral goals and targets through strategies consistent with
the nation’s development perspectives. The over-all decline in the quality of
education, as identified by the study, indicated under-investment in educa-
tion on the part of the government and poor management of the educa-
tional establishment. Significant among the recommendations of EDCOM
was the enactment of the policy on tri-focalization in the mid-1990s. Prior
to this move, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS),
had sole responsibility for the formulation, planning, implementation and
coordination of all educational efforts in formal and non-formal education
in the country, and it supervised all education institutions, both public and
private. Following the commission’s recommendation on needed reforms in
the education and training concerns of the country, the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) was set up in 1994 to oversee tertiary educa-
tion programs. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority
(TESDA), for its part, was created 1 year later in the same way to supervise
technical and vocational degree programs. The newly established tripartite
management structure allowed the Department to narrow down its focus
and direct its attention exclusively to basic education.

The Filipino Concept of Decentralization

In the Philippines, decentralization of educational governance is rooted in

the following principles of shared governance (Republic Act No. 9155):

(i) Shared governance is a principle which recognizes that every unit in

the education bureaucracy has a particular role, task and responsibil-
ity inherent in the office and for which it is principally accountable
for outcomes;
(ii) The process of democratic consultation shall be observed in the deci-
sion-making process at appropriate levels. Feedback mechanisms shall
be established to ensure coordination and open communication of the
central office with the regional, division and school levels;
(iii) The principles of accountability and transparency shall be operational-
ized in the performance of functions and responsibilities at all levels; and
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 59

(iv) The communication channels of field officers shall be strengthened to

facilitate flow of information and expand linkages with other government
units and non-governmental organizations for effective governance.

To the Department of Education, decentralization consists of the pro-

motion of school-based management, the transfer of authority and deci-
sion-making from the central and regional offices to the school divisions in
the provinces and cities; sharing education responsibilities with other stake-
holders such as local government units (LGUs) and parent–teacher associ-
ations (PTAs); and the devolution of education functions (Johanson, 1999).
On the whole, decentralization of education in the Philippines is inter-
preted in both local and global perspectives. On the one hand, decentral-
ization, from the local perspective, involves the dispersal of power and
authority from the center to lower level institutions for greater access to
government institutions. Where appropriate, decentralization also means
less government in order to enable the private sector and civil society to
assume a number of functions conventionally done by the government. The
concept of decentralization prompted the Ramos administration (1990–
1996) to identify the 5Ds of decentralization, namely: deregulation, decen-
tralization, devolution, democratization and development. On the other
hand, decentralization, from the global perspective is a process that enables
local government units to become more internationally competitive by pro-
viding them opportunities to participate in the international market, thus
giving them the opportunity to seriously “think global”, yet continue act-
ing local (Brillantes, 1999).
While there is much opposition to decentralization, the Philippine gov-
ernment strongly maintains that such effort is not intended to weaken cen-
tral authority, but is a process that trims the range of functions in the
bureaucracy in order to wield a “bigger stick” with respect to issues rel-
ative to quality-control and equity-assurance functions (Johanson, 1999).
Filipinos consider local autonomy as an integral part of a democratic
government (Guevara n.d.). This philosophy is clearly perceived with the
passage of various laws that call for decentralization or local autonomy,
namely: the Local Autonomy Act of 1959, the Barrio Charter Act of 1959,
the Decentralization Act of 1967, the 1973 Philippine Constitution, the
1983 Local Government Code and the 1987 Philippine Constitution. All
these facilitated the decentralization efforts of the country in all its services.
Decentralization of educational efforts may, however, be not that easy.
Brillantes (1999) noted that the Philippine politico-administrative history is
replete with examples of conflict between a highly centralized governmen-
tal structure and demands for autonomy among the component local units.
Apparently, there is imperative need for dominant and assertive leadership
for the consolidation and the very survival of a weak state. In another
60 ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

perspective, there is demand among local institutions for autonomy from

the central government to enable them to be more responsive to local prob-
lem situations and strengthen a weak status. The foregoing tensions are felt
in the education and training sector of the country (Johanson, 1999).

