making education work.. reference book.pdf

06.01 C GE

14).r.1L

Vol.4

MAKING EDUCATION WORK BOOK ONE

Areas of Concern in Philippine Education

EGL, !?(-151Y/U

46%251

occraer4

my

MAKING EDUCATION WORK BOOK ONE


----- Volume 4

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT

NCI NATIONAL CENTRE FOR VOCATIONAL P & EDUCATION RESEARCH LTD. fry; a A.C.N. 007 967 311

Published in Quezon City, Philippines by the Congressional Oversight Committee on Education

This report was prepared in 1991-92 by the Congressional Commission on Educa- hon, whose members, with Senator Edgardo J. Angara as chair and former Repre- sentative Carlos M. Padilla as co-chair, were Representatives Adelisa Almano- Raymundo, Ernesto S Amatong, Salvador H. Escudero and Cirilo Roy Montejo, Senators Juan Ponce Ennle, Ernesto F. Herrera and Sotero H Laurel, and Santanina T. Rasul. It was published in 1993 under the auspices of the Congressional Oversight Committee on Education with Senator Leticia R Shahani as chair and Representative Salvador H. Escudero as co-chair, and Representatives Ciriaco R. Alfelor, Angel M. Carloto, and Andrea D. Domingo; and Senators Ernesto F. Herrera, Cirilo Roy G. Montejo, Santanina T. Rasul, Vicente C Sotto III and Wigberto E. Tanada as members.

This is not to be reproduced or reprinted in any form for commercial purposes; but may be quoted or reproduced in part for literary or educational research, and for information and advocacy, provided that appropriate citation is made.

Bibliographic citation.

The Congressional Commission on Education 1993. Governance and Management, v. 4. Areas of Concern In Philippine Education, Book One Making Education Work. Quezon City, Philippines: Congressional Oversight Committed on Educa- tion.

ISBN 971-8827-02-1 971-8827-054

First Printing, 1993

Preface

Even before we were elected to the Congress, all of us were already worried about the apparent deterioration of Philippine education. Our work in our separate Committees on Education confirmed our worst fears for the mindof our nation.

This Report is far from clinical and objective. But we do not apologize for its tone. How can we be detached when we are faced with the evidence that our young people revert to illiteracy because their instruction is indifferent? How can we remain unemotional when we are told that in comparison with other peoples our children know little mathematics and even less science?

Education is essential to our life as a nation. This is a truism that bears endless repetition. It is acknowledged by the provisions on education in the Constitution. Except for the provision on free secondary education, however, these Constitutional mandates have not yet been translated in- to action.

After a penod of reflection, it became clear to us that these twin tasks of solving the problems and implementing the constitutional provisions on education have to be approached not separately but together. Thils, our decision to propose basic and all-embracing reforms in our education system.

To do this, the Congress enacted, and the President signed into law, Joint Resolution No. 2, which created the Congressional Commission on Education on 14 August 1990, although its substantive work did not begin until after the New Year in 1991.

The Commission was made up of five senators and five representatives chosen first for their knowledge of education matters and second for their representation of regional, sectoral and political points of view

We chose to amass the information we needed to review and assess Philippine education by direct consultation. We wanted to hear from the people directly what they felt and thought about a national problem close to their hearts.

We carried out the most extensive and Intensive public hearings in our country's history. We went to all the regions, including the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao and the Cordillera Administrative Region. We held consultations in 18 provinces and 13 regional centers. We met with 33 groups representing public and private schools, teachers, parents, students, special education, national and local Government executives, workers and employers. We invited 378 experts in education, science and technology, language, technical education and training, public administration, finance and the mass media.

Ill

Governance and Management

Our staff studied all primary and secondary documents on Philippine education written over the last 20 years by Filipino and foreign scholars, including those specifically addressed to us. And we capped all this with a National Congress on 29-30 November 1991. kt this Congress, we gave the national organizations and the concerned Government departments the chance to examine and criticize our proposals before we submitted them to the two houses of Congress.

To all these consultations, we came with open minds, Except to tell the people and groups that we convened the themes which Joint Resolu- tion No. 2 directed us to examine, we did not in any way intervene in the proceedings. Hence we can say confidently that our findings, conclusions and recommendations are the national consensus on education

Our recommendations, however, are for both the legislative and exe- cutivebranches, because Joint Resolu tion No. 2 au thonzed us to look at both policies and programs.

Many of our proposals can be carried out by executive action, but the key ones require legislation.

We would like on behalf of the Congress to thank President Corazon C. Aquino, Director-General Cayetano Paderanga Jr., the regional directors and staff of the National Economic and Development Authonty, the Regional Development Councils, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports, and the Department of Labor and Employment, particularly the National Manpower and Youth Council, and regional, provincial and municipal government executives.

We would also like to acknowledge the Intellectual and moral contributions of numerous organizations and persons. We cannot mention all of them here, but the papers of the Congressional Commission on Education will list them all.

We commend this report to our colleagues in the Senate and the House of Representatives.

Sen. Edgardo J. Angara Rep. Carlos M Padilla Chairman Co-Chairman

Juan Ponce Ennle Adelisa Almario-Raymundo

Ernesto F. Herrera Ernesto J. Amatong

Sotero H. Laurel Salvador H. Escudero III

Santanina Rasul Cirilo Roy G. Montejo

Manila and Quezon City 1992

iv

Foreword

The four books comprising the entire report of the Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) are the product of a twelve-month intensive study of the state of education and training in the Philippines. Though it makes no claim to being exhaustive nor definitive, it represents an earnest, informed, collective analysis of the condition of education and training in the country.

The philosophy that ought to steer and animate Philippine education is discussed succinctly in one chapter, "Education of the Filipino", of the official EDCOM report submitted to the Congress of the Philippines in December 1991.

Books One and Two look at the education scene in depth: the first, in terms of areas of concern that seem to be true of all types and levels of education; the second, in terms of the levels of education - elementary, secondary, post-secondary and higher education.

Book Three capsulizes views, and suggestions from multi-sectoral groups who are the givers and the receivers of education services; the informed opinions of leading professionals and experts in specific areas; and the positions and recommendations of recognized national leaders working in or closely associated with education and training.

Book Four compnses selected technical papers by academics, professionals and field managers who participated actively in EDCOM consultations as well as thoughtful discourses from EDCOM resource persons and consultants. Their themes intersect in many parts of this four-book report, and form the warp and woof of the official EDCOM Report proposed earlier to the Congress of the Philippines as the basis for executive and legislative actions.

This first book, Book One, is organized according to the area of concern which EDCOM was mandated to look into Thus, Volume 1 deals with education and manpower development programs; Volume 2, with the teachers and their concerns, Volume 3, with sectoral targets and functional linkages; Volume 4, with governance and management; and Volume 5, with the financing of education.

This volume on the Governance and Management of the Philippine Educational System examines both the external governance of the entire educational system and the internal governance of the system's component institutions such as the education department and its operating agencies, other agencies with educational concerns, and the various educational institutions.

Volume 4 first presents the factors affecting the complexity of educational management and a background on the educational system (Chapter 1).

V


On the other hand, Chapter 2 discusses the management of the system, including systems governance and major educational policies by level of education. Chapter 3 covers the DECS organizational structure: administration and supervision, programming and evaluation, instructional supervision, staffing and human resource development, procurement, and disbursement and asset management for the entire system as well as for the educational institution. Meanwhile, Chapter 4 covers institutional governance, including policy and program formulation, organizational system and structure, administrative systems and procedures.

Among the issues and problems identified in Chapter 5 include the growing scope of educational governance in terms of enrolment, number of teachers and institutions, infrastructure and facilities, administrative bureaucracy and financing and the limited resources available to meet educational needs. Thus the urgent need for the educational system to be managed in the most effective and efficient manner is expressed in the latter part of the Report.

Embodying the conclusions and recommendations arrived at by ED- COM after its conduct of two major surveys, a review of the studies on education in the last 20 years, and consultations with specialists and people directly involved in education, Chapter 6 presents the institutional and structural reforms EDCOM proposes to ensure that the mission, goals and objectives of education will be attained at the lowest social and economic costs. Proposed reforms Include adjustments in existing educational policies, reorganizing the structure and institutional system for education, decentralizing operations, and strategic planning for education.

