K-12: Sustaining Education Under the Duterte Presidency

WORKING PAPER K-12 Program: Sustaining Education under the Duterte Presidency Edilberto de Jesus Asian Institute of Management Anne Lan K. Candelaria Ateneo de Manila University – Political Science Department Ronald U. Mendoza Ateneo School of Government Mary Jean A. Caleda Ateneo School of Government with Jeanelia Anne Yap Lorenzo Abaquin Ateneo School of Government ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Ateneo School of Government Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2893420 ATENEO SCHOOL OF GOVERNMENT WORKING PAPER SERIES K-12 Program: Sustaining Education under the Duterte Presidency Edilberto de Jesus Asian Institute of Management Anne Lan K. Candelaria Ateneo de Manila University – Political Science Department Ronald U. Mendoza Ateneo School of Government Mary Jean A. Caleda Ateneo School of Government with Jeanelia Anne Yap Lorenzo Abaquin Ateneo School of Government January 2017 This project was implemented under a grant from the Coalitions for Change (CfC) supported through the Australian Embassy- The Asia Foundation (TAF) Partnership in the Philippines. This working paper is a draft in progress that is posted online to stimulate discussion and critical comment. The purpose is to mine reader’s additional ideas and contributions for completion of a final document. The views expressed herein are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the views of Ateneo de Manila University and The Asia Foundation. Corresponding authors: Edilberto de Jesus, Asian Institute of Management E-mail: [email protected] Anne Lan K. Candelaria, Ateneo de Manila University – Political Science Department E-mail: [email protected] Electronic copy available at: https://ssrn.com/abstract=2893420 1. Introduction A. Background and Rationale The attainment of quality education is essential not only for the individuals of the society but also for the development and economic growth of the country (Hanushek and Woessmann, 2010). The passage of Republic Act 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act signed by President Benigno Aquino III in 2013, provided for a basic education system consisting of at least one year of pre-school education or kindergarten, six years of elementary school, and six years of secondary school. The Department of Education (DepEd), during the Gloria Arroyo Administration had already opened K (kindergarten or pre-school) classes, but the Aquino Administration wanted it universally accessible to all five-year-old children as the first step in the primary education cycle. The new initiative was the requirement for students in the secondary education stream to complete two additional years of Senior High School (Grades 11 and 12) before they could proceed to tertiary education. DepEd saw the transition from 10-year (K10) to a 12-year basic education cycle (K-12) as necessary to raise the quality of basic education to international standards and to strengthen the country’s higher education system. Although the K-12 Program had been on the reform agenda for decades, it did not enjoy universal support. Some politicians and stakeholders were wary of the increased costs to both academic institutions and families of school-going children that this reform would imply. However, The League of Cities of the Philippines and the business groups, among them, the Makati Business Club, Philippine Business for Education (PBEd), Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, Management Association of the Philippines, the Information Technology and Business Process Association of the Philippines, Employers Confederation of the Philippines generally welcomed its implementation. Higher education institutions (HEI) appreciated the logic of the move to K-12, which had become the global norm. The Philippines remained among a handful of countries permitting students to proceed from K10 to the tertiary level. HEI leaders had been among the most vocal in the complaint that the students enrolling in their schools after K10 were not really prepared for tertiary-level courses. But even they, along with other education stakeholders, looked at the K-12 implementation with apprehension. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 1 With barely weeks to go before its scheduled start in June for the AY (Academic Year) 2016-2017, a loose coalition of anti-K-12 advocates continued to lobby politicians in the House of Representatives and the Senate to abort or delay its implementation. The results of the 2016 elections gave these groups some hope. Although planning for K-12 had started in 2010, with the advent of the Benigno Aguino III, implementation was programmed to start only in 2016, when Aquino and the DepEd Secretary, along with the rest of the Cabinet, would no longer be in power. The newly-installed president, Mr. Rodrigo Roa Duterte, had shown no enthusiasm for the Program during his campaign. At least initially, neither did Dr. Leonor Briones, his choice as DepEd Secretary. Yet, for comprehensive reform initiatives, the support of the Executive Branch was indispensable. In 2004, President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo effectively stopped the implementation of a Bridge Program between Grade 6 and the first year of the four-year cycle of secondary education (Grade 7 to Grade 10). She herself had approved the plan in 2002 the plan to make Grade 7 mandatory for those pupils who failed to meet the qualifying standards set by DepEd for transition to first year high school. But she later decided, while the enrollment for the Bridge year was already in progress, to make it optional. After reviewing the issue, Sec. Briones decided to support the implementation of K-12. The policy decision ensured that Grade 11, at least, would be offered in AY 2016-17. Those who supported the program, while relieved at the policy decision, recognized that its success was by no means assured; the decision could still be reversed within the six-year term of the Duterte Administration. Much would depend on how successfully it weathered the transition problems that were inevitable in such a massive, system-wide reform initiative. It was essential, therefore, to put in place as quickly as possible, a monitoring and evaluation system that would track the transition issues that surfaced and quickly recommend remedial measures. During the critical, five-year transition period and, particularly in the first two years (2016-2018), the focus would likely center on the issue of managing the smooth flow of pupils from Grade 10 graduates of the traditional High School, now labelled Junior High School (JHS) to Grades 11 and 12 of the Senior High School (SHS). At a minimum, this would mean ensuring for all Grade 10 graduates a place in a functioning SHS classroom and a Grade 12 seat in AY 2017-2018 for those who finished Grade 11. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 2 At this point, about six months into the academic year, neither the DepEd nor the academic institutions delivering the SHS program have completely gathered and organized the information on their respective operations. But we have indicative data to identify areas for continued attention for policymakers and education stakeholders. Beyond the level of basic logistics in providing the physical facilities and the teaching staff, there is a need for a monitoring system to focus on whether K-12 is achieving the academic, learning objectives for which it was established. Will the K-12 graduates prove themselves better prepared for their entry into college-level courses? Will those who opt to forego college education to compete in the job market obtain gainful, sustainable employment? The first batch of SHS graduates will come after AY 2017-18. Only then can we give a measurable, credible assessment of the K-12 reform. But the monitoring system should already begin identifying in the early process of Grades 11 and 12 the potential problems that may impair the success of K-12 and suggest actions that the SHS leaders may take. The principal challenge flagged by this paper is to distinguish issues and challenges in program and policy roll-out, from more strategic issues that K-12 will surely help to uncover. Because K-12 requires collective action across many agencies and entities, both public and private, as well as national and local, accurately diagnosing when and where bottlenecks in implementation take place will be critical in continuing to build on this reform. As a contribution to the reform effort, this paper discusses the history of the K-12 rollout, the emerging challenges in K-12 implementation. It also outlines steps for the consideration of policy makers in moving K-12 forward more effectively. Research for this paper was supported by the Coalitions for Change (CfC) program in Basic Education, an initiative of the Australian Embassy-The Asia Foundation (TAF) Partnership in the Philippines. B. Methodology This paper drew from both written and oral sources of information. Data were gathered through archival research, desktop reviews, field visits to government offices and member- universities of the University Belt Consortium (UBC), Key Informant Interviews (KII) (see Annex 1 for List of Key Informants), a Focus Group Discussion (see Annex 2 for List of Participants), and a Round Table Discussion (see Annex 3 for List of Participants). ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 3 The paper reconstructed the events that led to the K-12 reform by conducting process tracing, elite interviews, and documentary analysis. Former and current DepEd officials and private sector officials were interviewed. Various online and written records of the DepEd, Southeast Asian Ministers of Education Organization (SEAMEO) - Regional Center for Educational Innovation and Technology (INNOTECH), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), proceedings of the Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture conducted in 2012, and data from member-universities of the UBC were also analyzed. 2. The Quest for Improving Education: Historical Sketch of the K-TO-12 Program Education reform is a long, drawn-out project that spans political administrations. It is a long and tedious process, influenced by a complex set of factors. It has also been complicated by the financial and organizational challenges coming from the expansion of the education sector. The education landscape in the Philippines has evolved from a community-based apprentice-type of learning during the colonial period to a more centrally managed public educational system today. But the problems that surfaced in the earlier period persisted to modern times. The Monroe Survey, commissioned by the United States in 1925, pointed to the problems of low pupil performance, poor teacher quality, irrelevant learning materials, excessive centralization and lack of financial resources Despite numerous attempts by the colonial government and the independent republic to reform the Philippine educational system, subsequent studies on the state of education in the country showed little improvement. Some issues, such as the use of English as the medium of instruction in the schools, which the Monroe Survey had flagged as a concern, became progressively more problematic, with fewer, native speakers of English available to teach in Philippine schools after independence. This was also the case, underlined by the Prosser Study of 1930, which called for the strengthening of vocational and technical skills training in the schools to develop a cadre of citizens to fill the manpower needs of local industries and agriculture. But the issues that occupied education experts throughout the 20th century remained resistant to reform. The same concerns continued to appear in the 2009 assessment of the state of Philippine education done by Bautista, Bernardo and Ocampo. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 4 Figure 2.1 shows the summary timeline of key reforms and programs in the education sector. A. Early Reforms The 1949 United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) Survey and the 1960 Swanson Survey: underlined problems in the use of English as the language of instruction in the classrooms, the lack of educational facilities and the quality of teachers among others. The UNESCO Survey also stressed the importance of adopting a curriculum that would be able to produce students with nationalist traditions and ideals, and with the attitude for social development and participation. Both surveys recommended the lengthening of the years of basic education. It must be noted that since the establishment of public education by the Americans in the Philippines in 1901, primary education required at least 7 years to complete. However, through the Education Act of 1940, Grade 7 was removed because of the rising number of enrollments. But the education experts then assumed that secondary education would be extended from four to six years, giving the Philippines the same kind of system obtaining in the United States. In 1970, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education expressed the need for a Philippine education geared towards productive citizenship and national development. This was aligned with UNESCO’s earlier recommendation stressing the importance of a curriculum that would be able to produce students with nationalist traditions and ideals, and with the attitude for social development and participation. During Martial Law, a secondary education program called “Cooperative Work Curriculum” was introduced through Department Order No. 6 series of 1973. This program saw the need for a work-oriented curriculum with the aim of equipping secondary school students with skills needed in employment after graduation. It intended to strengthen nation building by producing graduates who have the skills needed in local industries or agriculture. Curricular offerings therefore were chosen for their relevance to local development needs. Recommendations to restore Grade 7 in the primary level and make secondary school 5 years (or a total of 11 years of basic education) were proposed also during this time. However, Congress at that time passed Republic Act 579 which stipulated that government will only implement additional years of schooling if resources were available. