Npm And Public Education In The Philippines
This document was uploaded by user and they confirmed that they have the permission to share it. If you are author or own the copyright of this book, please report to us by using this DMCA report form. Report DMCA
Overview
Download & View Npm And Public Education In The Philippines as PDF for free.
More details
- Words: 1,636
- Pages: 4
NPM and public education in the Philippines By Wilfredo B. Prilles, Jr. FIFTEEN years after the decentralization movement took off in the Philippines by virtue of the Local Government Code of 1991, public education remains a centrally managed service. This period also coincides with the time during which the quality of education declined markedly. This is indicated by the 1999 and 2003 Trends in International Math and Science Survey (TIMSS) where the country placed among the tailenders. In the next edition of the survey that is supposed to take place this year, education officials of the Arroyo administration declined to participate. In a recent report of UNESCO, the Philippines ranked 74th in terms of the Education Development Index or EDI, falling below Mongolia (61st), Vietnam (65th), Indonesia (58th) and China (38th). The index is a composite measure that is based on enrollment ratio, literacy rate, gender-specific index and quality (survival rate up to grade 5).
Public education in the Philippines Public basic education in the Philippines is centrally managed through the Department of Education (DepEd). The department covers elementary (Grades 1 to 6) and secondary (1st to 4th year) levels, pursuant to the constitutional mandate of providing free public education up to high school. At the local level, the DepEd maintains schools divisions and districts corresponding to the three biggest local government units – provinces, cities and municipalities. Schools divisions, headed by a superintendent, exist at the provincial and city levels. Depending on its size, a province can have more than one division, which in turn comprise of a cluster of school districts at the municipal level. Headed by a public school supervisor, a school district can exist in a town depending on its size, or cover two or more municipalities. The DepEd is the national government’s biggest bureaucracy. As of 2005, its 505,000 workforce represents 46% of the total. Over the last two years, more than 20,000 teachers were added to its payroll to help serve the need of 17 million students enrolled in public schools (12 million in elementary, 5 million in secondary), bringing the teacher-student ratio to 1:34. In spite of this, class size still averaged 41 at the elementary and 50 at the secondary level. In terms of budgetary allocation, education has been getting the highest share in the national budget in recent years (around 18% of the total, exceeded only by debt servicing); this year, it was allocated P162 billion, which is 11% higher than 2006. Of that amount, P133 billion will go to the DepEd, representing 82% of the total allocation for the education sector. Of that budget however, 83% pays for
salaries; the balance is divided between maintenance and other operating expenses (or MOOE, 15%) and capital outlay (excluding school building construction, 2%). The Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE), a voucher program for the secondary level, is embedded in the MOOE, accounting for 12%. The Local School Board The Local School Board is a special body created under the 1991 Local Government Code that exists at the provincial, city and municipal levels. This agency is the institutional provision through which local communities interface with the DepEd in the delivery of public education services. In the case of a city, the code provides for an eight-man LSB that is chaired by the city mayor, co-chaired by the schools division superintendent, and made up of the following members: the chair of the education committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod (the city legislature), the city treasurer, a representative of the Sangguniang Kabataan (city youth council), and duly elected representatives of the city parents teachers association (PTA) league, the city teachers' organization, and the non-academic personnel of city public schools. The LSB’s main duty is to allocate the Special Education Fund (SEF) to meet the supplementary needs of the local public school system. The SEF is an additional 1% levy that is collected together with real property taxes paid to the local government. It varies greatly depending on the locality – from as much as P1 billion in the richest cities in the national capital to as low as P500,000 in the poor, marginal towns. In Mindanao, it is not uncommon to find zero SEF as landowners hardly pay real property taxes to the municipal government.