The legislative agenda focuses on the enactment of an omnibus resolution to adopt the EDCOM recommendations as the bases of educational reforms and the formulation of bills espousing the specific proposals of EDCOM.

Annexed to the Report are the following: functions and powers of the Department of Education , Culture and Sports; proposal to create a provincial/city Board of Education by Dr Guillermo Carague; Republic Act No. 7160 (Local Government Code); provisions relevant to education; and educational financing indicators. The volume also includes tables, figures and a selected bibliography.

VI

Contents

Preface iii Foreword Contents vii List of Tables and Figures xi Acknowledgments xiii

Chapter 1 THE EDUCATIONAL SYSTEM: A BACKGROUND 1

Pre-School Education 2 Elementary Education 3 Secondary Education 4 Vocational /Technical Education 5 Tertiary Education 8

Chapter 2 MANAGING THE SYSTEM 13

Systems Governance 13 Planning and Policy Formulation 13 Formulating Educational Policies 16 Planning and Budgeting 16

Major Educational Policies 18 Elementary Level 19 Secondary Education 19 Technical and Vocational Education 20 Higher Education 20

Chapter 3 DECS: ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE 21

Program and Project Administration 23 Office of Planning Services 25

Administrative Systems and Operations 26 Programming and Evaluation System 26 Data Generation, Collection, Processing 27

; and Analysis Instructional Supervision System 28

Who supervises instruction? 28

VII


Functions of elementary school principals 28 Functions of secondary school principals 29 Functions of assistant secondary school principals_ 30 Functions of distnct supervisors 31 Functions of general education supervisors 31 Functions of school division supervisors 32 Functions of assistant division school superintendents 34 Functions of superintendents for vocational education 35

Staffing and Human Resource Development 36 Teacher Recruitment and Appointment 37 Staff Development 39

Promotion and Development 40 Evaluation 40 Promotion 42

Operating Systems and Procedures 42 The Schoolbuilding Program 42

Materials and Equipment 44 Supplies, Materials and Equipment 44 Textbook Procurement and Distribution 44

Asset Management 46 .Disbursements

Payroll 48 Types of payroll 49 Responsibilities of PSD 49 Responsibilities of regional offices 51

Chapter 4 INSTITUTIONAL GOVERNANCE 53

Policy and Program Formulation 53 Public Institutions 53 Private Institutions 53

Organizational Systems/Structure 55 Public Institutions 55 Private Institutions 57

Administrative Systems and Operations 58 Public Institutions 58 Private Institutions 59

VIII

Contents

Chapter 5 ISSUES AND PROBLEMS 60

Systems Governance 61 Planning and Policy Formulation 61

Authonty for policy formulation 61 Formulating educational policies 63 Planning and budgeting for education 63 Planning for major educational policies 64

Organizational System for Education 65 DECS: Organizational Structure 65 Program and Project Administration 66

Administrative Systems and Operations 68 Programming and Monitoring 68

Instructional Supervision System 69 For Principals 70 For District Supervisors 71 For Division Superintendents 72 1

Staffing and Human Resource Development 74 Operating Systems and Procedures 75

Textbooks and Materials 75 Payrolls 76 On Disbursements 77

Institutional Governance 78 Boards of Regents 78

Chapter 6 CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS 81

Policies Affecting the Educational System 82 Budgetary Priority 82 Pre-School Education 82 Basic Education 83 TVET 83 Higher Education 84 Special Education

- 87 Organizational Structure and Institutional System 87

Reorganizing DECS 87 New Institutions and Structure 92

For early childhood care and development 92 For higher education 92 For technical educaticn and skills development 95 For non-formal education 97

IX


Administrative Operations 97 Decentralizing DECS (or DBE) Administration 98 Revised Role of Regional Offices 100 School and Supervision of Teaching _ 101

The principal as instructional manager 101 The supervisor's role re-defined 104

The Department of Basic Education 104 Budget Programming 104 School Requirements 104 Textbook Distribution 105 Schoolbuilding Program 106

Educational Operations and Local Autonomy 106 Provincial Educational Administration 107

Planning for Education and the Educational System 108 The National Council for Education and the 109

the National Congress for Education Structure and Operation 110 Proposed Legislative Measures 111

Adopting EDCOM Recommendations 111 Drafting Appropriate Bills 112

Selected Bibliography 117 Tables and Figures 127 Annex 1

Functions and Powers of DECS 161 Annex 2

Proposal: Creating a Provincial /City Board of Education 203 Annex 3

Local Government Code Provisions Pertinent to Education .209 Annex 4

Annex Tables 213 List of Abbreviations and Acronyms 229 Index 231

X

List of Tables and Figures

Table Page

1 Enrolment in government and private schools, 127 1 by region and by levels, SY 1990-91.

2 Number of government and private schools, by 129 region and by levels, SY 1990-91.

3 Survival rates in government schools SY 1979-80 131 to SY 1988-89 (actual) and SY 1982-83 to SY 1991-92 (projected).

4 Completion rates in elementary schools, SY 1987-88 131 to SY 1989-90.

5 Cohort-survival rates in secondary education, 132 SY 1986-87 to 1990-91.

6 Drop-out rates in government and private secondary 134 schools frOm SY 1988-89 to SY 1989-90.

7 Number of public and private tertiary institutions, 135 SY 1985-86 to SY 1989-90.

8 Enrolment in government and private tertiary 135 institutions, SY 1985-86 to SY 1988-89.

9 Planning process for education. 136 10 Inter-action of planning and budgeting cycles. 137

Figure

1 Enrolment in government and private pre-schools, 138 by region, SY 1990-91.

2 Number of government and private pre-schools, 138 by region, SY 1990-91.

3 Number of government and private elementary schools, 138 by region, SY 1990-91.

4 Enrolment in government and priuvate elementary 139 schools, by region, SY 1990-91.

5 Number of government and private secondary schools, 139 by region, SY 1990-91.

6 Enrolment in government and private secondary schools, 139 by region, SY 1990-91.

Xi /


7 Number of schools offenng post-secondary/ technical-vocational education, SY 1990-91.

139

8 Enrolment in post-scondary/technical-vocational schools, SY 1990-91.

140

9 Number of government and private tertiary schools, SY 1990-91.

140

10 Enrolment in government and private tertiary schools, schools, SY 1990-91.

140

11 The Philippines: Policy-making process in education. 141 12 Organizational chart: Department of Education,

Culture and Sports. 142

13 DECS BEE: Oganizational chart. 144 14 DECS - BEE: Functional chart. 145 15 DECS BSE: Organizational chart. 146 16 DECS - BTVE: Organizational chart. 147 17 DECS BFIE: Organizational chart. 148 18 DECS - BNFE: Organizational chart. 149 19 DECS - BPESS: Organizational chart. 150 20. 150 DECS Regional Offices: Orgaruzational chart. 21. EDPITAF Functional chart 151 22 Division Offices: Organizational chart. 152 23 National Center for Technical Education:

Organizational chart. 153 24 Marikina Institute of Science and Technology:

Organizational chart. 154 25 De La Salle University: Central Administration

Organizational Chart. 157 26 Proposed organizational structure and institutional

system for Philippine education. 158

xli

Acknowledgments

The Congressional Commission on Education has a long list of persons and institutions to thank Hund reds of educators, professionals and concerned citizens collaborated, as It were, in the making of this compendium of reports. Without their full cooperation, sustained by ,

their sincere desire to help improve the educational and training system of the country, none of these volumes would have been possible.

