Académique Documents
Professionnel Documents
Culture Documents
July 2011
This publication was produced for review by the United States Agency for International
Development. It was prepared by International Technology Management Corporation (INTEM)
Prepared for
States Agency for International Development, Philippines
Prepared by
Dr. Rizal Buendia, Dr. Julieta Gregorio, Ms. Regina A. Molera, Dr. Benjamina G. Flor,
Mr. Benjamin Vergel de Dios, Mr. Joel Wayne Ganibe, Mr. Arman G. Balonkita, Mr.
Carlone Dawang and Mr. Nestor Mirandilla
International Technology Management Corporation (INTEM)
U-407 AB Sandoval Building
Shaw Boulevard, corner Oranbo Drive
Pasig City, Metro Manila, Philippines
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 Dr. Rizal Buendia, Dr. Julieta Gregorio,
Regina A. Molera, Dr. Benjamina G. Flor, Benjamin Vergel de Dios, Joel Wayne Ganibe, Arman
G. Balonkita, Carlone B. Dawang and Nestor Mirandilla. The document was edited by Dr.
Bernadette V. Gonzales and Dr. Eduardo Bolanos. The work was funded by USAID. The work
could not have been accomplished without the collaboration and dedicated efforts of Robert
Burch, Mirshariff Tillah, Aivan Leo Amit, Maritoni Oanes, and Shannon Stone of
USAID/Philippines. Equally important were the contributions of numerous officials of Philippine
government agencies who were generous with their time, candid and open in their discussions,
and amicable and hospitable in their interactions with the research team. Colleagues from
several development agencies and from nongovernmental organizations (NGOs) and education
projects based in Manila also provided vital help and information to the team.
Table of Contents
List of Acronyms
List of Tables
List of Figures
Executive Summary
1.0 Introduction and Context
1.1 Research Methodology
1.2 Context
1.3 Overview
2.0 Assessment by Sub-sector
2.1 Early Childhood Care and Development
2.2 Basic Education
2.3 Alternative Learning System
2.4 Technical and Vocational Education and Skills Development
2.5 Higher Education
3.0 Conclusion and Recommendation for USAID Support
Diagram 1. Updated Philippine Education System (K+12)
Glossary of Terms
List of Informants
Endnotes
References
iii
vi
vi
viii
1
1
2
3
11
11
20
28
33
40
50
53
54
57
61
64
List of Acronyms
ACE
ADB
ADMs
A&E
AFLEP
ALIVE
ALS
ASEAN
ARH
ARMM
ADMs
AusAID
AY
BALS
BEAM
BEIS
BESRA
BLP
BP-OSA
CAR
CCT
CHED
CICT
CFS
CFSS
CPC-6
CSIs
CSR
CV
CVS
CWC
DALSC
DBM
DCCs
DCWs
DDU
DECS
DepED
DILG
DORP
DOH
DOLE
DSWD
ECCD
ECD
ECE
EDCOM
EFA
e-IMPACT
EO
ESM
EQUALLS
FLEMMS
FY
GAA
GATSPE
GDP
GER
GOCCs
GOP
GPI
HE
HEIs
ICT
ILO
IMs
INSET
IP
IRA
KRTs
LCEs
LEP
LGU
LMIR
LSBs
LUCs
JBIC
MDG
MDG2
MISOSA
MLSD
MOA
MOOE
MTBMLE
NAC
NAT
NCBTS
NCCE
NCEE
NCR
NHERA
NECCDCC
NEDA
NEDCC
NELF
NER
NGOs
NNC
NSO
NSEC
ODA
OECF
OGS
OIC
OPAE
OSY
ULAP
PAGCOR
PBE
PCER
PELC
PLFS
PMO
PESS
PESA
PNQF
PRC
PTCAs
RA
RAMSE
RBEC
RBI
SAT
SARDO
SBM
SFI
SEF
SUCs
SY
STRIVE
SEDIP
SOTAR
SReEA
TEEP
TEDP
TEIs
TESDA
TIMMS
TPDF
TPDP
TVET
UN
UNDP
UNICEF
UNESCO
USAID
United Nations
United Nations Development Program
United Nations Childrens Fund
United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization
United States Agency for International Development
WB
World Bank
List of Tables
Part III.
Assessment by Sub-sector
Basic Education
Table 1
Table 2
Table 3
Table 4
Table 5
Table 6
Table 7
Table 8
Higher Education
Higher Education Indicators by Academic Year: 2000-2010
List of Figures
Part I.