Problems facing the public school system What problems ail the Philippine public school system? In a presentation before the cabinet sometime in 2003, then Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus reduced these into two: (1) underinvestment in education and (2) poor management of the public school system. Helped by the imposition of the 12% value-added tax (VAT), the national government has been able to increase its education spending in recent years but it still falls short both in real terms and compared to its Asian neighbors. An analysis of the 2007 budget prepared by the Congressional Planning and Budgeting Department showed that the annual average growth rate of the DepEd budget from 2001-06 actually shrank by 3.5% in real terms. And its total education spending as a percentage of GDP (2.9%) is lower than the average of developing countries worldwide (4.5%) and neighboring countries like Malaysia and Mongolia (both exceeding 8%), and Thailand and India (both exceeding 4%).
Our experience in reinventing the LSB in Naga City over the last five years validates and expounds on the two major problems identified by De Jesus.
Deteriorating quality of basic education. The performance of Naga school children largely tracks the national average, which ranges between a mean percentage score of 50-60%.
General lack of awareness on the current state of public education. At the outset, parents did not realize the gravity of the problem, as report cards of their children show passing marks. Achievement test results are not thoroughly discussed among local officials.
Weak “soft infrastructure” support to facilitate learning. Local funds are usually earmarked for physical infrastructure, at the expense of textbooks, workbooks, lesson plans and other instructional materials.
Weak mechanisms for meaningful parent participation in public education. PTA meetings usually end up focusing on raising money to cover operating shortfalls of the school.
Underperforming LSB reduced to a mere budgeting entity for local education funds. Beyond preparing and approving its annual budget, the LSB becomes largely useless.
Weak planning and budgeting practices and processes. The lack of a consolidated education budget at the local level, genuine needs assessment and consultation/engagement with stakeholders (a) produces unresponsive budgets that do not address actual needs of public schools, and (b) contributes to poor collection efficiency. Nationwide, only 54% of the total SEF tax estimated at P16 billion are actually collected. This reduces the SEF to a heavily underutilized “hidden wealth” at the local level.
Lack of transparency and accountability in the public school system. Notwithstanding recent efforts – like DepEd’s Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) and private sector-led initiatives to improve the public school system – the centralized nature of the system has not improved accountability over education service delivery. School heads and staff feel more accountable vertically (to their superiors up the line) than horizontally (instead of the local communities they serve). Security of tenure makes it difficult to separate non-performing staff from the service. An “old-boy” protectionist mindset prevents punishment of erring school heads. And in spite of DepEd guidelines promoting meritocracy, the lack of transparency as well as political intrusion in teacher recuitment and hiring remains a pervasive practice.
NPM-oriented reforms To be sure, the Philippine decentralization experience is a mixed bag of success stories and unfulfilled expectations. This underscores the fact that some localities, like Naga City, are more prepared than most in the decentralization of public education service delivery. It will be a disservice to the Constitutional
provision mandating local autonomy (Sec. 2, Article X) and encouraging local education planning (Sec 5, Article XIV) if progressive localities remain encumbered by a one-size-fits-all policy. Factoring in this reality, New Public Management (NPM) values, philosophy and elements can shape this long overdue reform effort, centered on the calibrated decentralization of basic education in localities that (a) will demand for it, (b) have the financial wherewithal, and (c) administrative expertise to ensure its success. This way, the DepEd can focus its attention to localities that do not live up to these criteria. These considerations will also inform the design of the reform package, which will be built around the following features:
“Lean state,” separate decisionmaking. A local education authority (LEA) autonomous of the DepEd and built around the LSB will serve as the highest education policymaking entity in the locality, including the authority to hire and fire the division superintendent. Its members will be elected sectorally and will serve for a fixed term. This way, the superintendent becomes accountable to the LEA Board, and the Board members to their respective constituencies, in regard to the performance of the public school system. If it so decides, the LEA Board can opt to implement an expanded voucher system that will take advantage of existing unused capacities in private high schools in the locality.
Lean management. A consolidated budget comprising of the national allotment representing the cost of devolved education services and the SEF tax money of the local government will enable the LEA to offer much higher but performance-based pay to school-based administrative and teaching staff who need not have security of tenure.