Words of thanks and praise, Inadequate as they are in conveying true dimensions of gratitude, go to -

The Eighth Congress of the Philippines, who, recognizing that Phil- ippine education was not beyond redemption, created the Congres- sional Commission on Education, the Honorable Ramon Mitra, Speaker of the House of Representatives; the Honorable Jovito Salonga, President of the Senate, and his successesor, the Honorable Neptali Gonzales, President of the Senate, Her Excellency, the Honorable Corazon C. Aquino, President of the Philippines, Membersof the Cabinet, especia Ily NEDA Director-General Cayetano Paderanga, DBM Secretary Guillermo Carague, DOST Secretary Ceferino Follosco, for quickly responding to our invitation to be our pro-active partners in pursuing our mandate, and for their consist- ent positive support of the whole enterprise; DECS officials and the leaders and members of educational institutions and related organizations, both public and private, whose names appear on appropriate pages of the report, for sharing their experience and insights and lending the services of some of their specialists, professors and senior staff forgu 'dance and expert ad vice; The NEDA regional directors and provincial heads, as well as other members and staffs of each and every Regional Development Coun- cil, for facilitating and providing the vital secretariat work, and attending to all exigencies before, during and after the provincial and regional consultations held over a nine-month period, as well as in advocacy workshops and Information dissemination activities; The teacherswho were always there when needed, quietly performing non-teachingactivities for the good of education and the uplift of their profession; Student leaders and parent representatives, as well as Industry leaders and employers, for providing the viewpoints of the direct beneficianes of education;

XIII


National and provincial pnnt and broadcast media for regularly informing the public about EDCOM activities and concerns; The University of the Philippines, thru the Institute for Science and Mathematics Education (ISMED) and the Regional Center for Educa- tional Innovation and Technology of the Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO-INNOTECH), for hosting the secretariat office during the two-year life of the Congressional Com- mission on Education, and for providing the venue and services for EDCOM official meetings and conferences and other work sessions, respectively

No report of EDCOM would have come out without the magnificent teamwork of an exemplary secretanat, reference to whom here reflects so little of their real contributions:

Members of the three panels of consultants Dr Ed ilberto Dagot, Fr. Bienvenido Nebres, Dr. Demetrio Quin no and Dr. Emmanuel T. Velasco (for education and manpower development programs), Mr. Cedric R. Bagtas, Mr. Napoleon B. Imperial, Mr Jose D. Lacson, and Atty. Cherry Lynn S. Ricafrente (for sectoral targets and functional linkages); Fr. Jose D. Ante, Dr Ad nan Arcelo, Mr Oscar Pascual, Dr Carlito Puno and Dr. Jul ieta M. Savellano (for teachers' welfare and benefits, governance and management, and financing) for their diligence, dedication and thoroughness in poring over pages and pages of data, related studies and consultation reports, and weighing these against accepted educational norms and perceived national needs; The chairpersons of the Panels. (1) Dr Josef ina R. Cortes, for education and manpower development programs, (2) Mr Rony V. Diaz, for sectoral targets and functional linkages; and (3) Dr Manuel S Alba, for teachers' wel fare and benefits, governance, management and financing for bnnging to bear on all deliberations the combined weight of their solid academic credentials, eclectic experience and searching minds, and for providing the sustained leadership that saw their respective panels and technical staff through tight deadlines; The EDCOM technical services staff, led by Fehna Cruz, Chanto lmpenal, Teodoro Gapuz, Hercila Reyes; Luisa Malian, Mary Eileen Rea, Raymond Bala tba t,Michelle Ocampo, Guillerma Flores, Ma near Sugayan,Evelinda Balton; Doris Monsanto, Chona David, Bona Elisa Andrada, Mane Angela Singian, Roberto Ruda - who provided precious support, through timeless hours, to the panels of consultants; EDCOM administrative support staff who unselfishly worked through many nights and weekends and when duty called: Zenaida

xiv

Acknowledgments

Pajann, Eloisa Gonzales, Reylina Tenorio, Arlene Cruz, Ronnie Nilo, Aniceto Boloico, Armelie Barroga, Manuel Casa lan, Celso Villareal, Evelyn Chua, Vicente Faulan, Lourdes Rana, Leo dela Cruz, Leonides Umali, Anna Lissa Gallego; and panel reports editors, Prof. Anunciacion Menez and Dr. Manuel Lacuesta; The Senate Secretariat, for lending full support and cooperation to the EDCOM Secretariat in terms of bill drafting work, stenographic services, and advice and assistance on administrative and financial matters; The readers and editors who, separately, assiduously worked on some or all the phases and stages in the production of these volumes and books: Prof. Anunciacion Menez, Prof Maybelle K. Guzman, Prof. Luis V. Teodoro, and Mrs. Rebecca R. Cajilig; Dr. Mariano J. Guillermo who, as deputy executive director, helped steer and oversee the various secretariat tasks and activities; And, not the least, Dr. Dionisia A. Rola, executive director, who cared enough about education to serve EDCOM's cause selflessly and completely, and whose knowing hand runs through all these reports.

THE CONGRESSIONAL COMMISSION ON EDUCATION December 1992

XV

Book One


Volume 4

GOVERNANCE AND MANAGEMENT ==

A report of the Congressional Commission on Education

1992

1 The Educational System:

A Background

The basic objective of educational governance is to ma- nage the educational system as effectively and efficiently as possible so that the mission, goals, and objectives of

education will be attained at the least social and economic costs. External governance relates to the management of the entire

education system. Internal governance relates to the management of and by each of the system's component institutions, such as the education department and its operating agencies, as well as various educational institutions and other government departments with educational functions.

There are fundamental factors that affect the complexity of educational governance. There is the size of the system, which defines the capacity of the system to serve the population and to meet the investment and financing requirements of education. Governance has become much more complex and difficult because the problems have increased in magnitude

- - in terms of enrolment, institutions, number of teachers, infrastructure and facilities, administrative bureaucracy, and financing.

There is also the external environment and its dynamics as it affects the educational system. Thus, the political, economic, cultural, technological and even physical and natural factors have to be analyzed and understood with respect to their impacts on the governance, contents and methodologies of the educational system.

These environmental factors influence the educational system's own perception of its missions and goals,, the appropriateness of its policies, the feasibility of its strategic alternatives, the viability of its programs and projects and therefore, the efficiency of its operations.

1


The capacity of the administrative machinery to adjust and adapt to a changing external environment depends on the inher- ent strengths and weaknesses of the administrative machinery and its relevant institutions. Managerial competence and effective leadership are thus a crucial factor that needs to be strength- ened.

This report essentially addresses the concerns and problems with respect to the governance and management of the Philip- pine educational system as broadly identified above, and the specifics of administration as they relate both to the external and internal governance of the educational system.

This chapter presents an overview of the current status of various levels of the educational system. It describes, in general terms, the environment within which the system of educational governance and management operates.

Pre-School Education

The Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) reports that in 1988-89, only 2.4 percent (11 million) of the total population of children age zero to six were enrolled in the 3,691 pre-schools in the country. Only 5.65 percent of the 4.85 million children from four to six years of age were in pre-schools in the same period.

This is a very small percentage. Yet it is generally perceived that those who pass through pre-school enjoy better chances of admission into good elementary schools and perform better in the initial years of schooling.

For SY 1990-91, pre-school enrolment totalled 390,611 with the privately-owned pre-schools servicing 57.5 percent of the entire enrolment (Table 1 and Figure-1-).

Pre-school education is concentrated in urban centers, mainly in Metro Manila. Only those who can afford the tuition fees provide their children with it.

Public pre-schools outnumbered private pre-schools in SY

2

The Educational System

1990-91 (2,888 public compared to 1,272 private), but this data may not be entirely correct since a great number of privately-run pre-schools are not registered with DECS. However, as indicated earlier, enrolment is predominantly with the private sector (Fig- ure 2 and Tables 1-2).

Elementary Education

Of the 34,146 elementary schools in the country for SY 1990- 91, 32,472 or 95.1 percent were public schools. The private schools numberered about 1,674 or 4.9 percent of the total number of schools. Public elementary schools accounted for 89.2 percent of all government schools (36,385) and 77.7 percent of the total number of schools nationwide (41,781), as shown in Table 2 and Figure 3.

Government elementary schools are classified into four types: incomplete primary (i.e., not all four grades are offered), complete primary, incomplete elementary (i.e., not all six grades are offered), and complete elementary schools.

Complete primary schools account for 16.2 percent (5,326) of the total number. On the other hand, incomplete primary schools account for 17.3 percent (5,664) while incomplete elementary schools account for 19.7 percent (6,459).

For SY 1990-91, enrolment at the elementary level was 10,377,277, with the public sector accounting for 93.6 percent (9,716,008) of the total. Private schools, on the other hand, accounted for 6.4 percent (661,269) of the total enrolment for the elementary grades (Table 1 and Figure 4).

The national participation rate at the elementary level for school year 1990-1991 was 97.78 percent, or a decease of 1.27 percentage points from the 99.05 percent in SY 1989-90. Regions 2, 6, 7, 8,10 and the National Capital Region (NCR) fell below the national norm of 97.8 percent while two regions (Regions 3 and 12) registered participation rates over 100 percent, indicating a prevalence of over-aged enrolees.