Figure 1
Figure 2
Figure 3
Figure 4
Figure 5
Figure 6
Figure 7
Figure 8
Part II.
Figure 9
Figure 10
Figure 11
Figure 12
Assessment by Sub-sector
Early Childhood Care and Development Education
ECE in the Formal School System, 2002-2009
Dropout Rate by Grade Level, SY 2009-2010
Day-Care Center Coverage, 1998-2010
ECE Regional Performance
Figure 13
Figure 14
Figure 15
Figure 16
Figure 17
Figure 18
Figure 19
Basic Education
Net Enrolment Rate: Elementary Level, 2002 2010
Net Enrolment Rate: Secondary Level, 2002-2010
Cohort Survival Rate: Elementary Level, 2002-2010
Cohort Survival Rate: Secondary Level, 2002-2010
Gender Disparity, Elementary Level SY 2009-2010
Gender Disparity, Secondary Level SY 2009-2010
Percentage of Education Budget Distribution by Sectors (2011)
Figure 20
Figure 21
Figure 22
Figure 23
Figure 24
Figure 25
Figure 26
Figure 27
Figure 28
Higher Education
Proportion of Higher Educational Institutions
Higher Education Graduates of Top Five Discipline Group and Academic Year
Proportion of HEI Faculty and Teaching Staff by Academic Qualification
Performance (% Passing) in Licensure Examination
Number of Schools Classified as Centers of Development and Centers of
Excellence by Type and Region
GENERAL FINDINGS
1. Tri-focalization of education has resulted in weak coordination among the three
education agencies. The tri-focalization of education in 1994 was borne out of the
recommendation of the Commission on Education (EDCOM) report in 1991. Trifocalization was aimed at improving policy making, planning, and programming at the
subsector level as each of the three lead agencies was given the principal responsibility
for its undiluted and undivided attention on its respective areas of concern. This
resulted in the establishment of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) in 1994, and allowed
the Department of Education and Sports (DECS), later renamed as the Department of
Education in 2001, to concentrate on basic education (primary and secondary education).
The National Coordinating Council for Education was also created, but has not met since
its creation. Thus, there is no mechanism to ensure that policies, programs, and projects
of each subsector are dovetailed to national development plans
2. There was an attempt to assess, plan, and monitor the entire education sector through the
creation of the Presidential Task Force for Education (PTFE) in 2007. It was ineffective
in harmonizing policies, programs, and reform initiatives of the three co-equal education
agencies given the ad-hoc nature of its creation. The PTFE was established by a mere
Executive Order (EO 632) and it officially ceased to exist in 2010 following the change
in administrations.
3. Despite tri-focalization, there is overlap of mandates among the three agencies. For
instance, DepEd does not only administer, regulate, and supervise elementary and
secondary schools but also continues to operate some 300 specialized technicalvocational schools even as it is engaged in non-formal education. Meanwhile, CHED
maintains its academic and administrative supervision over public secondary and postsecondary institutions (usually agricultural or industrial arts and trades schools), and
laboratory schools of higher education institutions, classified by CHED under the other
government schools (OGS) category. On the other hand, TESDA, an agency which
prepares and provides students with technical and craft skills, has not been engaged in the
delivery of technical-vocational education in high schools (which is primarily managed
by the DepEd).
4. Investments in the education sector are low compared to other countries in
Southeast Asia. Although the Philippine government has been allocating the largest
share of the national budget to education, the country continues to have the lowest
percentage in terms of allocation for education as a ratio to the Gross Domestic Product
(GDP) among five selected ASEAN countries. Still the country maintained a slow
upward trend over the five-year period (2004 to 2008) while other countries showed a
declining trend (except for Vietnam which only had 2008 data). It is noted that basic
education in the Philippines received an unprecedented 18% jump in budget allocations
for 2010.
5. The quality of basic education has deteriorated. The country ranks among the poorest
performers in East Asia and the rest of the world in terms of quality standards. In the
2003 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results for the
fourth graders, the Philippines ranked 23rd among 25 countries in both mathematics and
science; for the 8th graders (equivalent to second year high school), the Philippines
ranked 34th of 38 countries. In the 2008 TIMSS Advanced Mathematics category, the
Philippines placed last among 10 participating countries in mathematics overall. The
2010 National Achievement Test results showed a mean percentage score (MPS) of 68%
for the elementary levels, and for high school, the MPS was only around 45%.