How Educational Reforms are Initiated in the Philippines

Throughout the educational evolution in the Philippines, decision-making

ranges from the individual teacher level to the national level. These deci-
sions come in the form of curriculum policies, curriculum design, imple-
mentation strategies, evaluation procedures and curriculum revision. The
way these decisions are made and formulated is based on specific variables
operating in the internal and external environments of the education sec-
tor. The so-called internal and external enablers, as used by Ornstein and
Hunkins (1988) have made reforms in the Philippines possible and have
rendered these reforms theoretically grounded. These enablers are gathered
and culled by educational agencies from schools records, research outputs,
textbooks and references and other empirically grounded documents avail-
able in the field.
External Enablers include legislation, public opinion, education studies,
technological advances, societal demands, and industry demands. Internal
Enablers, on other hand, refer to research findings, national testing, new
leadership, accreditation, cross-country evaluation and available funds.

How the Elements of Successful SBM Schools are Incarnated in the

Philipine Basic Education Reform Efforts

During the last 10 years, the concept of school-based management has

been linked to various schooling constructs such as teacher job satisfac-
tion (Duke et al., 1980); student achievement (Marks & louis, 1997; Beck &
Murphy, 1998); parental involvement (Beck & Murphy, 1998, 1999; Fullan
& Watson, 2000); teacher empowerment (Gaziel, 1998), and teacher com-
mitment (Nir, 2002). While it is true that SBM shapes and charts the
direction of school operations, it is interesting to discuss how a develop-
ing country like the Philippines is influenced by this reform strategy as
a structural and procedural framework in managing its system of educa-
tion, particularly, its basic education sector which through the years has
been criticized for its alarming state as shown by its performance indica-
tors rates. Tables 1a and b summarize how the basic education sector in
the Philippines stands in the light of global performance indicators cover-
ing a 6-year period.
Table 1
Summary of the Philippine basic education performance indicators.

1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004

(a)Elementary (1998–2004)
Participation rate 95.73 96.95 96.77 94.54 94.02
(7–12 years population) 90.52 90.05
(6–11 years population)
Gross enrolment ratio
(7–12 years population) 118.16 119.15 113.45 *** ***
(6–11 years population) 101.08 101.20 98.08 *** ***
(6–11 years population) 116.97 117.15 113.57 *** 107.80
Cohort survival rate (EFA formula) 64.09 63.46 63.45 *** 69.84
Completion rate 68.99 68.38 66.13 66.33 66.85
Drop-out rate 7.57 7.72 7.67 *** 7.34
Transition rate@ (grade 4–5 95.47 95.50 95.46 96.24 97.70
Achievement rate 50.08 49.19 51.73 *** Grade IV Grade VI
Mathematics 52.45 45.69 49.5 *** 44.84 59.45
Science 49.93 48.61 49.75 *** 43.98 52.59
English 46.40 46.32 47.70 *** 41.80 49.92
REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION

HEKASI 51.55 55.21 53.93 *** a a

Filipino – 50.13 57.49 *** a a
Percentage of passers 73.21 *** *** *** a a
Teacher–pupil ratio 1:35 1:35 1:35 1:36** 1:36** 1:36**

(b)Secondary(1998–2004)
Participation rate
61
Table 1

62
Continued.

1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 2001–2002 2002–2003 2003–2004

(13–16 years population) 65.22 65.43 66.06 61.06 63.88

(12–15 years population) 54.86 58.03
Gross enrolment ratio
(13–16 years population) 75.32 75.34 79.49 *** ***
(12–15 years population) 81.86
Cohort survival rate (EFA formula)
(based on Grade I) 47.50 48.68 49.76 49.86 42.63
(based on First year) 72.18 72.08 73.05 73.16
Completion rate
(based on Grade I) 45.12 47.20 48.10 48.39 50.00
(based on First year) 69.98 69.89 70.62 71.01 59.79
Drop-out rate 9.08 9.55 8.50 *** 13.10
Transition rate@ (grade 4–5) 100.87 99.34 100.02 100.75 105.06
ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