3


In terms of the survival rate, only 65.7 percent of pupils entering Grade I reach Grade VI. The drop-outs mostly come from the rural depressed areas. Their parents have had very little, or no schooling at all (Cortes, 1991). On the other hand, 1987-90 data show that the completion rate in elementary schools for the last four years is 62.8 percent (Tables 3-4).

Secondary Education

The Philippines had 5,375 secondary schools in SY 1985-86, of which 3,357 or 62.5 percent were public high schools and 2,018 or 37.5 percent were private. The number of secondary schools increased to 5,567 in school year 1990-91, of which 3,406 or 61.2 percent were public schools administered by DECS. The re- maining 2,161 or 38.8 percent were private schools. Not included in the said total are high schools attached to state universities and colleges (SUCs) which totalled 148 as of SY 1989-90.

On the whole, there was an increase of 176 secondary schools from SY 1985-86 to 1990-91, 38 or 21.6 percent of which were public schools and 138 or 78.4 percent were private schools (Table 2 and Figure 5).

For SY 1990-91, the total enrolment at the secondary level was 4,033,597, with the public sector accounting for 2,564,045 or 63.6 percent (Table 1 and Figure 6).

The steady improvement in participation rates for the past five years is reflected in a majority of the public secondary schools in the various regions of the country. Notwithstanding this positive trend, a closer look would reveal that, in SY 1989-90, only in three regions were the participation rates above the national norm of 35.0 percent.

In general, from SY 1986-87 to 1989-90, the cohort survival rate in public high schools increased from 68.9 percent to 76.6 percent. This decreased to 75.0 percent in SY 1990-91. This means that out of 100 students who enter the first year, about 75 students, compared to 77 in SY 1989-90, reach the fourth year. In

4


the private high schools, the increase was from 75.8 percent in SY 1986-87 to 83.0 percent (DECS, 1990) (Table 5).

A comparison of the SY 1989-90 and SY 1990-91 figures reveal that the drop-out rate in public secondary schools has decreased from 7.3 percent to 6.9 percent (Table 6).

Given these, however, much improvement is still necessary. For instance, it was noted that private secondary schools in nine regions were below the national norm of 79.0 percent for SY 1989- 90 (Ibid.)

Vocational/Technical Education

As of SY 1989-90 there were 333 public and 937 private secondary vocational/technical institutions (DECS, 1991).

Of the 333 public vocational/technical schools, 129 were trade schools, 18 home industries, 72 fishery schools, 78 agriculture schools and 36 agro-industrial schools. The course offerings of private technical schools included non-credit courses in fashion, business, trade, agriculture, and industrial and teacher education (Nieves, 1991).

As of SY 1990-91, however, there were 336 public and 926 private post-secondary vocational/ technical institutions (Table 2 and Figure 7).

Geographically, 86 percent of all vocational/technical institutions were located in urban areas

Tan (1991) found a disparity in the regional distribution of vocational/technical institutions. Before 1986, many schools of various kinds were established in Regions 1, 2 and 8. Since 1986, however, a few schools in Region 2 have been phased out with the bidget reduced to zero. Region 1, essentially an agricultural region, has one fishery college and five fishery vocational schools. The college enrolment was only 180 while the high schools had 300 or less students each. In Region 6, two agricultural-industrial high schools and six fishery high schools are all located in the neighboring provinces of Leyte and Samar. In

5


contrast, Region 5, a major fishing area, has no college of fishery but only two fishery institutes.

Of the 1990-91 post-secondary enrolment, a total of 361,736 were in technical institutions. About 14 percent were in public institutions and 86 percent were in private institutions. NCR had the most enrolees (153,544) followed by Region 6 with 37,307 and by Region 4 with 23,047 (DECS, 1990) (Table 1 and Figure 8).

In vocational high schools, cohort survival data reveal that there is a low survival rate for students. Out of every 100 students who enter the first year of secondary vocational programs, only 63 reach fourth year, and only 60 eventually complete a program. Attrition of students occurs mostly at the lower levels approxi- mately a third of the beginning first-year enrolment had already dropped out by the time they were ready to enter third year.

It appears that the main reason for low enrolment in vocational high schools is that most of the vocational education clientele are poor and therefore are unable to complete their courses. Based on the survey conducted by the MADECOR Career Systems (1987), many vocational high schools were located in depressed areas where the income level of residents was generally low. Almost three-fourths of the respondents reported that the income of residents was below two thousand pesos a month with 56 percent of them earning less than P1,000 a month. Many students were forced to stop schooling because of the need to work. The Employment Report of 1990 shows that 12.81 percent (2.8 million) of the total number of employed persons (22.2 million) across all occupational groups were high school drop-outs, higher than the number of unemployed college graduates of 11.58 percent or 2.5 million (NSO, 1990).

The performance in the National College Entrance Examina- tion (NCEE) of public and private vocational schools declined from 1986 to 1989. The average mean performance in standard scores of private vocational schools dropped from 538.51 in 1986 to 471.67 in 1989, while that of public vocational schools decreased from 495.50 to 457.27 in the same period (NETRC, 1989).

6


Both public and private vocational schools registered the lowest average mean performance in the NCEE in 1989 (Ibid.). The issue here, however, is not only the poor performance of vocational schools, but the "measure" of student performance as well.

According to Dr. Mona Valisno of the National Educational Testing and Research Center (NETRC), the NCEE is a scholastic aptitude test that measures only the academic learning of students. Since the orientation of vocational students is substantially geared towards work skills formation, they consequently perform poorly in the NCEE. A review of this fact vis-a-vis the aptitude of every student is therefore needed.

Nevertheless, without considering the appropriateness of this important factor in the determination of school performance of students, there is no doubt that there is also a need to improve the quality of the general education of vocational high school students. There are indications that graduates of general high schools have better employment opportunities than graduates of vocational schools (Tan, 1991). Employers find that those with mathematical, scientific and communication abilities are more trainable than those whose learning in these areas is deficient.

The determination of student achievement in the post-secondary level is based on written and practical examinations. The written test is administered yearly by NETRC while the evaluation of performance, or Manual Skills Test, is the responsibility of the Bureau of Technical and Vocational Education (BTVE).

The latest data on the performance of skills tests of National Manpower and Youth Council (NMYC) trainees show that out of a total of 11,946 tested in 1990 only 44.47 percent or 5,314 passed and were certified (NMYC, 1990).

In the regional consultations conducted by the Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM), the representatives from five regional centers and four provinces composed of administra- tors and teachers/ trainors in technical institutions said that technical schools produced low quality graduates.

In addition, BTVE observes that employers complain of the


know-how but in work attitudes and discipline as well. Out of a total of 31,880 graduates of secondary schools offering technical and vocational education, 11.33 percent or 3,612 were err? ployed. This group produces the lowest percentage of employment among those who finish vocational/technical programs.

Employed graduates of post-secondary schools offering one- one- to three-year courses represent 30.52 percent or 5,646 out of a total of 18,499 graduates.

The highest percentage of employment in relation to the number of graduates is that from short-term courses with 54.33 percent or 3,416 employed out of a total of 6,288 graduates.

In 1990, the Placement Assistance Center or PLACER units of NMYC recorded a placement output of only ten percent or 21,235 graduates nationwide out of a total of 211,766 graduates of various training programs.

The rate of absorption of technical graduates by the work- place, as well as the types of skills being absorbed, indicate the degree by which education and training institutions respond to the manpower need of the economy. However, it cannot be argued that the oversupply of manpower in both quantity and types of skills could be wholly attributed to the ineffectiveness of the educational system. A great part of the mismatch problem is a result of the structure of the economy which is supposed to signal to the educational and training institutions how much manpower to produce. Furthermore, the lack of data on the underemployment and self-employment of technical graduates does not alleviate the problem.

Tertiary Education

The major feature of the tertiary education system is its heavy reliance on the private sector. More than 70 percent of all higher education institutions are privately owned (Table 7 and Figure 9).

Having a large private sector in higher education has both

8


advantages and disadvantages. According to the 1988 World Bank Report, a major advantage is that a large portion of college students is serviced at a very low cost to the government. The disadvantages include the following: a) quantity is often offered at t e expense of quality; b) capital-intensive programs are onl minimally provided; and c) low-income students can only at-tend the lowest-cost and usually the lowest-quality schools (World Bank, 1988).