6. The national trend shows that leaving or dropping out of school is more prevalent
during the entry years. In SY 2009-10, the (simple) dropout rate was 1.56% in Grade 1
and 7.68% in first year high school. There were more boys who dropped out from school
(1.80%) than girls (1.29%). There are many factors that can be attributed to the high
dropout rate in Grade 1. Children who have not had ECE experience prior to entering
Grade 1 are not ready - socially, psychologically, and cognitively. Their inability to
adjust to their transition from home to a structured learning environment and formal
schooling can lead to their dropping out of school. In addition, children with poor health
and nutrition are unable to focus and concentrate on their learning processes. A school
readiness assessment for Grade 1 entrants revealed that only 42% were ready for school
(SY 2009-2010).
7. Poverty remains a major reason for dropping out. Basic education, while free, is still
characterized by numerous costs to learners, parents, and local communities. Families
bear the full cost of school meals, (in spite of DepEds School Feeding Program)
transportation, shoes, and school supplies. This places education beyond the reach of
most of the disadvantaged sector, with many students dropping out mainly due to
poverty. The times they are out of school are spent in helping their families augment the
family income. 43% of children aged 0-14 belong to poor households. The number of
college and university drop outs is comparable to those in the elementary and secondary
levels. Students opt to drop out for a year or two then enroll again after some time.
8. Out-of-school children and youth remains a big issue. The 2008 Functional Literacy,
Education, and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) reveals that of the 39 million population
aged 6-24, 32 percent or 12.3 million are not attending school. Of this number, 24 percent
say that the prohibitive cost of education deters them from going to school, 22 percent are
either working or looking for work, and 20 percent lack interest in going to school. Data
on Philippine Labor Force Survey (PLFS) show that boys make up more than half of the
total number of working children, around 63 percent in 2009. Generally, six out of 10
working children did not attend school. As of April 2010, there are 2.4 million working
children in the country (PLFS, 2010).
9. Illiteracy remains a big challenge. The FLEMMS shows that 6.9% of the population
aged 10-64 cannot read and write (around 6 million people). The number of illiterates
and those who have not graduated elementary and high school is estimated at 45 million,
or 40% of the total population of 92 million in 2008.
10. Piecemeal reforms have yet to be institutionalized. The piecemeal reform interventions
of donor and development partners do not provide an avenue for concerted structural and
programmatic changes that would result in large-scale, integrated, and sustained
outcomes. Numerous pilot initiatives have already been introduced and tested in the areas
of student assessment, alternative service delivery, pedagogy, inclusiveness and
community participation in the subsector of basic education. Major pilot reform
initiatives such as TEEP, SEDIP, BEAM, EQUALLS-Project, STRIVE, and CFSS have
demonstrated significant successes changes in different areas, such as competency
standards for teachers; advancing the development of student assessment; enhancing
school-based management; championing the quality of Muslim education nationwide,
and changing the philosophies and mindsets of those within their reach (Philippine
Human Development Report, 2008-09:65-100). However, the mainstreaming or upscaling of these successful pilot-initiatives is a big challenge and there is no convergence
of strategies yet as to their national application.
11. Assistance from international development agencies made on basic education was
mostly loans rather than grants. Foreign assistance fund for the improvement of the
basic education sub-sector in the past 10 years amounted to around PhP45.9 billion, 77%
of which came from loans. The remaining 23% were grants to the recipient divisions
located in the 20 most impoverished provinces. Basic education (elementary and
secondary levels) received almost 82% of the total loans. The World Bank (WB) and
WB/Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) provided approximately 52% of
total loans for the past decade. For grants, the Australian Agency for International
Development (AusAid) accounted for almost half (46%) of the total grants while USAID
accounted for 16% of the total. Most of the projects, both loans and grants, were focused
on improving access to and quality of basic education.
II.
(1:53) compared to Regions I and II which have better ratios exceeding even the ideal
1:35 ratio, with 1:31 and 1:29 ratios respectively. Next to ARMM, the NCR is also faced
with a high classroom-pupil ratio of 1:49. It has to resort to classes with double or even
triple shifts, in order to accommodate the large number of students.