Scorecard system, results-based management. Allocation of the annual budget will be driven by key education outcomes that the LEA will define for the locality. A balanced scorecard system will be implemented to drill these targets down to the classroom level.
Customer orientation. Divisionwide and school-level periodic reports on the state of public education will be held to inform parents and community leaders on the progress of each school vis-à-vis its annual targets.
Public education in the Philippines Public basic education in the Philippines is centrally managed through the Department of Education (DepEd). The department covers elementary (Grades 1 to 6) and secondary (1st to 4th year) levels, pursuant to the constitutional mandate of providing free public education up to high school. At the local level, the DepEd maintains schools divisions and districts corresponding to the three biggest local government units – provinces, cities and municipalities. Schools divisions, headed by a superintendent, exist at the provincial and city levels. Depending on its size, a province can have more than one division, which in turn comprise of a cluster of school districts at the municipal level. Headed by a public school supervisor, a school district can exist in a town depending on its size, or cover two or more municipalities. The DepEd is the national government’s biggest bureaucracy. As of 2005, its 505,000 workforce represents 46% of the total. Over the last two years, more than 20,000 teachers were added to its payroll to help serve the need of 17 million students enrolled in public schools (12 million in elementary, 5 million in secondary), bringing the teacher-student ratio to 1:34. In spite of this, class size still averaged 41 at the elementary and 50 at the secondary level. In terms of budgetary allocation, education has been getting the highest share in the national budget in recent years (around 18% of the total, exceeded only by debt servicing); this year, it was allocated P162 billion, which is 11% higher than 2006. Of that amount, P133 billion will go to the DepEd, representing 82% of the total allocation for the education sector. Of that budget however, 83% pays for
salaries; the balance is divided between maintenance and other operating expenses (or MOOE, 15%) and capital outlay (excluding school building construction, 2%). The Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE), a voucher program for the secondary level, is embedded in the MOOE, accounting for 12%. The Local School Board The Local School Board is a special body created under the 1991 Local Government Code that exists at the provincial, city and municipal levels. This agency is the institutional provision through which local communities interface with the DepEd in the delivery of public education services. In the case of a city, the code provides for an eight-man LSB that is chaired by the city mayor, co-chaired by the schools division superintendent, and made up of the following members: the chair of the education committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod (the city legislature), the city treasurer, a representative of the Sangguniang Kabataan (city youth council), and duly elected representatives of the city parents teachers association (PTA) league, the city teachers' organization, and the non-academic personnel of city public schools. The LSB’s main duty is to allocate the Special Education Fund (SEF) to meet the supplementary needs of the local public school system. The SEF is an additional 1% levy that is collected together with real property taxes paid to the local government. It varies greatly depending on the locality – from as much as P1 billion in the richest cities in the national capital to as low as P500,000 in the poor, marginal towns. In Mindanao, it is not uncommon to find zero SEF as landowners hardly pay real property taxes to the municipal government.
Problems facing the public school system What problems ail the Philippine public school system? In a presentation before the cabinet sometime in 2003, then Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus reduced these into two: (1) underinvestment in education and (2) poor management of the public school system. Helped by the imposition of the 12% value-added tax (VAT), the national government has been able to increase its education spending in recent years but it still falls short both in real terms and compared to its Asian neighbors. An analysis of the 2007 budget prepared by the Congressional Planning and Budgeting Department showed that the annual average growth rate of the DepEd budget from 2001-06 actually shrank by 3.5% in real terms. And its total education spending as a percentage of GDP (2.9%) is lower than the average of developing countries worldwide (4.5%) and neighboring countries like Malaysia and Mongolia (both exceeding 8%), and Thailand and India (both exceeding 4%).
Our experience in reinventing the LSB in Naga City over the last five years validates and expounds on the two major problems identified by De Jesus.