The higher education sector also experienced a proliferation of institutions of higher learning. In a span of 20 years, the total number almost tripled, from 600 in 1970 (FAPE Education Indi- cators, 1991) to about 1,700 by 1990. If branches and campuses were counted as distinct and separate, there were 94 SUC campuses (Ables, et al., 1987). Twenty years ago, there were only 20 SUCs. Today, there are 81, with some of them having as many as five to 10 campuses each.

In terms of regional distribution of schools vis-a-vis college age population for SY 1989-90, the total number of higher education institutions as well as the number of private higher education institutions followed the college-age population pattern across regions. However, the public institutions of higher learning (IHLs) were unevenly distributed. The Task Force to Study State Higher Education (1987) observed that "the creation of SUCs was obviously made without planning for an integrated system of higher education. The SUCs seem to have been established only from local or political interests."

The Philippines has among the highest participation rates of the relevant college-age population in the world. It was 38.9 percent in 1985, the highest in the Association of Southeast Asian Nations (ASEAN) region (World Bank, 1989). The concern with a large college population has much to do with the phenomenon of the "educated unemployed" in the country.

For 1990-91, higher education enrolment totalled 1,347,750. The private higher education institutions consistently accounted for 85 percent of the total enrolment. NCR and Region 4 accounted for the highest higher education enrolment (DECS,

9


1990) (Tables 7 and 8; Figure 10). There has been an over-concentration of enrolment in such

programs as Commerce/Business, Engineering and Teacher Education. Despite the observation that the country has an inordinately large higher education enrolment, the fact remains that enrolment in graduate (master's and doctoral) programs is minimal. Enrolment figures from SY 1977-78 to SY 1985-86 show that the share of graduate education does not go beyond 3.5 percent of the total higher education enrolment for each year (DECS-BHE, 1991).

Results of the board examinations of various professions from 1985 to 1989 reveal that in the business-related field, accountancy had a very low percentage of successful examinees. Among the engineering programs, only the professional electrical engineering examinees and assistant electrical engineering examinees had success rates above 50 percent. In the science-related programs, geology examinees had a much higher percentage of success than the chemistry examinees. Examinations for the occupational therapy and medical professions in the health- related field had the highest percentage of successful examinees while the dietitian program had the lowest (PRC, 1991).

From 1979 to 1987, the results of the bar examinations reveal that the percentage of those who passed continued to decline, from 49.51 percent in 1979 to 17.90 percent in 1987. The number of examinees, however, continued to increase for each year (Balmores, 1991): A cumulative ranking of the top ten colleges and universities according to the results of the 1988-89 examinations in several professional fields (engineering, architecture, medicine, dentistry, pharmacy, accountancy and the legal profession), revealed that nine were private schools (Ibid.)

Moreover, the 1990 results of the Professional Board Exami- natioh for Teachers (PBET) revealed that only 10.6 percent of the examinees passed the exam. Examinees from public schools performed better than those from private schools (CSC, 1990).

Over the years, higher education institutions have produced more graduates than the economy could absorb. As early as

10


1970, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Educa- tion (PCSPE) reported that the aggregate output of graduates was much greater than market demand or market needs, resulting in unemployment and underemployment of educated manpower. On the other hand, there was a shortage of technicians and well- trained professionals. Thus, it predicted that given the strong demand for education, the trend would continue unless some measures were adopted for effecting a better balance between inputs of students into training programs and manpower needs for graduates of such programs.

Today the situation is not much different. The 1990 Employ- ment Report shows that the number of unemployed college graduates is 328,000, or 14.8 percent of the total number of unemployed members of the labor force of 2,032,000 (DOLE, 1990).

Among the various professions, there has been an oversupply of engineering graduates, graduates of agriculture and related sciences and teachers.

The quantitative and qualitative mismatch is not the only problem in the country's labor market. The emigration of highly trained professionals to other countries, especially the developed ones, is another. This is the "brain drain" problem which exists in all developing countries.

Furthermore, the mismatch between manpower supply and the needs of the business/industry sector is not limited to the number of graduates. There is also a mismatch in the quality of graduates produced by the education sector and in the expectations of employers in the business /industry sector. Thus, it has been observed that the education sector has failed to update curricula, teacher training, instructional methods and equipment which are needed to meet the new set of skills required by the dynamic business and industry sector.

In the face of conflicting employment policies of the government, as well as the absence of an employment plan, educational institutions aggravate the mismatch problem_through indis- criminate acceptance of students to college. Over the years, pub-

11


lic higher education institutions have operated with loose admission policies.

The misguided demand and the lack of planning for higher- education have, over the years, led to the proliferation of state universities and colleges, most of which are operating at sub- optimal size and above optimal costs and to which allocation of resources is based on arbitrary criteria rather than on the needs and priorities of the economy.

Unemployment and underemployment are indicators of waste of resources. Poor household decision-making on investment for the children's education as well as unwise state investment in some higher education institutions lead to was- tage of resources.

12

2 Managing the System

There are at least four fundamental factors that determine the complexity of the governance of the educational system. These are:

1. The scale or size of the system as indicated by such measures as enrolment and participation rates.

2. The degree to which the private sector and the state participate in education, as well as the geographic dispersion of the school system.

3. The requirements for quality upgrading as called for by modernization and development.

4. The impact of external development such as the country's economic and political situation, physical factors and the rapid pace of technological innovation in the educational system.

Systems Governance

Planning and Policy Formulation

The process of policy and program formulation for education is guided by the key provisions of the Constitution that require implementing policy guidelines for both executive and legislative considerations. There are many Constitutional provisions that are of policy relevance to education, but the provisions summarized below represent the overriding features for the governance of the educational system:

Section 1 provides for the promotion and protection of the right and access of citizens to quality education.

Section 2 provides for the (a) maintenance of a complete, adequate and integrated system of education; (b) maintenance of

13


free public elementary and secondary education; (c) maintenance of scholarship, loans, grants and subsidies and other in- centives; (d) maintenance of vocational, technical and other types of education; and (e) training for the special learners, for cultural communities and other disadvantaged groups.

Section 4 recognizes the roles of public and private educational institutions in the educational system.

Section 5 assigns the highest budgetary priority to education and assures adequate remuneration for teachers.

However, although the Constitution is the source of the basic overall policy, authority is dispersed with respect to the formulation of policies for education. Under the existing set-up, policy initiation is undertaken by both the legislative and the executive branches of government (Figure 11).

In the executive branch, the function of policy and program formulation for education is carried out by both DECS and the National Economic and Development Authority (NEDA). How- ever, by Constitutional and other legal mandates, including Sec. 54 of the Education Act of 1982 and P.D. 1 or the Reorganization Laws of both the Marcos and Aquino administrations, DECS is the primary entity charged with policy and program formulation for education. The principal adviser of the President and the Cabinet on education, the DECS Secretary is mandated with the following functions:

- Formulation of general education objectives and policies and adoption of long-range educational plans; Planning, development and implementation of programs and projects in education and culture; Promulgation of rules and regulations necessary for the administration, supervision and regulation of the educational system in accordance with declared policy; Setting up general objectives for the school system; Coordinating the activities and functions of the school system and the various cultural agencies under it; Coordinating and working with agencies concerned with the educational and cultural development of the natio-

14

Managing the System

nal communities; Recommending and studying legislation proposed for adoption.

Moreover, Sec. 58 of B.P. 232 tasks the Secretary to make an annual report to the Batasang Pambansa on the implementation of the national basic education plan, the current condition of the education sector, the effectiveness of educational programs, the adequacy or deficiency of the appropriations and status of expenditures, the impact of education on the different regions, the growth of enrolment, and the adequacy of academic facilities, among others. This implies that although DECS is the primary agency responsible for formulating and implementing policies on education, its performance of that function must be in line with broad policies adopted by the legislative body and the Cabinet.

Congress, as was noted by the PCSPE, remains an active source of educational policies. Congressional participation in the formulation of policies for education takes the form of resolu- tions that enunciate policies and objectives, and legislation that prescribes financing priorities, establishes educational institutions as well as curricular requirements (PCSPE Report, Decem- ber 1970).