17. There are other factors that contribute to lack of access. There are pockets where
classroom shortages persist due to continued increase in enrolment, poor targeting of
resources, classroom damage due to calamities, and disparities in resources/funding
among schools in different areas. Other factors are due to geographic reasons such as
distance and remoteness of barangays (villages), mountainous terrain, or scattered
islands. Addressing disparities in classroom constructions was impeded by RA 7880 or
the Fair and Equitable Allocation of the DECS Budget for Capital Outlay.
ALTERNATIVE LEARNING SYSTEM (NON-FORMAL EDUCATION)
18. ALS coverage is limited due to budget constraints. Since ALS started certification in
1999, only 1,682,326 learners have been reached. With only 1,981 mobile teachers to
address the needs of 48,000 barangays in the Philippines (or an average of about one
teacher for 24 barangays), it seems easy to see the gaps between supply and demand.
Only 1% of DepEds budget goes to the Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems.
19. The passing rate in the accreditation and equivalency (A&E) test is comparable to
the promotion rate of formal basic education. From 2000-2010, a total of 1,682,326
learners were enrolled in ALS, of which 77% completed the programs. In the same time
frame, a total of 635,987 (65,196 elementary and 570,881 in secondary) took the
Accreditation and Equivalency Exam. The number of passers for elementary was 15,190
(22%) and 134,380 for secondary (26%).
20. ALS suffers from a perception of being inferior to the formal system. Despite its
possible key role in enabling the Philippines to attain MDG 2 by 2015 through a more
flexible and potentially innovative delivery system leveraging the now available
information and communications technologies, it suffers from a perception of being
inferior to its formal counterpart. This perception is common among all stakeholders,
even among DepEd personnel and the learners themselves. ALS is seen as the alternative
to basic education for out-of-school youth, illiterate adults, and the poorest of the poor.
This view, however, is generally held within the education sector of any country or any
culture: that non-formal sector is seen as a poor substitute for formal schooling, in spite
of the fact that it provides an option for the marginalized sectors.
21. The current organizational structure does not cover informal education although
this function is legislated by virtue of EO 356. The existing divisions of BALS
primarily address non-formal educational concerns. The current organization is focused
on accreditation and equivalency and has difficulty in providing access to educational
opportunities with more creative and innovative delivery schemes
was also found out that these HEIs are only in six out of the 16 geographic regions, and
the total number of HEIs involved in producing all the international publications
represents only 4.27% of the 2060 HEIs that now operate in the Philippines. Moreover,
CHEDs 2010 record shows that, overall, private HEIs have dominated the Centers of
Development (CODs) and Centers of Excellence (COEs), constituting 62.5% of the total
232. In terms of geographic distribution, the NCR maintains the concentration of CODs
and COEs. The figures reveal the skewed distribution of CODs and COEs with the NCR
as sole center of academic excellence in the country. This contributed to the influx of
students in Metro Manila to gain better higher education and, consequently, left other
regions of the country to HEIs which have less capability to educate students at the
tertiary level.
27. Shortage of qualified and competent academics and teaching staff. The increase in
the number of HEIs in the country does not mean that there has been a considerable
increase in the number of qualified and competent academics and teaching staff. In 2010,
only 10% of faculty members of higher education institutions have doctoral degrees, and
only 36% have some graduate qualification (i.e., Masters degree or equivalent
specialized training). Hence, more than half (54%) of all those handling higher education
courses only have Bachelors degrees. In private HEIs, the faculty profile is dismal: only
8% have doctoral degrees compared to 13% in public HEIs and 37% have graduate
degrees in private as against 34% in public institutions.
28. Poor performance in licensure examinations. One key measurement in determining the
quality is the performance of students in the professional board examinations (PBE)
conducted by the Professional Regulation Commission (PRC). Data show that
performance of graduates in the different licensure and board examinations has been
declining in the last ten years. The overall passing rates are quite low (around 36% on the
average). Private non-sectarian institutions show the poorest results in the professional
board examinations. While some elite institutions have consistent passing rates of over
90%, close to 300 HEIs have zero passing rates for some disciplines. However, in the
most recent available study of CHED (2008), it found that there was a big drop in passing
rates even among the top three universities (Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle
University, University of the Philippines) in the country.