Achievement rate 46.12 54.34 53.39 *** 1st Year

Mathematics 44.49 49.99 51.83 *** 32.09
Science 42.99 46.80 45.68 *** 34.65
English 44.19 50.43 51.00 *** 41.48
Araling panlipunan - 58.84 57.19 *** A
Filipino 62.50 66.14 66.14 *** A
Percentage of passers 94.76 *** *** *** A
Teacher–Pupil ratio 1:35 1:35 1:36 1:39** 1:40** 1:42**

*** No data available. ** public only; a – not applicable; @ From primary (Grade IV) to intermediate (Grade V).
Source: Fact sheet basic education statistics 2005.
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 63

School improvement literature are one in claiming that widespread and

high quality student learning, far reaching changes in pedagogy and curric-
ulum and high levels of satisfaction by the school’s catchment area (Beck
& Murphy, 1998) are indices to measure the overall success of any SBM
effort. Despite the fact that country’s reform efforts are rooted on the prin-
ciples of decentralization, data in Tables 1a and b imply that empirical
evidences show that SBM has not yet generated clear-cut impacts as far
as teaching and learning is concerned. Similarly, Leithwood and Menzies
(1998, as cited in Fullan & Watson, 2000: 455) concluded:
There is virtually no firm, research-based knowledge about the direct or indirect effects of SBM
on students. . . the little research-based evidence does not exist suggest that the effects to students
are just as likely to be negative as positive. There is an awesome gap between the rhetoric and the
reality of SBM’s contribution to student growth in light of the widespread advocacy.

While SBM experts aver that SBM is basically structural in nature,

platforms of education, especially in a developing country like the Philip-
pines, despite its perennial problems of poverty, dramatic increase in pop-
ulation; competing priorities and values and values system of key players
in the bureaucracy, invite a kind of dichotomy that highlights the country’s
decentralization policies, capacity-building initiatives and a rigorous exter-
nal accountability system (Fullan & Watson, 2000).
Briggs and Wohlstetter (2003), for their part, identified eight key ele-
ments of successful SBM schools. These include (1) an active vision; (2)
meaningful decision-making authority; (3) distribution of power; (4) devel-
opment and use of knowledge and skills; (5) collecting and communicating
information; (6) rewards for progress; (7) shared leadership; and (8) culti-
vating resources.
There is no doubt that the roadmap to successful SBM implementation
is incarnated in the various reform effort structure initiated by the Depart-
ment of Education.

An Active Vision
In the belief that the country’s educational system is not an island but an
integral of the international academic community, the vision of Philippine
education is relevant to the international aspiration, is consistent with state
polices and is translated more concretely in the school’s curriculum. At the
international level, efforts have been made to align the curricular delivery
structure with what the UNESCO International Commission on Education
(Delors, 1996) identified as the four pillars of education today, namely:
• Learning to Know, by combining a sufficiently broad general knowledge
with the opportunity to work in depth on a small number of subjects;
this also means learning to learn. . .
64 ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

• Learning to Do, in order to acquire not only an occupational skill but

also, more broadly, the competence to deal with many situations and
work in teams.
• Learning to Live Together, by developing an understanding of other peo-
ple and an appreciation of interdependence – carrying out joint projects
and learning to manage conflicts – in a spirit of pluralism, mutual under-
standing and peace.
• Learning to Be, so as to better develop one’s personality and be able to
act with greater autonomy, judgment and personal responsibility.
At the national and classroom level, the Department of Education’s two
primordial goals are to (1) raise the academic standards of basic education;
and (2) enhance administrative efficiency in the delivery of educational ser-
vices in the light of its vision to “develop a highly competent, civic-spirited,
life-skilled and God-loving Filipino youth who actively participate in and
contribute towards the building of a humane, healthy and productive soci-
ety.” And “Bawat Graduate- Bayani at Marangal (Every Graduate is a Hero
and a Dignified Person).