The 1988 World Bank Education Sector Study noted that the National Economic Development Authority (NEDA), which is tasked with the coordination of plans and programs among the various departments of the government, also formulates educational policies and incorporates the same in the national development plan. Chaired by the President and made up of a sub-set of Cabinet Ministers including the Secretary of Education, NEDA is tasked not really with policy formulation but with coordination and integration of policies.

In addition, various professional and licensing boards exer- cise some authority with respect to curricular development.

15


Formulating Educational Policies

The nature of educational policies varies from broad and general, with systems-wide implications, to narrow and specific, concerned in particular with operational guidelines or budget allocation for education. Consequently, programs and policies have been issued in different forms such as laws, Presidential decrees, executive orders, letters of instruction, and memoranda.

Executive policy formulation stems mainly from DECS and NEDA. DECS decides policies during weekly Committee meetings and during its monthly Regional Office Committee meetings. The former is attended by the Secretary, the Undersecreta- ries and Assistant Secretaries of DECS, while the latter is attended by the foregoing as well as by the Bureau Directors, Regional Directors and Assistant Regional Directors.

NEDA, through its Social Development Committee, ensures the integration of education policies and plans into the national development plan. It usually sets up an inter-agency committee to formulate a medium-term education development plan which is submitted to DECS, the Cabinet, and then for the President's approval before it is presented to Congress.

On the other hand, the legislative branch of the government formulates education policies based on the legislative agenda prepared by the technical staff of the Senate and House Commit- tees on Education.

Decisions on the adoption of educational policies are made in public hearings attended by DECS, NEDA, and other public and private agencies (World Bank, 1988) (Table 9).

Planning and Budgeting

Planning for education, like the process of policy formulation, is accomplished through coordinative efforts of various governmental agencies. Aside from DECS, the Office of the President and NEDA are active participants in educational planning.

16

Managing the System

The planning process begins after the Office of the President directs all government agencies to prepare development plans for the country. NEDA, based on the medium-term plan that it has prepared, issues plan guidelines to DECS, which, in turn, issues guidelines to its regional offices and ultimately to the schools. The plans themselves are submitted by the schools, and verified and consolidated at each level of the administrative structure as they move upward to the DECS Central Office. An overview of the planning process is shown in Table 9.

Closely related to this is the budget process for education which begins with the determination of the annual budget ceilings by the Budget Coordinating Council composed of the heads of the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), NEDA, Department of Finance (DOE) and other agencies.

The DECS Office of Finance and Management Services then circulates the guidelines for budget preparation to the regional offices and then to the divisions, districts and schools. However, the amount for teachers and personnel salaries, which take the bulk of the budget for education, is determined at the Central Office. The division offices prepare their respective budget proposal of expenditures for maintenance and operations of programs and projects, as well as capital outlays.

The combined divisional plans and budgets are then submitted by the Regional Office to the NEDA Regional Office for review, then forwarded to the DECS Central Office and DBM. Afterwards, the DBM Executive Review Board reviews the submitted proposals against certain criteria and submits the re- viewed version to the DBM Secretary. However, the final decision lies with Congress since it is the body which allots budgetary appropriations for the whole country.

The details of the interaction of the planning and budgeting cyclis for education are shown in Table 10.

17


Major Educational Policies A review of education policies for the last two decades

yielded the observation that the primacy of human resource development in national development objectives led to the "legislation of education as a state instrument purposively to attain the development goals it sets for the country" (Valisno, 1991). Consequently, such legislation has allowed for the infusion and integration of various national and regional projects in the curricular agenda, thus establishing the educational system as the core of social, economic, cultural and political development processes.

Toward the attainment of the objectives of education as specified in the Constitution and the Education Act of 1982, specific policies and strategies have been adopted by the government, the major thrusts of which are the following:

1. Improvement of the quality and relevance Of education. The government, in the last nine years, has embarked on reorganizing both the elementary and secondary levels of education through the Program for Decentralized Educational Develop- ment (PRODED) and the Secondary Education Development Program (SEDP).

Implemented sequentially and by year, these programs are designed to improve the internal efficiency of the educational system so that the quality of its products will be enhanced. Toward this end, new curricula for the elementary and high school levels have been introduced in progression since 1982, with emphasis on knowledge, skills and values that are support- ive of the country's developmental thrusts.

2. Equitable access to education. Consonant to the UNESCO Education for All (EFA) thrust the world over, the government has declared 1990-99 as the decade of education for all. Presidential Proclamation No. 480 provided for the creation of a National Committee that would prepare the Na- tional Plan of Action to chart the direction of a national educational program, as well as to formulate relevant policies for

18

Managing the System

EFA implementation. To implement Constitutional provisions for,free and com-

pulsory elementary and free secondary education, the government has given priority to improving equity and access to education. Moreover, expanded scholarships, loans and grants to students and education personnel and alternative education delivery systems, such as the educational service contracting' scheme and distance education, are being implemented on a national scale.

3. Full mobilization of education personnel. Policies geared towards the enhancement of the teaching profession, the improvement of, work conditions and upgrading teacher compensation have been implemented. However, as reflected in the EDCOM report on teacher compensation, benefits and welfare (Book One, Volume 3) the existing compensation pack- age for teachers is not really commensurate to the responsibilities assigned to them.

To date, the major educational policies by level are summarized as follows:

Elementary Level

Reallocation of resources in support of basic education; Free and compulsory elementary education; and Operationalization of the objectives of elementary education in the New Elementary School Curriculum (NESC) in the public school system.

Secondary Education

Reallocation of resources in support of basic education; Free, although not, compulsory, public secondary education; Operationalization of the objectives of secondary education through the SEDP curricular objectives; and Nationalization of public secondary schools.

19


Technical and Vocational Education

Development of a strong and adequately trained middle- level skilled manpower possessing capabilities support- ive of national development; Promotion of entrepreneurial education and training; Increased emphasis on short-term courses and one- to three-year technical non-degree programs to respond directly to the needs of the community, agriculture and industry; Improvement in the quality of technical-vocational education through regular implementation of faculty and staff development programs and the National Techni- cal-Vocational Examination (NTVE) admission scheme; and Continuing support for the development of technical and vocational education through special programs and projects.

Higher Education

Achieving equity, efficiency and high quality in all institutions of higher learning so as to provide a complete set of program offerings that meet both the national and the regional development needs of the country; Improvement of quality by enforcing selective admission procedures and by strengthening the system of vo- luntary accreditation in all universities and colleges; and Maintenance of an integrated system of education by encouraging the private sector to maintain its dominant role of providing higher education at the undergraduate level while state universities and colleges are encou- raged to offer courses that meet the development needs of the country, like science and technology programs.

20

3 DECS: Organizational Structure

Responsible for formulating, implementing and coordinating policies, plans and programs encompassing all levels of formal and non-formal education in the public as well

as private sector, DECS fulfills its mandate through its four major organizational strata: the Department proper, Department Services, the Bureaus, and the regional offices (Figure 12).

The management structure for education from 1901 to 1975 was highly centralized. All major policies and decisions came

i from the Department's Central Office in Manila. However, following the recommendations of the PCSPE to decentralize the Department, regional offices were established in 1975 and the line functions of Bureau Directors transferred to these offices.

Under the existing set-up, the Department proper consists of the Office of the Secretary and five undersecretaries, who are in charge of each of the following functional areas: basic education; non-formal and vocational-technical education; higher education, culture and foreign-assisted projects; administration and management; and legal and legislative affairs.

Administratively attached to the Office of the Secretary are five cultural agencies, namely:

- The National Library; - The National Historical Institute; - The Institute of Philippine Languages; - The National Museum; and - The Records Management and Archives Office.

Tasked with the development and promotion of Philippine culture, these agencies received a 0.46 percent share of the total DECS budget for 1990. In 1991, the share of these agencies was reduced to 0.38 percent.

21


The Department Services includes five offices, each headed by an assistant secretary. These are the following:

The Office of Planning Service for planning, programming and project development; The Office of Financial and Management Service which provides staff advice and assistance on budgetary, financial and management improvement; The Office of Administrative Service to deal with matters pertaining to legal assistance, records, supplies and equipment, disbursement, security and custodial work; The Office of the Human Resources Development Ser- vice for personnel programs administration and staff training; and The Office of Technical Service which provides special technical staff activities as well as information and pub- lication services.