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 5 Figure 2.1 Summary timeline of key reforms and programs in the education sector. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 0 ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 0 The recommendations of the surveys during the early period of formal Philippine Education, illustrated a reform process that focused on broadening access to education and improving its quality was driven by education-related goals, particularly access and improvement of quality. As the country progressed as an independent nation, the narrative of reform expanded to include the formation of a cadre of citizens to support the pursuit of nationalist goals. i. Post-EDSA Reforms The right to education was not embodied in the 1935 Constitution. The 1973 Constitution merely placed education as a social service that the State was supposed to provide. The Martial Law regime of Ferdinand Marcos did not place a high priority in education. This period saw a decline in the government’s education budget, when the Executive had virtually complete discretion on the allocation of government funds (de Jesus, 2016). The 1987 People Power revolution produced the Freedom Constitution, which stressed the provision of education as the primary responsibility of the State. In Section I of Article XIV, the Constitution declared that: “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” This made access to quality education the centerpiece of education policy which extended the guarantee of free public basic education beyond the elementary grades to high school. The involvement of the Philippines in several international education movements also marked this period of education reform. In 1990, the Philippines committed itself to the Education for All (EFA) movement. This movement was initiated in 1990 at the World Conference on Education for All convened by highly influential development organizations UNESCO, United Nations Development Program (UNDP), United Nations Children's Fund (UNICEF) and the World Bank. EFA sought the commitment of nation states to achieve the following objectives by the year 2000: (1) expansion of early childhood care and developmental activities; (2) universal access to and completion of basic education; (3) reduction of the adult illiteracy rate; (4) improvement of learning achievement; (5) expansion of provision of basic education and training in other essential skills required by youth and adults; and (6) knowledge, skills, and values ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 8 required for better living and sound and sustainable development. Using EFA as a guide for educational reforms and development, the Philippines identified and committed to the achievement of four specific goals and areas for improvement: (1) Early Childhood Care and Development; (2) Universal Primary Education; (3) Alternative Learning Systems; and 4) Community Commitment. In 1991, the start of the EFA decade, the Congressional Committee on Education (EDCOM) was organized under the administration of former President Corazon Aquino to review and assess the state of Philippine education through a consultative process. The EDCOM Report found that the Philippine government was not spending enough for education in comparison to the countries in the ASEAN, thus depriving depressed regions of access to formal and non-formal education. The EDCOM also reported that achievement levels were low and mismatches occurred between the supply and demand for educated and trained manpower. In 2001, the country’s educational system was re-organized into a tri-focalized. RA 7722 created the CHED to lead and manage higher education of the country. RA 7796, established the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) to deal with postsecondary vocational and technical skills training. A slimmed-down Department of Education (DepEd) replaced the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) to manage the country’s 10year basic education system. The efforts undertaken during the EDCOM hoped to respond to the EFA goals. Subsequent laws sought to improve the quality of Philippine teachers, mandating increases in teachers’ salaries and organizing more elementary and high schools, especially in towns not served by the private education sector. In the same decade, two more studies were undertaken to review the state of Philippine education – the Philippines Education Sector Study (PESS) of 1998 and the Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER). The PESS was a study by the Philippine government with the Asian Developmfent Bank and the World Bank, while the PCER was organized through Executive Order (EO) No. 46. Both studies confirmed what had been reported by EDCOM. Issues such as the shortage of schools and educational facilities, leading to poor households and communities unable to gain access to education by, ineffective teachers, and the short 10-year basic education cycle. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 9 In the effort to address these problems. The government sought international assistance. The decade saw the implementation of projects such as the TEEP (The Third Elementary Education Project), SEDIP (Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project), and SEMP (Social Expenditure Management Projects), financed by organizations such as the World Bank, GOP, JBIC, and ADB, to provide poor communities with facilities and textbooks. PESS and PCER also emphasized the need for greater private sector involvement in improving the quality of education Initiatives undertaken during the term of DepEd Sec. Edilberto de Jesus (2002-04), promoted the participation of communities and private enterprises in the reform process. The Brigada Eskwela, welcomed their contribution of time, labor and resources to prepare the classrooms for the opening of classes. Securing from the Bureau of Internal Revenue tax benefits for donors helped to strengthen the Adopt-a-School-Program. An explicit effort to encourage corporations to support the Program by contributing, not just money, but their corporate expertise, such as in projects to provide potable water to schools or upgrade their electrical systems, expanded the scope of the program. Though education reforms early in the decade attempted to work within the framework of nation-building and social development, the reform narratives later on became more about external efficiency concerns (i.e., graduates being unable to meet labor market’s expectations) as the country found itself committed to various international accords. Some groups resisted these accords, fearing the country’s closer integration with the global community and greater vulnerability to global market pressures. With the growing importance of global collaboration in economic and development efforts, however, the country committed itself to various international accords. HEI, in addition to preparing students for nation-building and social development, now also had to focus explicitly on the ability of their graduates to meet the expectation of the national and international markets. In 2001, Education Secretary Raul Roco, pushed for changes in the contents and structure of the curriculum. The Revised Basic Education Curriculum (RBEC) sought to address the lack of relevance of education and the underperformance of students in early grade levels – issues that were expressed in the EDCOM, PESS and PCER. With the RBEC in place, the number of subject were cut down into fewer learning areas, namely Filipino, English, Science, Mathematics, and Makabayan. The reduction in the number of courses allowed schools to allot more hours in the teaching of each subject. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 10 The Philippine government continued its commitments to the EFA movement through the decade following the EFA 2000. In 2006, four universal goals and objectives to be met by the year 2015 were identified: (1) Universal Coverage of Out-of-School-Youths and Adults; (2) Universal School Participation and Elimination of Dropouts and Repeaters in Grades 1-3; (3) Universal Completion of the full basic education cycle with satisfactory annual achievement levels; and (4) Total Community Commitment to attainment of basic education competencies for all. Internal efficiency, however, remained a nagging concern, driven by the lack of significant improvement in student performance indicators, despite the implementation of several reform policies. This resulted in the decentralization of school improvement responsibilities to the community, thereby redistributing some of the (state) power from the center to the periphery. But the advocacy for extending the basic education cycle to give Filipino students the same amount of learning time that the youth in most countries enjoyed continued, as a way to improve their academic performance. The Bridge Program, approved by the board of the National Economic Development Authority, chaired by the President, in 2003 was a concrete plan to improve the readiness of graduating elementary school pupils for the subjects they would take in high school. DepEd conducted a national High School Readiness Test (HSRT) to evaluate the competencies of Grade 6 pupils in English, Science and Mathematics. The results showed that less than 2% of the pupils had achieved the expected learning competencies they needed to bring to high school. NEDA and the President approved the Bridge Program as a requirement for students who did not meet the cut-off score for automatic enrollment in first year high school. In effect, the Bridge Program would become the first year of new five-year high school. DepEd commissioned Social Weather Station to conduct a market survey on the Bridge Program. Seventy per cent of the respondents agreed that children not prepared for high school, as determined by an examination, should take the bridge year. Twenty per cent were unsure and ten per cent were opposed to the idea. Unfortunately, the Bridge Program launch happened to fall on the year of presidential elections. Lest the Bridge Program become a negative factor among voters, President Arroyo decided effectively to abort the Bridge Program by making ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 11 giving entering high school students a choice of taking secondary education in four or in five years. In 2004, then Secretary Florencio Abad launched the Schools First Initiative (SFI) which encouraged the improvement of basic education outcomes through a more participatory approach. In principle, SFI shifted the reform strategy from department-led (top-down) to school-led (bottom-up). The SFI became the impetus of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), a set of reform frameworks that intended to address issues in education through a long-term ‘systems’ approach rather than piecemeal programs. This agenda came with five Key Reform Thrusts (KRTs): (1) School-Based Management, (2) Teacher Education Development, (3) National Learning Strategies, (4) Quality Assurance and Accountability and Monitoring Evaluation and (5) Organizational Development with Resource Mobilization and Management and Information Communication Technology. BESRA became the Philippines’ strategy to achieve the EFA goals by 2015. The Presidential Task Force on Education (PTFE) was organized by former President Arroyo in 2007 through EO 652. Through the PTFE, the Philippine Main Education Highway, working under the framework of a “Knowledge-Based Economy” was introduced. The Philippine Main Education Highway placed emphasis on producing competent citizens equipped with skills for industries within and outside the country. Under the harmonized, “trifocalized” Philippine education system, the strengthening of technical and vocational education was intended to promote linkages between tertiary education institutions and industries. The emergence of the PTFE and its plans for Philippine education coincided with the Philippine commitment at the ASEAN Summit in 2007 to the goals of ASEAN 2015 for a more economic and socio-culturally integrated ASEAN region. With education reforms being steered towards the goal of producing competent citizens in both domestic and international industries, the Philippines aimed to fulfill its role as a member of the greater ASEAN community. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 12 3. Emerging Challenges to K-12 A. The K-12 The Liberal’s Party’s 2010 Presidential candidate, Simeon Benigni Aquino III, supported by NGOs uniting as Education Nation, campaigned to serve as an Education President, Aquino’s 10-Point Education Agenda consisted of ten elements: • 12-year basic education cycle • Universal pre-schooling for all • Madaris education as a sub-system within the education system • Technical-vocational education as an alternative stream in Senior High School • Every child a reader by Grade 1 • Science and math proficiency • Assistance to private schools as essential partners in basic education • Medium of instruction rationalized • Quality textbooks • Covenant with local governments to build more schools Some items in the agenda-- madaris education, medium of instruction and textbook quality—were not new issues for DepEd. Most of the other items related to the K-12 program as components, means or expected results. K (kindergarten) or pre-school had already been introduced as part of the DepEd program. Technical-Vocational Education (TechVoch) would be an optional SHS track. Collaboration with local governments in the construction of more schools and the enlistment of the private sector as DepEd partners were necessary for the successful launch of K-12. Promoting greater proficiency in science and math among DepEd pupils and developing early reading skills were arguably dependent on extending its education cycle. JICA (Japan International Cooperation Agency) consultants noted that Filipino pupils covered more advanced math and science subjects than their comparable Japanese age cohorts; teachers in the Philippines had to cover in ten years the materials that those in Japan studied for twelve. Where concepts had to be learned sequentially from simple to more complex, a forced-march approach to the required curriculum left many Filipino pupils struggling to keep pace. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 13 The addition of two years to the basic education cycle as a pre-requisite for enrollment into a higher education degree program was thus the key initiative of the Aquino Administration and properly headed the list of objectives. It was the biggest ticket item in the agenda and Filipinos correctly recognized it as the most radical restructuring of the country’s education system since the introduction of the colonial public-school system by the United States at the turn of the 20th century. That K-12 should merit this distinction is richly ironic from several perspectives. Other countries occupying lower rungs in international ranking systems of economic development had already made the shift to K-12 decades ahead of the Philippines. Indeed, the Philippines was one of a handful of countries that had not yet adopted what had become the global standard for preuniversity education. From a historical perspective, the Philippines bears the unfortunate record of country whose basic education system as an independent republic was inferior to that it had when it was a colonial dependency. As an American colony, the Philippines already had a pre-university program of 11 years, consisting of 7 years of primary and four years of secondary education. In preparation for independence, a transitional Commonwealth government established in 1935, planned for a 12-year pre-university cycle consisting of six years of elementary and six years of secondary education, the current global norm. Accordingly, it dropped one year from the existing seven-year elementary cycle, with the intention of adding two years to the secondary cycle. The independent Philippine Republic, inaugurated in 1946, did not implement the second part of the Commonwealth education program. The Commonwealth plan to provide the youth an additional year to prepare them for their professional education left them instead with one year less than the 11 years they already had under the colonial system. In fairness, the Philippines attained independence in the aftermath of the Second World War, which had inflicted severe losses in lives and in the devastation of its infrastructure and industries. It also had to cope with a serious communist insurgency. The government could hardly consider as a priority adding two more years to the public basic education system, when reconstructing the education system from the ruins was the urgent task that demanded immediate attention. That said, rehabilitation assistance from the United States and reparations payments from Japan enabled the country to rebuild and to recover. Like other developing, former colonies, it ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 14 faced recurring economic and political problems. But as the historical overview amply documents, redeeming the promise of strengthening the basic education system by moving from K11 to K-12 first made in the 1930s remained an advocacy in the education sector in the postindependence period. In the 1990s, that movement began to gain strength. By this time, the project had become a bigger task because the public education system had to transition from K10 to K-12. Even in the private sector only a handful of institutions maintained the 7-year elementary education cycle of the colonial period. In another piece of irony, the K-12 advocacy, as it gathered momentum at the turn of the st 21 century and as it appeared a necessary step to prepare the country for the global economy and knowledge society, also began to generate resistance even from within the education sector. The resistance persisted even after K-12 had been adopted as policy by the Aquino Administration, which had received a resounding electoral mandate that should have given reason to assume support for the education policy in its campaign platform. B. The Pros and Cons of K-12 The opposition to K-12 tapped into several, diverse sources of concerns. Affordability was a persisting issue. With the regularity of seasonal change, complaints about the chronic government underfunding of basic education and the consequent lack of classrooms, teachers and textbooks for the pupils marked the opening of the school year each June. If the government could not adequately support the existing 10 years of basic education with the required staff and facilities, it seemed illogical and irresponsible to make a commitment to support 12 years. To get any traction on the 10-point education agenda, the Aquino Administration realized that it had to increase the education budget, and it put money behind the plan. DepEd had a budget of PHP161.4 in 2010. In its first full year in office, the Administration raised the budget by 19%. By 2016, DepEd had a budget of nearly PHP412billion, about 2.5 times the 2010 level (Table 1). The budgetary increases anticipated the resource requirements for the K-12 launch. The Administration also pushed the Tertiary Education Transition Fund Bill, which allocated a total amount of PHP 29 billion to support the K-12 implementation. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 15 Figure3.1. DepEd Allocation as a Percent of Total Government Budget (FY 2000-2016). Sources: Department of Budget and Management (www.dbm.gov.ph) www.philrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Still-a-non-priority.pdf (for FY 2004) www.philrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Stating-the-Obvious.pdf (for FY 2006) ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 16 The concern over affordability had focused on the bare, minimum requirements to keep classes functioning, a task that DepEd historically had not seemed able to manage. Would schoolchildren have to bring their own chairs? Would teachers have to handle classes of 60 pupils and more, with some children squeezed out into the corridor outside the classroom? Would each of them have a copy of a common textbook? As DepEd began to build up resources to accommodate Grade 11 and its implementation in 2016 appeared assured, the point of resistance shifted beyond budget availability to cover also bureaucratic and academic capacity. Perhaps, DepEd had succeeded in mobilizing the resources to hire more teachers; would it be able to deploy them in time for the 2016 classes? Could it assure the quality of their training, the coherence of the curriculum they would be teaching, and the appropriateness of the textbooks they would use? In effect, K-12 critics demanded that DepEd prove, not only that it was making the necessary investments in the K10 system, but that it was already delivering the expected outcome in terms of the competencies that the graduates had achieved, before they would accept more years of schooling. These issues bearing on quality were relevant to parents but subordinate to their own concern about affordability. The 1987 Constitution had extended the guarantee of free, basic education to the then four years of secondary education. Parents would not have to pay tuition in the public SHS. But, as in the lower grades, education in the public schools was not completely without costs. Participation in school activities, supplemental learning materials, in some cases, school uniforms had to be paid for by the parents. Beyond the out-of-pocket expenses incurred by an additional two years of schooling, parents also complained about the opportunity costs of delaying the entry of their children into the workplace and their contribution to the family income. These considerations exposed K-12 to attack as “anti-poor” from groups identifying themselves with the class struggle against the entrenched economic elite that they saw as determined to dominate the country’s impoverished masses. They resisted K-12 as a measure meant mainly to facilitate entry of the children of the Philippine elite to universities in First World countries, but meaningless to most Filipinos unable to afford the costs of college education at home. Even the potential contribution of K-12 to ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 17 promoting tech-voc training was suspect, only confirming its goal of producing cheap labor for the needs of global, capitalist enterprises. The concerns over budgetary support, bureaucratic readiness, and the burden on parents were not without basis. The critique that hewed towards an ideological opposition to K-12 as a plan to benefit the elite and further marginalize the masses resulted from a misreading of its intent. It was true, however, that leaders of higher education institutions (HEI) were among the most active advocates of K-12. For decades, they had been complaining that products of the K10 system enrolling into the HEI were not prepared for tertiary-level education. A handful of top-tier HEI, most of them in the private sector, continued to keep a K11 system. But completing a bachelor’s degree even in a K11 institution was not sufficient for those intending to pursue graduate studies to qualify automatically for admission into First World HEI—precisely because they entered college without doing K-12. The small number aspiring to post-graduate studies abroad did not pose an urgent concern to Philippine HEI, which had already made their accommodation with K10. The coping mechanism adopted by the HEI was to introduce into the first two or three semesters of college required remedial courses to cover the subjects that the students should have learned in high school. The consequence, however, was to extend the effective duration of a student’s college education. As coverage of the K-12 content became the global norm, K10 graduates would typically need to do overloads in the regular semester, take summer courses or do a fifth year to complete a degree that previously required only four years. Private HEI that charged tuition fees were not disadvantaged by a K10 system that made longer degree programs necessary. But it was an onerous burden for parents to pay for college courses that their children could have completed in a publicK-12 high school where they would not have needed to pay tuition charges. Even for those enrolling in the private school sector, tuition costs would be lower in high school than in college. Contrary to the complaints raised by left-leaning groups, K-12 was not a capitalist plot to favor the private HEI owners. Nor was K-12 intended mainly for those who wanted to obtain a college degree, although this was, in fact, the aspiration of most Filipino families. The concern of DepEd ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 18 in 2002 when it launched the Bridge Program as the first step in transitioning to the K-12 system in fact focused on the students who would not be able to afford to go to college. A National High School Readiness examination conducted by DepEd for Grade 6 pupils showed that barely 2% were prepared to move to secondary education. Given their poor preparation in elementary education, DepEd believed that four years of high school would not be sufficient to provide the graduates enough skills to be gainfully employed or the preparation for life-long learning to acquire these skills on their own. As Phinma Education Network, with its five HEI, later discovered, the typical K10 graduates from provincial public schools enrolling into their colleges came with a Grade 5 reading level in English. Parents hoped that their K10 graduates would be able to find employment, an expectation that led them to oppose K-12. The chances of high school graduates getting a stable job paying a living wage were not very bright. A 16- or 17-year-old minor would not meet the age requirement in the formal job market. Even if they did, given the 7% unemployment rate, they would be facing competition from a large number of people already looking for jobs, 30% of them with some college education, if not actual college degrees. The opportunity costs that parents feared losing because of K-12 were, thus, largely illusory. Those who supported K-12 believed it was important to give students bound for the job market the chance for two more years to improve literacy, numeracy and life skills. Leftist groups were also correct in linking the advocacy for K-12 with the pressures for globalization, but again overlooking the needs of the population that they wish to serve. It was inevitable that companies selling their products and services in a global market would also recruit the people they needed for their businesses on a global basis. Those against the idea of Filipinos finding jobs overseas may object to K-12 because it may make it easier for them to leave the country. With or without K-12, however, Filipino millennials and even the predecessor Gen X considered employment outside the Philippines an attractive option. It would remain so until more and better jobs become available at home. It would hardly be politic, however, for the Left to lobby that the government should restrict this option to Filipinos by denying them the opportunity to raise their occupational skill levels to match the demand abroad. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 19 The issue related also, and with greater urgency, to the thousands of Overseas Filipino Workers (OFW). Philippine embassies abroad had been warning that the concern over competition for jobs from foreign workers in their host countries was leading to more rigorous vetting of their qualifications. The fact that Filipino OFW lacked K-12 credentials made them vulnerable to discrimination. This deficiency justified the lower compensation given to them compared to other employees doing the same work. It could also lead to their replacement by others who were K-12 certified. K12 could be used as a non-tariff barrier to exclude further recruitment of OFW. Through the years when the issue was debated, all the historical, academic and ideological issues for and against K-12 received some hearing. As the June 2016 opening of classes approached, the last-ditch battles at least to postpone, if not to abort, the implementation of K-12 focused on the immediate transition problems that it posed for the education system. C. Transition Issues In AY 2015-16, about 1.26 million students were enrolled in the regular, public school Grade 10 classes, normally the last year of the basic education cycle for which DepEd was responsible. K-12 meant that this cohort would remain in the DepEd system, requiring classrooms, teachers, textbooks and a Grade 11 curriculum. To this number, DepEd had to add graduates of special classes (Alternative Learning Systems) who could not attend the regular public schools, drop-outs resuming schooling and those moving out from private schools, bringing to 1.46 million students the number who had to be accommodated in Grade 11 on the initial roll-out. The most critical resources were the classrooms and the teachers and DepEd recognized from the outset that it would not be able to cope with the Grade 11 requirements, even with the budgetary increases provided by government. Its plan, therefore, was to get the HEI sector, public and private, to enroll some of the incoming Grade 11 students, hoping that it would be able to handle 40% of the cohort. The Educational Service Contracting (ESC) program provided a model for the potential collaboration with the private education sector on K-12. R.A. 8545 provided the legal basis for the esc. Although described as the “expanded government assistance to ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 20 students and teachers in private education, the law was as much intended to serve as well the needs of the public education system. Providing seats in public high schools for elementary school graduates had become a problem for DepEd, especially after the passage of the Aquino freedom constitution in 1986 constitution that committed to free secondary education in the public schools. The ESC permitted the government to provide a subsidy to students who could not be accommodated in a public high school to enroll instead in a private high school which had excess capacity. It was less costly for DepEd to pay for these students’ tuition in the private schools than to construct additional classrooms for them and fund their operating costs. The private high schools also benefitted in the supplemental revenue they obtained for seats in their classrooms that would otherwise remain unused. In 2011-2012, the esc budget amounted to 3.61 billion that enabled 634,860 students to study in 2,860 participating secondary schools. The parallel between the ESC scheme that became part of the regular GASTPE program in 1989 and the K-12 plan of DepEd was not perfect. In the K-12 case, DepEd would subsidize, not just the overflow of students from the public high schools. Any Grade 10 graduate who wanted to enroll in a non-DepEd SHS, could apply for a K-12 voucher. Second, the ESC was sending students from public high schools to private high schools, which would not require any major retooling in the curriculum or in the teaching staff. In the K-12 case, DepEd would not find the empty seats in the private high schools, which would have to find places for their own Grade 11 students. The empty seats would be in the HEI. Ironically, a long-delayed reform in the basic education sector would impact the entire education system and, arguably, on none with greater severity than on the tertiary sector. HEI would need to absorb drastically diminished tuition revenue flows for at least five years (six years if they had a significant number of 5-year degree programs. Indeed, they were eager to partner with DepEd on the K-12 program as then anticipated many empty classrooms they could fill up with paying customers. But they did not have the teaching staff with the requisite credentials to handle SHS students. Their faculty could teach college courses without first passing the government licensure examination for teachers (LET) required for those in basic education. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 21 DepEd was willing to suspend the LET certification requirement for college teachers assigned to the SHS. The contentious issue that required several years of negotiation was the value of the voucher that the government was willing to give students migrating to non-DepEd SHS. Eventually, the HEI sector accepted, not without much grumbling, a set of voucher values that considered: 1) in which school system the student completed Grade 10; 2) the socio-economic status of the student; and, 3) the location of the destination SHS. Thus: 1. Grade 10 or Junior High School (JHS) graduates of DepEd schools and ESC grantees in private JHS were automatically Qualified Voucher Recipients (QVR); they need not apply for an SHS Voucher. But the ESC students would only receive 80% of the face value of the Voucher. 2. Other private JHS graduates would need to apply for the SHS Voucher. If qualified, they would receive 80% of the voucher value. 3. Qualified non-DepEd JHS graduates enrolling in the public tertiary sector (from a State University/College or a government Local University or College) are automatically qualified voucher recipients and would receive only 50% of the voucher value. The value of the voucher would depend on the location of the SHS. Thus: 1. PhP 22, 500. for SHS in the National Capital Region (NCR) 2. PhP 20, 000 in Highly Urbanized Cities (HUC) 3. PhP 17, 500 for SHS outside NCR and HUC The private education sector, for its part, was more than happy to collaborate with DepEd. While generally supportive of the K-12 reform, many HEI had begun to worry about its impact on their institutions. Some HEI might have only belatedly realized the drastic consequences of K-12 on their finances over a period of six to seven years until enrollment normalized in AY 2022-23. The biggest blow would come in AY 2017-18, when HEI would not have SHS graduates enrolling into the freshman and sophomore years of college. These classes typically made up the biggest cohorts in the school ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 22 population. The drop in tuition revenue could reach in AY2017-18 more than 50% of their normal intake. But both private and public HEI complained, first, that the voucher amounts would not cover the higher costs of their tertiary-level faculty and, second, that DepEd could and should pay a higher subsidy because it would cost them even more to build and operate the number of SHS they would need for the K10 graduates. SUC also felt shortchanged because the reimbursement policy only allowed them 50% of the value of the voucher carried to them by the students. DepEd stood firm on the amounts, pointing out also that the private HEI could require their students to top up the subsidy they would receive from the government. DepEd estimated the average value of the voucher subsidy at PhP18, 300 per student (http://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/faq/voucher-program). Each HEI would have to determine for itself whether they would impose a tuition rate higher than the government subsidy and, if so, by how much more. One key factor was their assessment of their ability to deploy college faculty to take SHS assignments at a compensation rate lower than what they received for college classes. Regular, full-time faculty typically with tenured appointments could bring the HEI to court for subjecting them to “diminution of benefits.” HEI faced the reality that the SHS option would not absorb the number of faculty members displaced by the lack of students, particularly in the first two years of the K-12 transition, when they would lose, first, the freshman, and then both freshman and sophomore cohorts. They would have to worry not only about diminution of benefits but the actual displacement of staff. They could argue that it was a government policy decision that led to the reduction of college courses and compelled them to reduce faculty headcount. Observers worried that the combined impact of revenue loss and labor unrest could prove too heavy a burden for the weaker HEI to carry. On the eve of the K-12 implementation, anecdotal reports circulated that K11 teachers were not adequately trained to teach the new curriculum designed for this new level, nor equipped with the necessary learning materials. The SHS curriculum was admittedly quite complex. Since a key objective was the preparation of the students for future career or work options, given their interests, skills and needs, DepEd felt the SHS ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 23 system had to offer multiple Tracks: Academic; Sports; Arts and Design; TechnicalVocational-Livelihood. Students intending to pursue a college degree would take the Academic Track, choosing from among several Strands: 1. General Academic Strand 2. Humanities and the Social Sciences (HUMMS) 3. Accountancy, Business and Management (ABM) 4. Science, Technology, Engineering and Mathematics (STEM) The TVL Track offered the following Strands and sample Specialization Options, which presumably could be expanded to include others for which a demand developed. 1. Home Economics (Food and Beverage Services; Wellness Massage) 2. Information and Communications Technology (Animation; Contact Center Services) 3. Agri-Fishery Arts (Animal Production; Crop Production) 4. Industrial Arts (Consumer Electronics Servicing; Electrical Installation and Maintenance) However well-founded, the apprehensions about teacher preparedness were difficult to substantiate. The opposition to the K-12 launch focused instead on its anticipated, immediate and adverse impact on critical education stakeholders. Critics expected a deep drop in the number of K10 graduates moving on to the next level of schooling. The fear originated in part from doubts that DepEd would be able to provide enough places to students wishing to enroll into Grade 11. Even assuming that the HEI would be willing to absorb the students DepEd could not accommodate, they doubted that the students would be able to meet the tuition costs in non-DepEd SHS. Labor groups predicted that HEI would resort to forced, early retirement and retrenchment to relieve the cost of maintaining on staff faculty who could not be given a teaching load. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 24 The private education sector, for its part, was more than happy to collaborate with DepEd. While generally supportive of the K-12 reform, many HEI had begun to worry about its impact on their institutions. Some HEI might have only belatedly realized the drastic consequences of K-12 on their finances over a period of six to seven years until enrollment normalized in AY 2022-23. The biggest blow would come in AY 2017-18, when HEI would not have SHS graduates enrolling into the freshman and sophomore years of college. These classes typically made up the biggest cohorts in the school population. The drop in tuition revenue could reach in AY2017-18 more than 50% of their normal intake. With revenue tracking southward, expenses would not automatically decline as well. In the Philippine system, it would not be so simple to reduce staff headcount, even when HEI had fewer classes for faculty to teach. Studies like this reinforced the resistance to K-12. Labor unions in the HEI and national labor movements would accept K-12, if it could be implemented without risk to the jobs and the benefits of faculty and staff. The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) and the Population Institute of the University of the Philippines and CHED conducted a study of the potential loss of jobs in the HEI during the five years of the K-12 transition. The review included data from a survey of HEI conducted by CHED in November, 2014 that drew a 75% response rate and May 2015 data from DepEd. Over the five-year K-12 transition period, the study estimated that among the HEI full-time personnel, whether tenured or contractual, about 14,000 of 110,000 in the teaching faculty (12%) and about 11,500 of 58,000 (nearly 20%) of the non-teaching staff faced displacement. D. K-12 Initial Results Although we cannot yet at this stage to assemble and summarize the complete set of data on K-12, the partial information available from cooperating government agencies and HEI allows for some indicative conclusions. The dire predictions made by anti-K-12 groups did not move either the new administration or the Supreme Court to intervene, wisely so, as these have proven premature. Almost a full semester into AY 2016-17, no parent revolution expected from the lack of SHS places for their children has erupted. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 25 Neither did the feared labor unrest, anticipated from the displacement of HEI personnel from their jobs, materialize. Presumably, Grade 10 students in the private schools would not have much difficulty finding accommodation in Grade 11; generally, their schools served as feeders to HEI programs in the same institution and these would have capacity to spare. Providing K11 seats for the 1.28 K10 students who enrolled in the public schools in AY 2015-2016 was the critical problem. Under the K10 system, not all of these students would proceed to the next level, which would be first-year college, a small number, for academic or financial reasons, would not complete Grade 10. The bigger number, as many as 20% of the cohort, would be those Grade 10 graduates who would not have the academic or financial resources to pursue a college education. DepEd estimated that some 1.4 million students had enrolled in Grade 11. Precise figures are lacking at this stage, but the indicative numbers show that K-12 had actually succeeded in raising the number of Grade 10 graduates continuing their formal education. This was not something surprising to K-12 advocates. Grade 11 tuition was not only less expensive than tuition in first year college; since it was part of the basic education cycle, it was not a charge on the students and their families, if they studied in public schools. The Constitution required the government to provide this education free. With the voucher system, even Grade 11 in private schools enjoyed a subsidy. As intended, K-12 would give students the chance to extend their formal schooling by two years and many took advantage of the opportunity. Supplemental information from HEIs in the University Belt of Manila 1 added context to DepEd’s aggregated data, helped clarify issues and suggested areas that needed closer and sustained attention. As anticipated, K-12 cost many of the University Belt institutions a decline in enrollment, despite the addition of SHS to their academic programs. In AY 2015-16, seven UBC HEI enrolled some 57,400 first-year students. In AY 2016-17, they accepted only about 12,000 Grade 11 students, a drop of nearly 80%. Not all HEIs suffered this fate. One HEI actually more than doubled its Grade 11 The following are the universities from the University Belt Consortium that participated in the study: Adamson University, Arellano University, Centro Escolar University, Far Eastern University, Jose Rizal University, Mapua University, Manuel L. Quezon University, and University of the East. National University and University of Santo Tomas only participated in the Focus Group Discussion. 