Meaningful Decision-Making Authority

As indicated by the PESS Report (1999), community control over basic
education has expanded as parents and local authorities have assumed an
increasingly growing financial role. As of 1994, parents and local govern-
ments shouldered 52% of the total education cost in the country.
Consistent with the country’s budgeting practice, the Congress of the
Philippines requires that proposed expenditures be very precisely specified.
Once specified and embodied in the General Appropriations Act (GAA),
there is little or no room for DepED or for local education authorities
to change or redirect expenditures within the budget. For lower education,
Congress provides the Department of Education with a budget for every
school division, while a separate budget line is set for every school at the
secondary level.
In its Master Plan for Basic Education (MPBE), the Department of
Education observed that the current system of budgeting and manage-
ment discourages innovation at the school level, that few schools gener-
ated their own funds or had access to discretionary resources, and that few
school heads exercised genuine instructional leadership or assumed a finan-
cial management role.
The foregoing scenario can be attributed to the following concerns:
(i) the system of decision and control of allocations for basic education
from the government budget, and (ii) the Magna Carta for Teachers (RA
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 65

4670), which constrains the way centrally hired public school teachers are
deployed in basic education.
The 1991 EDCOM report offered vital measures intended to enhance
teacher effectiveness. These include providing periodic licensing tests to
qualify college graduates to teach and determine promotions; imposing
higher admission requirements for pre-service teacher education, establishing
centers of excellence for teacher education to attract the best candidates;
providing scholarships for teacher education; improving and expanding
teachers’ benefits, including comprehensive dental care and free legal ser-
vices. On top of these recommendations, are the following recommendations
of the PESS (1999):
(i) make teaching the primary activity of teachers and eliminate var-
ious distractions that remove teachers from classrooms on a regu-
lar basis. (These include the current practice of assigning teachers to
administrative and clerical functions in schools and local district offi-
ces, involving teachers in fund-raising activities for the school during
school hours, and engaging teachers heavily in the electoral process);
(ii) expand the mandate of local school boards to include decision-
making over teacher deployment, promotions and incentives that hold
promise for effecting improvements in the quality of teaching; and
(iii) provide incentive schemes that will reward teachers for what they
know and do, as measured by objective, multi-faceted performance
assessments, rather than simply how long they have been in the sys-
tem. Widening the pay structure within grade levels allows differenti-
ation among teachers by measured competencies and performance.