There are six DECS bureaus performing staff functions such as the formulation of guidelines and standard designs for curricula, instructional materials, physical plans and equipment and general management. Each bureau is headed by a director, who is in charge of the following (Figures 13-19):

- Elementary education; - Secondary education; - Technical and vocational education; - Higher education; Non-formal education; and

- Physical education and school sports.

Headed by a director and staffed with about 150 to 180 personnel, the regional offices are tasked with the formulation of regional plan proposals, as well as the regional implementation of DECS' policies, plans and programs. (Figure 20).

Aside from the above offices, department services, bureaus and cultural agencies within DECS, other agencies are attached, namely:

22

DECS: Organizational Structure

Board of Higher Education; Educational Assistance Policy Council; Instructional Materials Council; National Board for Teachers; Boy Scout of the Philippines; Girl Scout of the Philippines; Instructional Materials Corporation; National Social Action Council; National Youth and Sports Development Board; Chartered State Colleges and Universities; and Educational Development Projects Implementing Task For Assistance to Education

These agencies coordinate very closely with DECS and assist it in meeting the educational needs of the country.

The detailed functions and powers of various offices within DECS are found in Annex 1.

Program and Project Administration In accordance with the process of planning and policy formu-

lation for education, educational programs and projects are developed and administered at various levels of the administrative hierarchy.

Within DECS, the Educational Development Projects Imple- menting Task Force (EDPITAF) and the Office of Planning Ser- vice (OPS) under the Office of the Secretary are in charge of program and project administration (Figures 12 and 21).

Created in 1972 by P.D. No. 6-A or the Educational Develop- ment Decree, EDPITAF was originally set up as a ten-year task force. However, it has remained operational and in March 1988, the responsibility for all foreign-assisted projects in education was given to EDPITAF. This was in accordance with the Nov. 4, 1987 Presidential Memorandum which required all departments

23


to establish a central project group to be responsible for project development and implementation. DECS conformed to the said memorandum by appointing said responsibilities to the EDPITAF.

Aside from this, DECS also tasks the Fund for Assistance to Private Education (FAPE) with developing and implementing projects on its behalf. Established in 1968, FAPE earned such a reputation for excellence in handling programs for the private education sector that it was awarded the management of some DECS programs for private schools. These include, among others, the Educational Service Contracting (ESC) scheme, the SEDP, and the Private Education Student Financial Assistance (PESFA) program. However, for the last three years, FAPE's role has been diminished. The FAPE president Dr. Abraham Felipe, in the 1988-89 and 1989-90 FAPE Annual Report writes:

FAPE became the cynosure of public attention. Certain quarters, including members of Congress, claimed that the management fees being charged by FAPE for the prosecution of government projects were exorbitant and thus, served to prejudice the interests of the students who are the supposed ben- eficiaries of these programs.

Dr. Felipe explained that the corporate strategy adopted by FAPE during this period was misunderstood, and that the DECS agreement with FAPE was in accordance with existing government policies on project administration. Moreover, it was shown that FAPE spent less than the government for managing projects so that it generated savings from which grants could be given to private schools.

These notwithstanding, the relationship between DECS and FAPE in the development of private education was unexpectedly altered "in the wake of a successful campaign by FAPE for government to assist private education, which culminated in the passage of R.A. 6728, or An Act Providing Government Assis- tance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE)".

24

DECS. Organizational Structure

Rather than commissioning FAPE to implement GASTPE programs, DECS chose a more active role in the development and administration of programs under GASTPE

Office of Planning Services

As mentioned earlier, the Office of Planning Service under the DECS Office of the Secretary is likewise charged with research, project development and evaluation functions. The OPS, unfortunately, has not been very active in these areas.

Since the Office of Planning Services has not been very active in the areas of research, project development and evaluation, the responsibility of program and project administration for education falls largely on EDPITAF. EDCOM sectoral consultations with said agency and with official development assistance organizations yielded the following observations:

1. EDPITAF has completed several projects in the basic education, post-secondary education and higher education sec- tors. Among these are:

Textbook Project Communication Technology Project Program for Decentralized Educational Development Technical-Vocational Education Project Fishery Training Project Engineering Education Project

2. Moreover, EDPITAF has several ongoing projects, that are either loan-assisted or grant-assisted. These include the following:

Agricultural Technology Education Project (ATEP) `Secondary Education Development Project DECS Expanded Communication System Philippine-Australian Technological and Vocational Education Project (PATVEP) Philippine-Australian Science and Math Education

25


Project (PASMEP) Agricultural Education Development Program Science Teaching Improvement Project Typhoon Resistant School Building Project Secondary Education Equipment Project

Aside from these, there are about 30 projects in the pipeline, suspended because of the eruption of Mt. Pinatubo. These include, among others, the Typhoon-Resistant School Building Project IV, the Secondary Education Equipment Project II, the School Health Equipment Project and the Assistance to the Na- tional Museum.

In the early stage of its existence, EDPITAF was limited to project lending operations and management, and to selected institutions within a given sector. Today, it has developed a vast capability in sectoral management, reflected for instance, in the PRODED Project. Given its current linkages with NEDA and DBM, mechanisms for fast-tracking operations in project planning and evaluation, loan management and finance disbursement have been developed.

Administrative Systems and Operations

Programming and Evaluation System

Budget programming is principally vested in the Financial and Management Service, specifically in the Budget Division. The Division develops and improves budgetary methods, procedures and justifications and provides fund estimates to support DECS' operations, plan and programs. Together with the OPS, it allocates available funds to programs on the basis of approved guidelines and priorities.

Toward this end, the OPS formulates guidelines for the preparation of the Department's budget including those for the detailed allocation of funds, and coordinates with the budget

26


division. As in any other agency, budget programming in DECS

is guided by guidelines provided by the DBM. For the 1992 budget, National Budget Memorandum 56 outlines the fiscal priorities, targets and constraints that govern the preparation of the budget.

One of the guidelines asks agencies to identify their specific goals and strategies and the programs and projects that will achieve these Agencies are also reminded to be guided by government policies relating to efficient and cost-effective operation, scaling down of the bureaucracy and disallowing expan- sion in personnel and organization. A timetable of submissions to DBM and Congress is also provided.

Other factors guiding budget allocations within DECS are the priorities the Department set and the budget ceilings made each year.

School budgets get into the budgeting process through proposals submitted to the regional office. At the regional level, budget hearings are conducted by the Regional Development Council composed of Regional Directors of major government agencies. The Budget Division in the Central Office consolidates the regional budgets into the DECS budget.

Data Generation, Collection, Processing and Analysis

Data gathering, collection and processing within DECS is covered by DECS Order no. 82, s. 1990 which establishes a system of data collection, processing, storage, and retrieval is established.

Under the system, data gathering forms are sent by the OPS to the regional offices before the third Monday of August every year. These forms are then distributed to all schools. Schools must receive the forms by the first Monday of October. Schools at all levels including both public and private schools, as well as chartered and non-chartered SUCs, are expected to make school profiles. Elementary and secondary schools, whether attached

27


to public or private colleges and universities, accomplish indi- vidual school profiles which must be transmitted to district, division and regional offices by December.

At the regional level, the school profiles are electronically processed to produce school district, school division and regional bulletins. These bulletins are the basis for the national pro- file published as the DECS Statistical Bulletin. Thus the figures found in the Statistical Bulletin are considered final.

Instructional Supervision System

Who supervises instruction?

Direct instructional supervision of elementary schools and teachers is from the district supervisor to the teacher. At the school level, supervision is by either the head teacher, the principal or the subject supervisor.

At the secondary level, supervisory functions are carried out either by the principal or the assistant principal in schools with 50 or more teachers, or in schools which have them.

Both levels are supervised by the Regional Office by subject while the division superintendent provides over-all supervision.

Functions of elementary school principals

Principals supervise and direct all school personnel. The position level of principals is determined by the number of teachers they supervise Thus, at the elementary level, a Princi- pal I supervises 11 to 24 teachers, a Principal II, 25 to 49; a Prin- cipal III, 50 or more.

Principals also lead in the development and implementation of all educational programs of the school, promote efficiency of teaching and learning in all classes through in-service training, observations, visits, etc. She/He also leads in the evaluation of achievements towards the growth of the school in relation to the district.