Deteriorating quality of basic education. The performance of Naga school children largely tracks the national average, which ranges between a mean percentage score of 50-60%.
General lack of awareness on the current state of public education. At the outset, parents did not realize the gravity of the problem, as report cards of their children show passing marks. Achievement test results are not thoroughly discussed among local officials.
Weak “soft infrastructure” support to facilitate learning. Local funds are usually earmarked for physical infrastructure, at the expense of textbooks, workbooks, lesson plans and other instructional materials.
Weak mechanisms for meaningful parent participation in public education. PTA meetings usually end up focusing on raising money to cover operating shortfalls of the school.
Underperforming LSB reduced to a mere budgeting entity for local education funds. Beyond preparing and approving its annual budget, the LSB becomes largely useless.
Weak planning and budgeting practices and processes. The lack of a consolidated education budget at the local level, genuine needs assessment and consultation/engagement with stakeholders (a) produces unresponsive budgets that do not address actual needs of public schools, and (b) contributes to poor collection efficiency. Nationwide, only 54% of the total SEF tax estimated at P16 billion are actually collected. This reduces the SEF to a heavily underutilized “hidden wealth” at the local level.
Lack of transparency and accountability in the public school system. Notwithstanding recent efforts – like DepEd’s Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) and private sector-led initiatives to improve the public school system – the centralized nature of the system has not improved accountability over education service delivery. School heads and staff feel more accountable vertically (to their superiors up the line) than horizontally (instead of the local communities they serve). Security of tenure makes it difficult to separate non-performing staff from the service. An “old-boy” protectionist mindset prevents punishment of erring school heads. And in spite of DepEd guidelines promoting meritocracy, the lack of transparency as well as political intrusion in teacher recuitment and hiring remains a pervasive practice.
NPM-oriented reforms To be sure, the Philippine decentralization experience is a mixed bag of success stories and unfulfilled expectations. This underscores the fact that some localities, like Naga City, are more prepared than most in the decentralization of public education service delivery. It will be a disservice to the Constitutional
provision mandating local autonomy (Sec. 2, Article X) and encouraging local education planning (Sec 5, Article XIV) if progressive localities remain encumbered by a one-size-fits-all policy. Factoring in this reality, New Public Management (NPM) values, philosophy and elements can shape this long overdue reform effort, centered on the calibrated decentralization of basic education in localities that (a) will demand for it, (b) have the financial wherewithal, and (c) administrative expertise to ensure its success. This way, the DepEd can focus its attention to localities that do not live up to these criteria. These considerations will also inform the design of the reform package, which will be built around the following features:
“Lean state,” separate decisionmaking. A local education authority (LEA) autonomous of the DepEd and built around the LSB will serve as the highest education policymaking entity in the locality, including the authority to hire and fire the division superintendent. Its members will be elected sectorally and will serve for a fixed term. This way, the superintendent becomes accountable to the LEA Board, and the Board members to their respective constituencies, in regard to the performance of the public school system. If it so decides, the LEA Board can opt to implement an expanded voucher system that will take advantage of existing unused capacities in private high schools in the locality.
Lean management. A consolidated budget comprising of the national allotment representing the cost of devolved education services and the SEF tax money of the local government will enable the LEA to offer much higher but performance-based pay to school-based administrative and teaching staff who need not have security of tenure.
Scorecard system, results-based management. Allocation of the annual budget will be driven by key education outcomes that the LEA will define for the locality. A balanced scorecard system will be implemented to drill these targets down to the classroom level.
Customer orientation. Divisionwide and school-level periodic reports on the state of public education will be held to inform parents and community leaders on the progress of each school vis-à-vis its annual targets.
Related Documents
Npm And Public Education In The Philippines
November 2019 23
Education In The Philippines
June 2020 37
Higher Education In The Philippines
June 2020 25
Disappearances In The Philippines
November 2019 63
Composting In The Philippines
April 2020 59