1 ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 26 population between the two years. It even registered an increase in the number of students in first year college to 2000 in AY 2016-17 from 1800 the previous year (Figure 3.1). Figure 3.1. Comparison of enrollment in Freshman AY 2015-2016 and enrollment in SHS AY 2016-2017 among participating UBC HEIs Although subject to the same pressures and largely tapping the same catchment area, the impact of the K-12 program on the University Belt HEI varied from one institution to another. The differences were due to each institution’s relative size and strength in terms of financial resources, faculty depth and overall reputation of the brand, and whether they had one or multiple campuses given transportation costs and traffic congestion, multiple locations allowed an HEI to tap smaller catchment areas. Arellano University benefitted from owning six campuses in four cities in Metro Manila. Another key factor was the institutional strategy to respond to K-12 and its implementation, beginning with the decision to open an SHS program, which all the UB HEI did. Some HEI, for instance, responded proactively, implementing Grade 11 even before the DepEd launch. One university accepted a larger batch of freshman college ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 27 students in AY 2015-16 to have a larger sophomore class the following year as a buffer to the Grade 11 “hijacking” of freshman students in 2016-17. Most HEI assumed that they would not be able to enroll a freshman class with the opening of Grade 11. This tended to be true for the HEI whose students came from the A-B-C sector; these students may fail freshman year but generally stayed in school. Few would have to drop out for financial reasons, which was the case in HEI enrolling mainly Class D and E students. One university launched an aggressive campaign to encourage those who had been compelled to suspend their college studies to raise the funding to resume their studies. The marketing pitch was the opportunity for those who had already started college to complete their courses without going back to SHS. Even those HEI that did not explicitly reach out to this market benefitted from the appeal of grabbing the “last chance to catch the bus” towards obtaining a college degree without the additional time and costs entailed by SHS. For most HEI, this additional revenue from the college freshman year was an unexpected bonus. Nearly all of the UBC schools opened first-year college courses, although with drastically reduced enrollment. The HEI also had to make a decision on the tracks that they would offer in their SHS. In the absence of reliable marketing data, which most HEI lacked, the need to bring in more students argued for covering all of their interests by opening all tracks. But this could be an expensive approach for smaller institutions as it required a deeper and more varied faculty complement. For the UBC HEI, with their wider range of college degree programs, it made sense to offer all of the academic tracks. But only two of the participating UBC HEI offered the Voc-Tech track which comprised from 11-24% of voucher availment (Figure 3.2). ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 28 Figure 3.2. Enrollment and voucher availment per track Another key element of the K-12 strategy hinged on the issue of whether to enroll students at the DepEd’s voucher rate or to require them to “top up” the voucher amount. Pricing has always been a significant consideration in the marketing plans of private HEI. Dependent on tuition revenue from students who were free to enroll in any school, they always had to keep a close eye on the tuition price that competitors could offer. The issue was equally important in K-12, with its fixed voucher subsidies. Grade 10 graduates who normally expected to continue with their college education, which the government had no obligation to fund, could presumably spend for its cost. But private HEI had been increasingly losing students to state and local government universities and colleges, which were also offering SHS. In the 60s, about 80% of student higher education were enrolled in private HEI. With the additional state universities and colleges established in the 90s, private HEI share of the market progressively dropped. CHED estimated that private HEI today enrolled about 1.88M of 4.1M college students or 54% of tertiary-level enrollment. Cost would clearly be a factor in the parents’ decision on where to send their children if they could not or did not want to enroll in the governments free SHS. Private HEIs that normally recruited their students from the public high schools and, therefore, had to keep their tuition rates low opted to settle for the subsidy that DepEd was paying. The strategy they followed placed their SHS as an extension of the public school system. Some kept the top-up at a modest rate of a little over 30%. In the ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 29 UBC, the average top-up was 90%. Two HEI did not require a top-up (Figure 3.3). As expected, these schools drew their students from the DepEd high schools and received the full value (PhP22, 500) of the voucher subsidy. Figure 3.3. Individual and Top-up amounts required for Grade 11 Other private HEI, more confident of their brand strength and carrying higher operating costs required higher personal contributions from their Grade 11 students, just shading it under their first-year college tuition rates. The top up could reach up to nearly three times the voucher value. Their strategy assumed that parents would consider Grade 11, not as the extension of high school, but as the beginning of college education. They would, thus, be willing to pay a higher rate to give their children a better chance to secure a place in the institutions from which they wanted them to obtain their degrees. The low number of Grade 11 students opting for the Voc-Tech strand confirmed the view that SHS was regarded as the highway to higher education. A proactive strategy was also important in dealing with the potential displacement of staff and the labor unrest and legal cases it could provoke. All of the UBC HEI had labor unions among faculty and staff. Early discussions with them on the repercussions of K-12 helped to render the difficult negotiations less contentious. One university prepared for what it saw as an inevitable reduction in headcount by introducing an early retirement option for older faculty. They would retire a few years earlier but would receive better benefits than what they would get under the standard plan when their retirement became mandatory. Most of the UBC HEI that supplied information, reported that they did not have to retrench people. One HEI had to recruit more faculty for the SHS and for the unexpected enrollment of students into first-year college. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 30 The importance of pro-active planning became apparent when the National Labor Relations Commission (NLRC) ruled in favor of two faculty members who had charged Miriam University with illegally termination and ordered the University to pay over PHP1.2million in back wages and damages. Miriam University had justified the termination on the basis of financial losses anticipated from the implementation of K-12. Miriam had actually announced in June, 2014, and early separation program for the General Education faculty teaching freshman year that would be mandatory in June, 2016. But the NLRC declared that the University had not established any reasonable criteria for terminating faculty, considered no alternative measures to termination, and failed to prove “imminent financial losses” due to the K-12 Program The ACT Teachers Party-list claimed that the NLRC decision set a precedent for anyone else retrenched by the K-12 launch to pursue “both legal and paralegal actions” (Jocelyn R. Uy, “2 Profs win case vs Miriam, PDI (16 Nov 2016, p. A11). More serious for private HEI than the dip in enrollment was the drop in tuition revenue. Adding SHS brought in warm bodies, but Grade 11 students paid lower rates than that which college freshmen would have paid. Five of the UBC institutions saw an average drop of 53% in Grade 11 tuition revenue. Two universities that had aggressively marketed the SHS program were rewarded with higher revenue, another had a modest 5% increase (Figure 3.4). ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 31 Figure 3.4. Comparison of Freshman and SHS enrollment revenue in AY 2015-2016 and AY 2016-2017 While lower revenues were expected, some problems caught the HEI by surprise. College students needed to go to school only for the classes in which they had enrolled and could decide to “cut” or skip class sessions. They could enter and leave the campus as they pleased. The students in Grade 11, although of the same age as the first-year college students of earlier years, technically, still belonged to the basic education stream. They were required to stay in the campus throughout the school-day and had less discretion in absenting themselves from their classes. HEI discovered that SHS placed more strain on their common school facilities, such as the toilets, library, and cafeteria. They also had to make decisions on such issues as to whether to require school uniforms, which could not be the college uniforms, but which SHS students also wanted to be different from those worn by Junior High School students. Some problems, although not unexpected, were unwelcome. K-12 was a massive, national program that placed a heavy pressure on the DepEd bureaucracy. The individual tasks seemed simple enough: -identifying the students entitled to receive an SHS, determining those who qualified for it, certifying the vouchers accepted by the HEI and managing the flow of the reimbursements to them. At the scale in which these tasks had to be done, it was a formidable enterprise to manage the traffic flow of about 1.5 m. students through education system consisting of 13,423 high schools and some 2400 HEI. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 32 DepEd had established a data base which attached a Learner Reference Number (LRN) that everyone entering its school system kept. The learner’s report card had to show this LRN, which the SHS voucher also had to carry. But mistakes did occur in entering the LRN into various student documents. Students had missing or wrong LRN in their report cards, with some students getting the same numbers. Collecting the reimbursement for the subsidy also required the LRN. DepEd had promised to release the first tranche of voucher reimbursements in September. But because of delay in the documentation of the reimbursement claims, many HEI were still following up the releases in November. DepEd had tapped the Land Bank of the Philippines (LBP) to manage the payment of the SHS subsidy to participating private HEI, which had to open a Land Bank deposit account. The LBP Pasig Capitol Branch, as the servicing branch for DepEd, would process the reimbursements upon receipt of advice from DepEd. According to LBP, this activity did start in September 2016, and 195 schools have already opened deposit accounts. LBP has processed total claims amounting to PhP249. 881 Million. Presumably, DepEd will have a better handle on the voucher reimbursement process and spare the HEI unnecessary cash flow pressures. Already, they have to frontend the costs of SHS, as the first repayment by DepEd, as planned, does not happen until September, with the second tranche coming in December. But beyond process improvements, the HEI hoped that the government could provide through its development banks assistance to private sector institutions collaborating in the K-12 program. Some UBC presidents said that they had explored with Land Bank how it could help K-12 partner HEI. According to them, Land Bank would only extend loans against collateral. The HEI had argued that Land Bank should at least provide interest-free bridge financing since they already had the voucher funds. And pay interest on the money due to the HEI whose release had been delayed. LBP acknowledged meeting with some private schools early in the year to explore the possibility of extending loans to them against their DepEd vouchers. LBP had then raised the need for an assurance from DepEd that the schools would enjoy a steady cash flow stream from the proceeds of the voucher system. It was willing to make loans ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 33 against that assured cash flow, in the same way that it lent to Local Government Units against their Internal Revenue Allotment and to the Megawide consortium when they participated in the Private Public Partnership program for the construction of school buildings. But LBP said it could not pursue the idea because it did not get the assurance it was requesting from DepEd. DepEd was not present in the forum where the UBC had expressed their concerns about the K-12 program. Unfortunately, the implementation of K-12 was happening at the time when a new administration was taking over. The lack of DepEd response on the assurance LPD had asked for to be able to provide financial support to the HEI was, perhaps, due to the fact that DepEd top management was already preparing for its exit. The situation led to HEI being blindsided by other problems related to the future of the SHS program that the implementors could no longer assure. Private HEI believed that they were responding to a DepEd call for assistance by offering their facilities to students that the Department could not accommodate in their classrooms. They expected that DepEd would be appreciative of their response, especially since many of them felt they deserved a higher subsidy for the students they enrolled. In some areas, however, they discovered a disconnect between the declared official DepEd policy to give students the flexibility to attend Grade 11 in either the public or the private SHS and the position taken by local DepEd officials who wanted to prevent the migration to private schools in order to fill up their own Grade 11 classrooms. Or, according to some HEI, to divert their Grade 10 graduates into schools where they had vested interests. In other areas outside the NCR, there have been reports as well of mayors building classrooms in their local government schools for the SHS program. E. Moving Forward At this point, it would be fair to say that the K-12 Program has weathered its transition problems. This is not to say that all stakeholders are content or to deny that more severe problems still lie ahead. For the private education sector, AY 2017-18, will impose a heavier financial burden, when they lose the normal revenue from both their regular firstyear and second-year cohorts. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 34 One argument used by DepED officials to deter students from moving to private schools was the uncertainty that vouchers would be available for SHS students transitioning to Grade 12 in AY 2017-18. This claim was false and intentionally misleading. The official policy assures students of two years of subsidy cover. But the vouchers were only good for the year immediately following graduation from Grade 10 and had to be used in two successive years. Students moving out of the public school system for Grade 11 did run a risk. If they failed to earn promotion to Grade 12, they could use the second voucher to repeat Grade 11. But DepEd would no longer provide a subsidy for Grade 12. To complete SHS, they would have to pay the private school tuition fees, or go back to a public SHS. Private and public HEI would have to assume that some students will fail Grade 11, especially from among those choosing the STEM track and face the possibility that they would lose them back to the public schools. All the UBC HEI assumed that SHS would be part of their regular offerings, as the graduates would feed into their college programs. Nevertheless, they cannot discount the possibility that DepEd and local government would continue to build additional SHS classrooms and compete with their own SHS program. The UBC HEI believe that DepEd will still need private sector assistance in the AY 2017-18 to provide seats for Grade 12 and a fresh Grade 11 cohort. Moving forward, however, the government will need to make a policy choice: to continue investing in DepEd classrooms for the SHS or to maintain the support for the SHS subsidy program. The government can take the view that the voucher system was a temporary, stopgap measure to address the shortage in public school facilities. It can invest in the infrastructure to enable direct delivery to students of educational services at the SHS level as envisioned in the constitution mandating it to provide free basic education through high school. This would be the populist and popular view. Politicians get a lot of mileage showing their contribution to building more classrooms for DepEd, especially if it come with naming rights. This policy issue should receive close attention. Bridging the gap in facilities is the simplest problem in the education sector to solve; all it requires is money. But the private HEI has already proven that it can help DepEd address the infrastructure problem. The government need not spend additional funds on bricks and mortar. In the end, what will determine the success of the K-12 ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 35 Program is the quality of the graduates they produce, and ensuring quality will require more than just classrooms. It will take some time to determine whether SHS achieves the promise of producing students who are better prepared for college-level studies or betterequipped with Voc-Tech skills to find jobs in the labor market. As noted earlier, K-12 has succeeded in keeping more students in school. It would also be important to note that it has also already achieved ancillary objectives that had not been so explicitly proclaimed by its advocates. The prospect that the five-year disruption of student enrollment into the HEI would undermine the viability of the smaller, weaker institutions prompted CHED to develop programs for their support, in its words, “to turn challenges into opportunities.” The prospect of HEI faculty losing teaching loads and possibly their jobs during the transition period provided an opening for using their time productively. Only 50% of the faculty in Philippine HEI held post-graduate degrees, compared to 69% in Malaysia and 50% in Vietnam. CHED offered development grants to fund the graduate studies of faculty who now had the chance to pursue higher degrees on a full-time. The grants would cover not only tuition costs; it would also provide a stipend, book and transportation allowances and support for thesis or dissertation work. CHED would use the grant funds to channel faculty to the academic disciplines that needed strengthening and into research relevant to local and regional development objectives. The goal was to raise to 70% the HEI faculty with post-graduate degrees by 2021. For those who could not do full-time studies or who had already obtained postgraduate degrees, CHED offered alternative avenues for learning and skills development. These included opportunities for involvement in research projects. Community service and extension activities, such as mentoring SHS faculty, internships with business and industry, training for entrepreneurship. In consultation with their HEI, interested faculty could develop a customized program, which could earn them 96 credit units, to match their interests and the needs of their institutions. CHED invited HEI to compete for Innovation Grants intended to strengthen their capacity to engage with academic institutions in the Philippines and abroad. On the international front, CHED wanted to encourage technology transfer from institutions overseas through faculty and student exchange arrangements, twining programs, and joint ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 36 research. The Innovation Grants would also support partnerships with industry for onthe-job training opportunities and the development of curricula related to the needs of the market. While these initiatives looked forward to raising HEI standards, CHED recognized that K-12 confronted many institutions in the private sector with standards, distinguish different types of tertiary-level institutions, and rationalize the higher education sector already posed problems for many of them, even without the financial pressures and the competitive threats unleashed by K-12. While the country could survive with fewer HEI, the collapse of many institutions could weaken the system and compromise the objective of broadening access to higher education. As the impact of K-12 became apparent, many private HEI will need to step back and consider what they had to do to cope with the challenges they are facing and whether they were willing and able to do so. To help them in this task, CHED provided an opportunity for the top management of HEI to attend a one-month program focused on developing their individual, institutional strategies. The Development Academy of the Philippines was asked to handle the public, and the Asian Institute of Management the private colleges and universities. Thus far, the low response to the Voc-Tech track from both the students and the schools is the clearest weakness that the K-12 program has shown. From the UBC experience, the demand among their students is still the college degree option. Only a couple of the UBC HEI have prepared to offer programs like those which the Don Bosco schools have successfully established. Not all of the 1.4 million students who have started the SHS cycle will have the academic and financial resources to continue to a college program. The Voc-Tech track was precisely the program designed for the SHS students headed towards the job market. There is a need even now to look at how this track can be strengthened and made more appealing. Most of the Grade 11 students in the Voc-Tech track are in the public SHS. There appears to be an issue between DepEd and TESDA that has not been fully resolved. This relates to the metrics by which the competencies of the students will be measured. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 37 TESDA would like to have DepEd adopt its own norms, geared towards the skills expectations of the job market. DepEd has not yet decided on this issue. Voc-Tech courses typically require more laboratory and workshop facilities. The cost of setting up these facilities, together with the low market demand, had discouraged private HEI from investing in Voc-Tech programs. This may be a problem for DepEd as well, which it can address through its budget process. It will also need to recruit qualified instructors for the Voc-Tech courses. The more difficult task would be the support required by the Voc-Tech strands for internship programs with the business and industrial sectors to meet the requirement for hands-on training for the students. 4. What Measures Matter: Towards More Inclusive Indicators K-12 is one massive reform, driven by a long period of internal incremental tweaking and experimentation in the country’s educational system as well as changes brought about by external forces, particularly globalization. As such, its curricular standards are no longer exclusively nationalist in orientation, but include neo-liberal elements and marketorientation as well. According to a former DepEd official, prior to the K-12, initial monitoring was focused on inputs (i.e., how budgets were spent and where) and outputs (i.e., how many teachers were trained, how many textbooks were delivered to schools, etc.). Annually, DepEd publishes data in its website on key elementary and secondary education indicators such as gross enrollment rate (GER), net enrollment rate (NER), cohort survival, and the national achievement test (NAT). Nutrition data are also collected, although not automatically published online, to help gauge the target of the school based feeding program. While these data sets are aggregated at the national level, it at least presents a concrete glimpse of the education sector’s health and well-being. But because the nature of K-12 has profoundly altered the country’s education landscape, a more inclusive and holistic assessment strategy is necessary to measure the impact of such reform. Table 4.1 shows the recommendations for more inclusive evaluation indicators, highlighting three important factors critical in developing the framework for monitoring and evaluating the K-12. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 38 Table 4.1. Recommendations for more inclusive evaluation indicators. Basis 1. Learning outcomes constructed along global standards Recommendations 1. 2. 2. Curricular exits as partly marketoriented 3. 4. 3. Important role of supranational players and international organizations 5. National Assessment in each learning stage (Gr 3,6,10,12) Participation in international assessments (TIMSS, PISA and SEAPLM) Track cohort survival per exit from K to workplace Compare first batch of graduates of K-12 with national averages Education governance evaluation and monitoring system Learning outcomes, is the heart of a country’ educational system. It articulates what the learners will know and are able to do at the end of the program. Learning outcomes are defined in every subject and for each and every level of schooling that a child goes through. However, because K-12 is structured along the lines of a global education agenda (i.e., EFA, ASEAN, etc.), its curricular design therefore is patterned within a mutually recognized standard among regional and international sovereign peers. Thus, a national assessment of achievement levels among students (such as the NAT) is no longer enough. While the recognition of the Philippine Qualification Framework (PQF) is a necessary step, it should not end there. The Philippines must also actively participate in regional and international testing such as TIMSS, PISA and SEA-PLM in order to periodically assess itself if standards in Philippine classrooms are at par with the rest of the region and the world. In addition, since the K-12 Program also intends to produce a seamless transition from the classroom to the workplace, a set of economic factors are also helpful. These indicators must be based on the curricular exits of the program. While these concerns are not entirely new for the country, the organizations that manage labor market data (DOLE, etc.) are independent from educational data (DepEd, TESDA, CHED). Also, the trifocalized management system of education in the country inadvertently created three ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 39 “islands” of education database, which makes cohort tracking very difficult if at all possible. Hence the challenge is to create a database that can track a learner from the beginning of his/her education (i.e., Kindergarten), until he/she becomes a member of the workplace/ a productive member of society. Finally, as Levin and Lockheed (1993) pointed out, the importance of politics in ensuring that policies ensure the facilitation implementation of education reform programs cannot be underestimated. Key to a successful institutionalization of K-12 is governance, or the ability of government to manage the external environment of the school in response to a new and enhanced internal processes to achieve the goals of the policy. This includes the ability of the organization to manage resources optimally and most importantly, a strong resolve from the relevant government agencies to pursue politically-sensitive choices that will sustain the gains of the reform. Expanding the space for genuine participatory policy making is also critical in managing the challenges and gains of K-12. As such, existing structures for local education governance, particularly the School Governing Council (SGC) and the Local School Board (LSB) must be strengthened through expansion of its membership, agenda, fiscal capacity and ability to conduct and implement its own plans and programs. Therefore, a useful analytic framework must not only measure the outcomes of K12 but also how changes in the system were managed. A proposed operational framework for monitoring the impact of K-12 from the educational, economic, and political lens is described fully in Annex 4 (pp. 36-48). 