28

DECS. Organizational Structure

In addition to their supervisory functions, elementary school principals also

1. Coordinate all services for the wholesome growth and development of pupils and other personnel in the school.

2. Direct the organization of classes and determine and as- sign the teaching loads of the staff.

3. Cause the proper distribution of instructional and other materials.

4. Provide for the accommodation of pupils including the availability of buildings for classroom and other school needs.

5. Represent the district supervisor in the school. 6. Coordinate and cooperate with the community and other

agencies. 7. Prepare, consolidate and submit all reports of the school

to the district supervisor. 8. Rate the performance of teachers in the school and recom-

mend deserving ones for promotion.

At the secondary level, the position level of principals is likewise determined by the number of teachers under their supervision. Thus, a secondary Principal I supervises 11-24 teachers; a Principal II, 25-99 teachers; a Principal In, 100-174 teachers and a Principal IV, 175 and above.

Functions of the secondary school principals

Under general supervision, the functions of the secondary school principal include:

1. Providing leadership in the formulation and implementa- tiortiof policies, plans, programs and projects to carry out the objectives of education for secondary schools adapted to the needs of the community.

2. Preparing school programs. 3. Preparing school budget proposals and working for addi-

tional financing of the school.

29


4. Preparing the program of expenditures based on the approved budget.

5. Leading in curriculum construction, and determining what electives and vocational courses the school will offer its students.

6. Planning and organizing the co-curricular activities of teachers and students.

7. Supervising the maintenance and upkeep of the school physical plant and facilities.

8. Making available to teachers, students and other school employees needed instructional materials.

9. Evaluating and rating staff performance and recommending promotions for the deserving.

10. Preparing the program of testing. 11. Organizing a guidance program appropriate for the

school. 12. Seeing to it that the school is provided with proper health

and medical facilities. 13. Maintaining a good public relations program. 14. Conducting in-service education programs for teachers

and other employees.

Functions of assistant secondary school principals

Secondary principals are aided by assistant principals in giving direction to and in the supervision of secondary schools offering academic and vocational courses. The duties and responsibilities of assistant principals include:

1. Performing the duties and assuming the responsibilities of the principal in his absence.

2. Preparing and administering the testing program of the school.

3. Coordinating the guidance and counseling activities, co- curricular activities and the academic program of the school.

4. Maintaining discipline of the students. 5. Participating in the preparation of the secondary program

30


adopted to the needs of the community.

Functions of district supervisors

The School District Supervisor's area covers all school personnel within the district. She/He supervises pre-elementary and elementary classes in private schools with prior authority from the division/city schools superintendent. She/He also evaluates educational achievements in the district. The district supervisor has duties similar to that of the principal, except that thesd cover a wider area. Among his other more distinctive functions are:

1. Acting as chairman of the School Board of the municipa- lity or municipalities in the district.

2. Preparing requisitions and ensuring the proper distribution of instructional materials, equipment and supplies for the district.

Functions of General Education Supervisors

Other than the School District Supervisor, there are several other types of supervisors. The General Education Supervisor I supervises the Subject Instruction Program of the division. For example, the General Education Supervisor for English is directly responsible for instructional supervision relating to English instruction and advises the superintendent on matters affecting the English program.

Aside from this, she/he also 1. Formulates policies, plans and programs for the improve-

ment of teaching and learning English geared towards national development goals.

2. Visits schools and advises teachers, principals, and district supervisors on the improvement of English instruction.

3. Initiates action research designed to improve the teaching of English.

4. Acts as consultant for all publications in English in the

31


Division. 5. Coordinates with all subject supervisors and district su-

pervisors in the formulation of policies. 6. Prepares bulletins, memoranda and other communica-

dons related to English instruction. 7. Evaluates the English instruction program and the activi-

ties in the various schools in the division. 8. Organizes and conducts English seminars, workshops,

and other in-service training programs.

Slightly higher is the General Education Supervisor II Whose duties and responsibilities are similar to those of the General Education Supervisor except that they cover a larger area: the region.

Functions of the School Division Superintendents

At the top of the administrative supervision ladder is the School Division Superintendent. He/She is responsible for a school division which consists of all the schools in a province and/or city under a regional office. The functions of the School Division Superintendent are the following:

1. Organizes, develops, directs and administers first and second level education programs in the provincial or city division.

2. Recommends approval of budgets of provincial or city schools in his division to the provincial or city board, and confers with them on matters affecting school appropriations and disbursements.

3. Transmits and recommends approval of principal budgets and special/supplemental budgets of national schools in his division, if any, through the regional office of DECS.

4. Exercises general administration and supervision of school property, both fixed and movable, within his jurisdiction and approves the use of the same for non-instructional purposes.

5. Approves, by authority of the Secretary, classroom teach-

32


ers' appointments, transfers, reinstatements and details for not more than 30 days; and field janitors' appointments, transfers, reinstatements and details for not more than 30 days, by authority of the regional director.

a. Approves, by authority of the regiondl director, leaves not exceeding 30 days with or without pay, and 60 days maternity leave of school and division personnel.

b. Approves, by authority of the regional director, requests of classroom teachers to teach, resign, engage in business and publish articles; and by authority of the Secretary, to go on study leave without pay for a period not exceeding one year.

6. Recommends head teachers, principals and supervisors for appointments, promotions and/or transfers.

7. Prepares and submits annual reports on the conditions and activities of schools in his division.

8. Prepares and submits required reports on needed equipment, supplies and textbooks and other reports that may be required by higher authorities.

9. Prepares and submits required reports and other statistical data.

10. Makes periodic visits to schools to check compliance and implementation of curricular requirements.

11. Conducts in-service training of staff and field supervisors as well as teachers and other non-teaching personnel, to keep them posted of new trends for advancement and improvement of instruction, administration and supervision and personnel management.

12. Holds conferences with staff and field personnel to assist them in solving instructional and administrative problems.

13. Approves vouchers, payrolls and requisitions. 14. Plans, programs, and directs the distribution of.national

fund allotments. 15. Confers, coordinates and cooperates with provincial offi-

cials and other government agencies on matters affecting school

33


and other community development projects. 16. Coordinates, directs and assists in special fund cam-

paigns in the schools. 17. Coordinates, directs and initiates the development of

local curriculum materials and programs. 18. By authority of the regional director, investigates cases/

complaints involving personnel in the division. 19. Assists, initiates and conducts educational researches and

survey and other matters of local and national interest. 20 Assists and cooperates in the physical fitness and sports

development program of the administration.

Functions of the assistant division schools superintendents

The Division Schools Superintendent is assisted by an Assis- tant Schools Division Superintendent whose duties and responsibilities, under general supervision, include:

1. Assisting in the administration and supervision of activities in the division by initiating plans, programs suited to the needs of the division.

2. Assisting in the selection of teachers and other employees by interviewing, evaluating personal records and checking for moral and physical fitness.

3. Checking records of pupils' funds, tuition and matricula- tion fees and provincial allotments.

4. Conducting preliminary inquiries and preparing reports on cases/complaints involving school personnel for investiga- tion.

5. Attending meetings of the provincial board when matters regarding high schools are discussed.

6. Conducting and assisting in-service training courses for teachers, seminars, workshops and demonstration classes.

7. Evaluating instructional activities, reports and other curriculum materials and making appropriate recommendations.

8. Reviewing teachers' requests for study and permission to

34

DECS. Organisational Structure

teach, seek transfers, engage in business and publish articles and recommending appropriate action.

9. Observing conditions in schools and the community; developing suitable educational programs for the division.

10. Coordinating the work of the different division supervisors.

11. Taking leadership in the development of curriculum materials.

12. Visiting teachers, principals and other school personnel and seeing to it that the curriculum requirements and education programs of the division are properly implemented.

13. Taking active part in implementing the co-curricular activities of the division, particularly in athletics and cultural programs.

14. Serving as liaison officer of the Office of the Division Superintendent and the Provincial Board, as well as other government agencies in the province/division.

15. Summarizing and collating division annual reports and other reports that may be required.

16. Representing the Division Superintendent in committee meetings and other conferences when so assigned.

17. Preparing correspondence and other reports that the superintendent may re

making education work.. reference book.pdf

Documents

education system

philippine education

making education work

free secondary education

congressional commission

areas of concern

substantive work

senators ernesto