The Distribution of Power, Shared Leadership and Cultivating Resources

Cognizant of the cogent role that linkages and collaboration play in
ensuring the survival and stability of any school or school system, the
Department of Education, through the years, has given much and equal
attention to close tie-up with community constituents for purposes of
resource sharing. As early as 1989, Presidential Proclamation No. 480 was
issued, declaring 1990–2000 as the Decade of Education For All (EFA). As
a result, subsequent policies, programs and projects were consciously for-
mulated against the backdrop of EFA objectives. Inter-sectoral and inter-
agency coordination were achieved through the creation of the National
Committee for Education For All (NCEFA). The devolution of basic social
services in 1992 in the light of the Local Government Code has made gov-
ernment programs closer to the service communities. As a result of the
devolution of central government functions, a number of government pro-
grams forged strong school-community dynamics in the country, as shown
in Table 2.
66
Table 2
New educational programs as a result of devolution.*
Name of program
Day Care Centre Program
Parent Effectiveness Service (PES)
DECS Pre-School Programme
Community-based Pre-School
Pre-School Service Contracting
ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN
Nature of program
This program which used to be under the
Department of Social Welfare and Devel-
opment has been relegated to the local
government units.
This program provides parents with child
development information.
This program which was launched in
1993 aims to provide 5-year old children
in disadvantaged areas the stimulating
experiences, required in developing their
social, motor, and readiness skills prior
to their entry to Grade 1.
This collective partnership between and
among the Non-Government Organiza-
tion, the Department of Education and
the Local Government Unit made possi-
ble the provision of early childhood edu-
cation to pupils in various school divi-
sions.
This alternative delivery system has the
Non-Government Organizations, private
schools, Local Government Units and
the Parent Teachers Associations as ser-
vice providers. The general arrangement
is that DepEd will pay 250 Php per
child per month for 6 months while the
service providers will organize classes
with 20–25 pupils per class as well as
provide the salary of qualified classroom
teachers, school/classroom facilities,
adequate instructional materials and
basic school supplies. Funding comes
from the Department’s regular budget,
supplemented by the Bases Conversion
Development Authority (BCDA) from
funds raised through the sale of military
camps.
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 67
Table 2
Continued.

Name of progaram Nature of progaram

Alternative System of Education for children
of Indigenous communities
DECS in the Barangay Programme
This system of education has empowered
the Department to develop and institute
curriculum support materials that are cul-
ture-specific and responsive to the pre-
vailing conditions of the service commu-
nity.
This program being implemented at the
barangay level with focus on rural com-
munities aims at establishing operational
linkages with line agencies, local govern-
ment units, local development councils
and inter-sectoral consultative councils
organized in every barangay.

*Data were culled form the EFA 2000 Assessment Country Report of the Philippines avail-
able at http://www2.unesco.org/wef/countryreports/philippines/rapport 1 1.html

Interestingly, foreign assistance programs have been initiated through the

Official Development Assistance (ODA). From 1992 to the second quarter
of 2001, a total of US$15,191.74 million has been allocated for loans (87%)
and grants (13%). To date, Japan is the biggest source of ODA to the
Philippines, contributing about 45% of the total committed funds. Other
major donors include the World Bank, the Asian Development Bank,
the United States, France and Germany (ODA, n.d.). Through a com-
bined loan of US$218.2 million from the World Bank and the Japan Bank
for International Cooperation, the Third Elementary Education Project
(TEEP) was launched in 1996.
The Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) is the government’s
multi-faceted response to the need to improve the quality of education in
public elementary schools. It operates currently in the 22 poorest provinces
in the country, as identified in the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) and the
Presidential Commission to Fight Poverty (PCFP). The project has a pol-
icy and institutional framework (PIF) intended to (i) improve the adequacy,
efficiency and equity of sub-sector funding; (ii) ensure that basic inputs
are delivered to project schools; (iii) introduce systems and procedures to
decentralize selected education functions and corresponding resources; (iv)
measure the impact of project interventions on cost and learning; and (v)
68 ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

provide a framework for handling resettlement issues. The project supports

the decentralization and modernization thrusts of the Department’s 10 year
Master Plan for Basic Education (1996–2005). In this project, key functions
will be moved from the central and regional levels to the school divisions,
city and provincial, to stimulate initiative and creativity at the field level
and bring about greater school effectiveness.
Similarly, a 7-year intervention program geographically targeted to the
26 underserved, poverty-stricken Social Reform Agenda (SRA) provinces
was implemented. Bearing the title, Secondary Education Development and
Improvement Project (SEDIP), this government initiative involves the grass-
roots, is participatory in approach or bottom-up, as it decentralizes educa-
tional management down to the level of the school. Salient in this project is
the lead role function of the city and provincial school division offices in the
planning, implementing, monitoring and evaluating school performance.
Another interesting initiative of the government is the Adopt-A-School
Project (RA 8525). This project taps the local business sector and external
funding bodies for assistance such as building and facilities construc-
tion. Through this project, corporations, business establishments, non-
government organizations and private individuals have become partners of
the government in addressing perennial problems of the educational system
such as lack of classrooms, desks and textbooks.