29. Rise of local universities and colleges (LUCs). There has been a considerable rise of
LUCs across the country; a 121% increase in nine (9) years, or an average of six LUCs
established every year. The quality of education in these LUCs is very low. Based on the
monitoring conducted by CHED in 2010, majority of the programs being offered by the
LUCs do not have CHEDs permit or recognition. Only 31 out of the 89 LUCs have
permit from CHED to offer degree programs. Out of the 89 LUCs, 58 have not complied
with or are deficient in the requirements set by CHED. In terms of professional
examinations, although majority of the LUCs with CHEDs subscribed courses have
attained passing marks above the national passing rate, these marks are not even above
50%. This means that more than half of LUCs graduates who take the professional board
examinations fail. This poses a problem not only to LUCs and other public HEIs but also
to private HEIs.
30. Graduates of higher education lack basic skills. The 2009 World Bank Philippines
Skills Report reveals that university graduates have serious gaps in foundational skills,
Basic Education
36. BESRA challenge. The MDG2 places great premium on the national implementation of
the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA 2005-2011) as the key to achieving
universal access to primary education by 2015. The potential of BESRA in addressing the
challenges in basic education primarily relies on the institutionalization of the six key
reform thrusts in all the 197 divisions in the 17 regional units of DepED. At present,
various DepEd technical working groups are actively engaged in the national
implementation, monitoring, and evaluation of the KRTs.
37. Continuity of School-Based Management (SBM) and Teacher Education and
Development (TED). SBM decentralizes the responsibility and accountability of basic
education to internal and external stakeholders in three major systems, namely: school
accountability, quality management, and governance structure. Teacher Education and
Development operationalizes competency-based systems for continuous professional
development inclusive of standards, hiring, deployment, performance, promotion, and
continuous training. It is imperative that these programs are patronized and sustained by
key leaders to be fully realized. Both are key elements of BESRA.
38. Supporting Quality Assurance and Accountability and Learning Support (QAALS).
The QAALS, together with SBM, sums up the quality management system on quality
planning, assurance, and control. The learning support systems include work on:
- National Achievement Framework to improve the operation of the National
Achievement Test
- the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education Program that will change the
mediums or languages of instruction from the present bilingual system (Filipino and
English) to a trilingual system mother tongue, Filipino, and English;
the Alternative Delivery Modes for large classes, students at risk of dropping out and
students in underserved depressed areas aim to mitigate the drop-out problem.
groups, improved library and scientific documentation tools and access to it) and to
increase interaction of universities with business community and research.
IV.
43. Contribute and support in the strategic reform program of the Philippine educational
system through policy research and development. The reason the EDCOM-created
National Coordinating Council for Education (NCCE) never got off the ground was
because by making CHED, DepEd, and TESDA equal partners in education, the NCCE
failed to take into account the hierarchical nature of Philippine government entities. The
tri-focalization of education which seemed like a good idea at the time of EDCOM may
have outlived its usefulness. There is a need to conduct a comprehensive assessment on
the benefits and shortcomings brought about by the trifocalization of education in 1994.
The Office of the Presidential Assistant for Education (OPAE) created under EO 632 that
was tasked to coordinate the work of DepEd, TESDA, and CHED was short lived given
the nature and character of its creation.
44. Support in upgrading human resources and capital by enhancing the knowledge
distribution power of the economy through student scholarship and faculty development
programs. Essentially, public research laboratories and institutes of higher education
carry out key functions in the knowledge-based economy, including knowledge
production, management, transmission, and transfer. However, HEIs fail to produce
graduates with: i) adequate skills; and, ii) suitable degrees that complement to national
development objectives because of historical and persistent market failures such as the
well-known obsession for diplomas.
45. The countrys science system also faces the challenge of reconciling its traditional
functions of producing new knowledge through basic research and educating new
generations of scientists and engineers with its newer role of collaborating with industry
in the transfer of knowledge and technology. Research institutes and academia are delinked or have weak linkages with key industrial partners for the purposes of research,
innovations, and finance. Scholarships and faculty development programs are limited and
those which are available are less inclined towards research and development thrust of
the country. Given this, there is a need to provide long-term scholarships, allocation of
soft loans, and provision of other forms of incentives and financial assistance to HEI
students that will ensure high quality education and technical expertise to deserving
students. There is a need to produce more computer scientists, engineers, mathematicians,
geographers, chemists and physicists, among others.
46. Sustained program in building capacities of leaders. The most important in the
education reform agenda is leadership - political leaders as well as our educational
leaders - who must confront the educational problems. Education stakeholders recognize
the need for improved sector-wide planning to address key deficiencies across the
education sector.