The Development and Use of Knowledge and Skills

The upgrading of teacher competencies and improving their welfare were
seen in EFA as a fundamental and long-term policy measure to bring
about quality basic education. For this purpose, the National Educators
Academy of the Philippines (NEAP) was established while better in-ser-
vice and pre-service training were included in the Third Elementary Educa-
tion Project (TEEP) and the AUSAid-assisted Program in Basic Education
(PROBE).
At the classroom level, deliberate efforts have been exerted to continu-
ally upgrade the competence of the teaching force. New joint programs for
teacher training were initiated which complemented the summer workshops
and degree work schemes. These endeavors provided opportunities for the
teachers to earn degrees and continuing education units without necessarily
leaving their respective work assignments.

Collecting and Communicating Information

Education managers in the Philippines have recognized the need to use
information as they continue to serve the needs of the clientele (Franco,
1988; Villanueva, 1990). The school administrators and other school sectors
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 69

need to access and utilize this information in their day-to-day business of

running a school (Turner & Stylianou, 2004).
The Department of Education (DepEd) started operating its Educa-
tional Management Information System (EMIS) during the implementation
of the Educational Reform Program in 1975, when the Regional Offices,
Bureaus and the Office of the Planning Service (OPS) established their own
EMIS. The OPS conceived the Department EMIS, the primary objective of
which was to “satisfy the information needs of the various DepED man-
agement offices as well as to establish a databank.” Of greatest concern
was the integration of all formal information processing systems to opti-
mize coordination among DepEd offices involved in the planning, execu-
tion, and control of education programs and projects (Villanueva, 1990).
Through the assistance of the Development Academy of the Philippines
(DAP), the DepEd Information Management System was designed consist-
ing of Educational Resources Information System (ERIS), the Educational
Management Information System (EMIS), and the Educational Statistical
Data Bank (ESDB). However, aware that educational statistics are vital to
the administration and management of schools, the DECS then, gave prior-
ity to ESDB. Hence, the ESDB set forth a system of automatic processing,
storage and retrieval of data needed in decision-making and policy formu-
lation (Villanueva, 1990).
To date, the Department maintains a highly informative and interactive
website (see http://www.deped.gov.ph/) that allows the users to access infor-
mation relative to the following: department updates, memoranda, orders,
facts and figures, directory, advisories and contracts.

Rewards for Progress

While there are existing schemes to improve teacher welfare such as
checkless payroll system, loan restructure, increase in election per diem and
progressive salary increase (de Guzman, 2003), an aggressive move to insti-
tutionalize an attractive reward and incentive system for individuals and
groups working toward schools goals through a systemic implementation of
SBM principles remain an imperative in the Philippines. Such move shall
render SBM initiatives as truly a process and product reform strategy.

Conclusion

Though efforts to reform the delivery of education services in the Philippines

are anchored on school-based management, the fact still remains that the
overall management of the system follows the deconcentration form of decen-
tralization. Deconcentration, according to Fiske (1996) is the weakest form
70 ALLAN B. DE GUZMAN

of decentralization. Though management responsibilities shift from the cen-

tral to regional or other levels, the fact still remains that the central office is in
control. However, despite the lack of a formal mandate and strategy, some
degree of devolution has already taken place. During the last 10 years, the
department has gradually devolved some of its previously centralized func-
tions to the regional, and to a lesser extent, division levels. Increasingly, com-
munity constituents, particularly parents and industry, have been identified as
partners of the school in the task of human formation. It should be noted,
however, that the way power and authority sharing cascades down to the
school level has been very minimal, if not negligible.
On the whole, decentralization is not a panacea to systemic problems
inherent in all educational systems. As a means to school empowerment,
it calls for collectivity and collegiality. As an end, it requires a high degree
of accountability. The Philippine Educational System remains as one of the
systems of education in the world that anchors its efforts to school-based
management. Though it may not totally devolve all its processes, its system
of education will continue to evolve just like the phenomenon of change.

References

Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1998). Site-based management and school success; untangling the
variables. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 9(4), 358–385.
Beck, L. G., & Murphy, J. (1999). Parental involvement in site-based management: lessons
from one site. International Journal of Leadership in Education: Theory and Practice, 2(1),
81–102.
Briggs, K. L., & Wohlstetter, P. (2003). Key elements of a successful school-based manage-
ment strategy. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 14(3), 351–372.
Brillantes, A. B. Jr. (1999). Decentralization, devolution and development in the philippines.
Urban Management Programme-Asia Occasional Paper No. 44. UMP Regional Office
for Asia and the Pacific.
Bullough, Jr. R. V., Kauchak, N. A., Crow, S., & Hobbs, D. (1997). Professional develop-
ment schools: catalyst for teacher and school change. Teaching and Teacher Education,
13(2), 153–169.
Caldwell, B.J. & Spinks, J. (1992). Leading the self-managing school. London: The Falmer
Press.
De Guzman, A.B. (2003). Dynamics of educational reforms in the Philippine basic and
higher education sectors. Asia Pacific Education Review, 4(1), 39–50.
Delors, J. (1996). Learning: The Treasure Within. Report of the International Commission of
Education for the 21st Century. France: UNESCO Publishing.
Department of Education (DepEd) Fact Sheet. (2005). Retrieved April 27, 2005, from
http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/factsheet2005(Jan18).pdf
Duke, D. L., Showers, B. K., & Imber, M. (1980). Teachers and shared decision-making: The
costs and benefits of involvement. Educational Administration Quarterly, 16, 93–106.
Fiske, E. (1996). “Decentralization of education: politics and consensus”. Directions in
Development. World Bank, Washington, D.C.
Franco, E. (1988). Management in the Philippine Setting. Manila: National Book Store.
 REFORMS IN PHILIPPINE BASIC EDUCATION 71
Fullan, M., & Watson, N. (2000). School-based management: reconceptualizing to improve
learning outcomes. School Effectiveness and School Improvement, 11(4), 453–473.
Gaziel, H. (1998). School-based management as a factor in school effectiveness. International
Review of Education, 44(4), 319–333.
Johanson, R. K. (1999). Philippine Education for the 21st Century. The 1998 Philippines
Education Sector Study. Technical Background Paper No. 3. Higher Education in the Phil-
ippines. Asian Development Bank.
Ornstein, A. C., & Hunkins, F. C. (1988) Curriculum: Foundations, Principles and Issues. New
Jersey: Prentice Hall.
Marks, H. M., & Louis, K. S. (1997). Does teacher empowerment affect the classroom: The
implications of teacher empowerment for instructional practice and student academic
performance. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 19, 245–275.
Naisbitt, J. (1982). Megatrends. London: Futura Press
Naisbitt, J., & Aburdene, P. (1990). Megatrends 2000. New York: William Morow. Phil-
ippines Education for the 21st Century. The 1998 Philippines Education Sector Study.
Executive Summary. Pasig City.
Nir, A.E. (2002). School-based management and its effects on teacher commitment. Interna-
tional Journal of Leadership in Education, 5(4), 323–341.
Sackney, L. E., & Dibsky, D. J. (1994). School-based management: a critical perspective.
Educational Management and Administration, 22(2), 104–112.
Townsend, T. (1997). Restructuring and Quality: Issues for Tomorrow’s Schools. London:
Routledge
Turner, W. L., & Stylianou, A. C. (2004). The IT advantage assessment model: applying an
expanded value chain model to academia. Computers and Education, 43(3), 249–272.
Villanueva, C. (1992). EMIS in the Philippines. Regional Office for Asia and the Pacific:
UNESCO.