5. Education as a Shared Responsibility: Decentralization? Federalism? What’s the Difference? Decentralizing authority in decision-making and governance has become a trend in democratizing states. Borrowing the words of Bardhan (2002), “decentralization is the rage” in matters concerning governance. Developing countries, in particular the transition economies in Latin America, Africa and Asia, have been adopting decentralized policies in the past decades (Bardhan, 2002). ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 40 A. Decentralization and Education Broadly speaking, decentralization “refers to the degree to which the powers of the national government are shared with or transferred to intermediate or local governments in both systems of governments” (Salvador, 1999). Decentralization literature argues that the transfer or allocation of decision-making authority from the central down to the local governments allows for the accommodation of more and diverse actors to participate in governance, which, as Tobbala (2012) suggests, is a key characteristic of democracy. “Less government” presumably enables the members of different sectors from the private and civil society to assume a more participative role in economic, social and political decisions and governance (de Guzman, 2007; UNDP, 1999). While decentralization as an approach to governance is the distribution or sharing of authority from the central down to local governments, it must be noted that there are certain degrees to how power is distributed in a decentralized setting. There are four types of decentralization. These are, in order of the degree in which power is distributed, (1) deconcentration, (2) delegation, (3) devolution, and (4) privatization. Deconcentration, the first form of decentralization is the “handling over of some amount of administrative authority or responsibility to lower levels within the central government ministries and agencies” (de Guzman, 2007). This shifts some of the decision-making responsibilities of the central government to satellite offices outside the capital. This allows some discretion to field agents to plan and implement policies, or to adjust central orders to local conditions. These responsibilities, however, are still bound to the guidelines set by the central office. Delegation, on the other hand, refers to the “transfer of managerial responsibility for specifically defined functions outside the regular bureaucratic structure and which are only indirectly controlled by the central government” (de Guzman, 2007). Ultimately, however, the responsibility still rests on the central authority. Devolution, the third type, is “the creation or strengthening, financially or legally, of sub-national units of government, the activities of which are substantially outside the direct control of the central government” (de Guzman, 2007). Unlike the first two typologies of decentralization, devolution gives local governments or units the autonomy ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 41 to pursue policies that are fit for the locality. When there is central authority involvement, this is only indirect or supervisory. The last one – privatization – is the “total transfer of authority to private establishments or individuals” (de Guzman, 2007). Regardless of form, it must be pointed out that decentralization is not an alternative to centralization (UNDP, 1999). Decentralization and centralization must complement each other to reach a particular objective. On the one hand, a centralized approach to governance is imperative especially for the survival of a weak state (de Guzman, 2007). Power that rests on one central authority ensures a dominant and assertive leadership to consolidate state power. Moreover, Salvador (1999) adds that centralization can also be viewed as a mechanism against the emergence of powerful regional blocs and dynasties that may dominate politics in an otherwise autonomous environment. Likewise, a centralized system ensures the “universal delivery of basic services” and the universal protection of human rights (Salvador, 1999). However, on the other hand, power that is heavily concentrated in the center restricts the prospects of broader civic participation. While this allows the central government the authority to distribute public goods and services, a monopoly over decision-making runs the risk of coming up with policies that do not correspond to the various needs of the different regions and localities of a state especially in countries made up of a very large territory and comprised of heterogeneous cultural groups (Weiler, 1993). De Guzman (2007) argues that there is a “demand among local institutions for autonomy from the central government to enable them to be more responsive to the local problem situations and strengthen a weak status. Studies arguing for decentralization claims that decision-making authority concentrated at the central government make for an inefficient delivery of public goods and services. Decentralizing decision-making authority, according to Capuno (2009), makes the distribution of public services and goods more efficient because power is transferred down to local authorities who are more knowledgeable of the needs of their localities. In an extremely large and hierarchical organization such as the government, the delegation of powers and responsibilities down to its lower rungs becomes necessary in order to effectively address local needs because officials there “would know more than ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 42 their superiors about the needs of the target beneficiaries and the local condition. Also, they could respond more directly and promptly to their clients’ needs. Thus, an organization gains an information advantage if it delegates the appropriate authority to the lower-level officials. Apart from the “efficiency” argument for decentralization, Capuno raises one aspect of governance that could also well justify the distribution of power down to the local levels. This “accountability” argument for decentralization insists that authority be given to the local level as well so that the citizens can play a role in decision-making. According to Campos and Hellman (as quoted from Capuno, 2009): “At the local level, citizens can more easily learn of the activities and programs that their local leaders have promoted and supported, discern how much effort they have devoted to improving public services, and confirm whether they have delivered on campaign promises. In other words, the information that citizens need to make judgments is more readily accessible under decentralization.” While a decentralized form of governance has its gains, it also has its shortcomings. Capuno’s case study on the devolution of health services in the Philippines revealed disparities in the spending and, consequently, quality of health services among LGUs. Particularly, LGUs with weak absorptive capacities are at risk of not being able to meet the necessary standards for delivering health services. Without the strong presence of a central governing agency to provide for universal health services, the quality of services offered in one locality may be inferior to the one being offered in the other. One particular area of governance that is affected by the decentralization vs. centralization debate is the management of education. Most of the literature written on the decentralization of education shows that locally governed schools improve access to education especially. Empirical studies conducted in Latin American countries such as El Salvador, Bolivia, Colombia and Guatemala showed that decentralizing the management of education showed an increase in enrollment and participation. On the other hand, Weiler (1993) presents a contradiction in the decentralization of education – that states, in fact, has a dual interest: that of maintaining control and effectiveness and sustaining its legitimacy. However, the more the state maintains control ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 43 over governance, the more detrimental this would be to its legitimacy. If the state relinquishes its power over the governance of certain services, the state’s control will be diminished. This is what he calls the “politics of ambivalence”. B. Decentralization of Education in the Philippines The formal Philippine education system that we have today can be traced back to 1901 when Act No. 74 was institutionalized. Through this act, a highly centralized public school system was established where all schools and colleges were under the direct regulation and supervision of the Bureau of Public Schools and the Bureau of Private Schools (de Guzman, 2007). The attempt of decentralize education started seventy-four years after the institutionalization of the Philippine school system as part of the government’s Integrated Reorganization Plan. Through a series of structural and bureaucratic reorganizations the education Department aimed at increasing its effectiveness and efficiency (de Guzman, 2007). Transitioning from a highly centralized bureaucracy to a decentralized one allowed regional directors to respond to the concerns and needs of the different regions while those at the Central Office had more time to design and improve policies in delivering education to the people. Decentralizing education management is considered to be a necessary step in realizing the efficiency and effectiveness of delivering basic education in the Philippines (de Guzman, 2007). In 1987, through Executive Order 117, the Ministry of Education and Culture’s mandate was expanded to include sports and was thus renamed to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports in which it was “responsible for the formulation, planning and implementation and the coordination of policies, plans, programs, projects, in formal and non-formal education at all levels and areas including elementary, secondary, technical-vocational and non-formal education, and supervising all educational institutions, public and private, and providing for the establishment and maintenance of a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the goals of national development”. In the following decade the education bureaucracy was once again restructured to improve the delivery of the Philippine educational system. The Congressional ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 44 Commission on Education or EDCOM was created to assess and review the state of Philippine education. The EDCOM recommended (a) enhancing the educational system’s internal capability to be able to implement the constitutional provisions on education, (b) providing the system with financial and infrastructure support by strengthening its linkages in all sectors involved with human resource development to achieve the developmental goals of the nation. Thus, the Philippine government established three separate institutions responsible for basic education, tertiary education and technical and vocational education. This created the DepEd, whose mandate was to focus on basic education and non-formal education, the CHED and the TESDA. It can be noted that decentralizing education in the Philippines is designed at widening the scope of who can participate in the management and governance of education so as to provide sustained support from below. Republic Act 9155 of 2001 or the Governance of Basic Education Act enumerates the following principles: 1. Shared governance recognizes that every unit in the education bureaucracy has a particular role to fulfill. 2. The process of democratic consultation shall be observed in the decision-making process. 3. Principles of accountability and transparency shall be observed 4. Communication channels of field officers shall be strengthened among government and nongovernment organizations to facilitate the flow of information and build linkages. In practice, the decentralized education management is espoused by the SchoolBased Management approach. The SBM transfers authority and decision making from the central and regional offices to the school divisions in the provinces and cities; sharing the responsibility of education management with other stakeholders such as the local government, parent-teacher associations and the community. Through this approach, stakeholders from the community whether from the government or not are allowed relative autonomy to decide on matters concerning the school. Widening the scope of participation to include local stakeholders allows for issues and concerns in the local schools to be identified and addressed quickly and efficiently. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 45 According to de Guzman (2007), decentralization does not intend to weaken central authority rather it attempts to wield a “bigger stick” to address issues related to quality control and equity assurance functions. Problems and concerns where the central office cannot immediately address, the local stakeholders who are actually there on the ground who witness these problems first hand can be given the authority to act on them. The Local Government Code of 1991 through the passage of RA 7160 expanded the participation of stakeholders in education. This law created Local School Boards (LSB) in every province, city and municipality. The creation of LSBs allowed the participation of more stakeholders in the management of education (Table 4.2). Specified under the Republic Act, the function of the LSB is to determine and operationalize the SEF allocation for the schools in their respective localities. These include operations and maintenance of school, construction, and repair of school buildings, educational research, establishment of extension classes, purchase of books and periodicals, and sports activities and development. The LSB also is tasked to assist as advisory committee on educational matters to the local legislative body as well as to recommend changes in the names of public schools within their areas. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 46 Table 4.2. Composition of the Local School Board. However, the extent to which education governance in the Philippines is decentralized is limited. RA 9155 only deconcentrated certain administrative functions of the central office to its field offices, such as monitoring and ensuring quality of instruction, hiring and promotion of teachers, appointments of school heads, etc. Furthermore, RA 7160, which seemingly ascribes to devolution, does not grant the LSB full authority and autonomy in decision-making. Matters such as the reconfiguration of education services are left to the central office. Ultimately, local officials still have to answer and are still accountable to the national education policies set by the central office (Capuno, 2007). ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 47 While the powers granted to LSBs and local officials are limited, they still play an important role to play in managing the delivery of education services to their constituents especially in matters concerning the implementation of the policies and objectives set by the central office. This is evidence by the fact that local investments in education has been increasing over the years as pointed by a study conducted jointly by AusAID and the World Bank in 2010. Several LSB-related bills were also filed in the 16th House of Representatives that seeks to expand the purposes of SEF to include acquisition of school sites, salaries and benefits of teachers, procurement of equipment and teaching aid, loan collateral, etc. (see HB 614, HB 1183), while others seek to strengthen the LSB by expanding its powers and membership (see HB 1184, HB 1884, and HB 2599). C. Comparative Sketch of Educational Systems Across Political Regimes The Duterte administration has been very keen on keeping its campaign promise of pushing for a federal form of government in the country. Owing to this new development, there is a plethora of consultation about federalism, how different countries practice it, and whether we can move towards this direction. Bearing this in mind, a quick comparative survey of three unitary (Guatemala, Indonesia, France, and the Philippines) and seven federal (Brazil, Australia, Malaysia, United States, Malaysia, India and Germany) nation states were conducted. There are two parts to this comparative sketch. The first one looks at how each country’s educational system is organized from the learner’s point-of-view. While this takes into account the number of years a learner is expected to devote to formal basic education schooling, it also pinpoints the transition stages and exits that the State is expected to supervise and manage. The second part compares how education as a shared responsibility between central and local government is operationalized. Three major areas were analyzed: structure, responsibilities and financing. Recent developments that indicate a shift how education is governed are also mapped out if any. Figure 4.1 and Table 4.3 summarize how educational systems are organized from the perspective of the learner. The structure and content of primary education in the countries examined are generally similar. In these early years of education where children spend around six to seven years on average, the pupils are taught general subjects to train ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 48 them in literacy and numeracy. Upon completion of primary education, students proceed to secondary education. In most of the education systems of the countries examined save for Germany, secondary education is divided into two lower and upper levels. In the lower half of secondary education, general subjects are taught to students while in the upper half, students are allowed the option to specialize in tracks. In most of the countries, students are given the option to proceed in either academic or technical and vocational tracks. In India, the Philippines, USA, France, Indonesia, Brazil and Malaysia, and Australia, there are technical and vocational institutions and polytechnic schools available for students who wish to pursue technical and vocational education. In Germany, however, secondary education is structured differently. While Germany has secondary schools (namely Hauptschule, Realschule, and Gymnasium) each offering specialized tracks, students are placed in one of the three schools depending on their academic performance and abilities. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 49 Figure 4.1. Comparison of education cycles in ten countries. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 50 Table 4.3. Comparative features of secondary education. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 51 Table 5 summarizes the comparative analysis on three factors: structure, responsibilities, and financing. Current reform initiatives are also noted. A more detailed table (data per country) is found in the full paper attached as Annex 4 (pp. 69-87). Initial findings suggest that decentralization is a key strategy in achieving universal access as it tends to strengthen the link between the school and the community. However, centralization is important in ensuring quality in the form of: (a) a national curriculum framework, and (b) a nationally created and administered assessment / test. Finally, because financing of education rests solely in the state in a federal form of government, the absorptive capacity of the local governments and the community to optimally operate schools is key. Thus, local entrepreneurship is an important element in a federal system. In contrast, while some aspect of school management may be decentralized in a unitary state, the more expensive elements of running a school system such as teacher’s salaries, textbooks and other learning materials, are absorbed by the central government. In effect, unitary systems enable schools to remain open even when there is market failure. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 52 Table 4.4. Comparative analysis of education governance in ten countries. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 53 6. Policy Recommendations and Conclusion The case of education reform in the Philippines highlights the impact of globalization on domestic policymaking. Of particular importance is the role of external ideas, as expressed through international agreements, as a wick for a domestic policy reform. As these norms are internalized, policy networks, organized along similar policy beliefs, played a key role in transforming agenda into an institutionalized one. A. Towards a strong system-wide evidence based policy making capacity K-12 is a complex reform brought about by internal and external factors. A strong system-wide infrastructure for evidence-based policy making is therefore necessary. a) A G2G (government to government) data sharing mechanism must be established to allow horizontal or inter-agency (i.e., DepEd, TESDA, CHED, DOLE, DILG, etc.) as well as vertical (between central government and local government, between DepEd and LGU) interface of data collection and report generation for evaluation and policy use. It is necessary to set-up an infrastructure that can synchronize and generate data that allows government to track each cohort from K-to-workplace. b) A collection system that requires data to be disaggregated based on gender, disability, poverty, vulnerability (caused by man-made and natural disasters), ethnicity to measure equity. B. Increase the demand for participatory policy making at the level of school and community Political will, especially at the grassroots level, is necessary to sustain the gains as well as overcome implementation challenges of K-12. Key is to balance the need for quality control and the demand for more community support and sharing of resources. a) Review RA 7160, particularly the provisions for LSB on role/ power, membership, and financing (i.e., Synergeia LSBs). b) Align philosophies and purposes of decentralized education stipulated in RA 9155 on SBM and RA 7160 on LSB; these laws should be in-synched with one another to avoid confusion of roles and responsibilities at the school and district level. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 54 C. Top-down bottom-up assessment of learning outcomes At the heart of all education reform is the welfare students. On the one hand, this requires government to be able to gauge what kind of learning takes place inside the classroom, regardless of where this maybe. On the other hand, it also requires our reform process to provide an institutionalized space for classroom realities (what works, what does not work) to mainstream into the policy discussions at the national headquarters. a) Rethink the NAT to include assessment in all key learning stages mentioned in the K-12. b) Institutionalize action-based research in all classroom as a requirement to DepEd’s annual planning and review of curricular standards, instructional materials and teacher development. c) Participate in international assessment such as TIMSS, PISA and SEA-PLM. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 55 References Aghion, P., Boustan, L., and Vandenbussche, J. (2009). The Causal Impact of Education on Education Growth: Evidence from US. Cambridge: Harvard Press. Ayala APEC Incorporated Press Release (2016, January 21). Ayala’s APEC Schools offers 3,500 senior HS seats for free. Rappler. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from http://www.rappler.com/bulletin-board/119787-apec-schools-free-senior-high-school Bardhan, P. (2002). Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 185-205. Capuno, J. (2009). A case study on the decentralization of health and education in the Philippines. HDN Discussion Paper Series. Commission on Higher Education. (2016). K-12 Transition Program [PowerPoint slides] Darling-Hammond, L. & Adamson, F. (2010). Beyond basic skills: The role of performance assessment in achieving 21st century standards of learning. Stanford, CA: Stanford University, Stanford Center for Opportunity Policy in Education. Department of Education. (2014). SS-Enrollment 2010 to 2014 by region [Excel Spreadsheet] Department of Education. (2015). Public Schools Enrolment SY 2015-2016 [Excel Spreadsheet]. Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://www.deped.gov.ph/datasets Department of Education. (2015). Public Schools Enrolment SY 2014-2015 [Excel Spreadsheet]. Retrieved July 29, 2016, from http://www.deped.gov.ph/datasets Department of Education. (2015). K-12 General Information. Accessed August 31, 2016, from http://www.deped.gov.ph/k-to-12/faq Department of Education. (2016). SHS SUMM_2016-08-10T09_49_24 rel [Excel Spreadsheet] Faguet, J. -P., & Sanchez, F. (2008). Decentralization’s Effects on Educationa; Outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia. World Development, 1249-1316. Geronimo, J. Y. (2016, June 13). Senior high school: No youth left behind?. Rappler. Retrieved September 5, 2016, from http://www.rappler.com/newsbreak/in-depth/136182philippines-education-senior-high-school-learners ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 56 Gershberg, A. I., Meade, B., & Andersson, S. (2009). Providing better education services to the poor: Accountability and context in the case of Guatemalan decentralization. International Journal of Educational Development, 187-200. Guzman, A. d. (2007). Chronicling decentralization initiatives in the Philippine basic education sector. International Journal of Educational Development, 613-624. Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (1999). Do Community-Managed Schools Work? An Evaluation of El Salvador's EDUCO Program. Oxford Journals, 415-411. Hanushek, E A (2016). The Economic Impact of Good Schools. US Chamber of Commerce Foundation. Retrieved from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/economic-impactgood-schools Hanushek, EA, Ruhose, J, and Woessmann, L. (2016). It Pays to Improve School Quality. Retrieved from http://hanushek.stanford.edu/publications/it-pays-improve-school-quality Hanushek E A and Wößmann L (2010), Education and Economic Growth. In: Penelope Harrison-Mattley, P. (1983). Obstacles to Education Reform. The Australian Quarterly, 55(2), 219-233. Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/20635224 Merritt, R. L., & Coombs, F. S. (1977). Politics and Educational Reform. Comparative Education Review, 21(2), 247-273. Retrieved August 29, 2016, from http://www.jstor.org/stable/1187660 National Education for All. (2014). Philippine Education for All 2015 Plan of Action: Assessment of Progress made in Achieving the EFA Goals. National Education for All: Philippines Ocampo-Salvador, A. (1999). Philippine Local Governments: Toward Local Autonomu and Decentralization. In Politics and Governance: Theory and Practice in the Philippine Context (pp. 117-157). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Office of Reasearch and Publications. Peterson, Eva Baker, Barry McGaw, (Editors), International Encyclopedia of Education. volume 2, pp. 245-252. Oxford: Elsevier. Robredo, J. (n.d.). Reinventing Local School Boards in the Philippines. Retrieved from PCIJ: http://pcij.org/blog/wp-docs/Robredo_Reinventing_School_Boards.pdf ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 57 Romero, A. (2016, May 25). Duterte backtracks: K-12 beneficial. The Philippine Star. Retrieved August 30, 2016, from http://www.philstar.com/headlines/2016/05/25/1586787/dutertebacktracks-k-12-beneficial Schleicher, A., and Tang, Q. (2015). Education post-2015: Knowledge and Skills Transform Lives and Societies. From OECD (2015), Universal Basic Skills: What Countries Stand to Gain, OECD Publishing. SEAMEO INNOTECH. (2015). Regional Education Program. Assessment Systems in Southeast Asia: Models, Successes and Challenges. Quezon City: SEAMEO INNOTECH SEAMEO INNOTECH (2012). Decentralization of Educational Management in Southeast Asia Shahani, L. R. (2015, June 15). The challenges of basic education: Dealing with K-12. The Philippine Star. Retrieved August 31, 2016, from http://www.philstar.com/opinion/2015/06/15/1466151/challenges-basic-educationdealing-k-12 Spaulding, S. (1988). Prescriptions for Educational Reform: Dilemmas of the real world. Comparative Education, 24(1), 5-17. doi: 10.1080/0305006880240102 SunStar Davao. (2015, May 15). Duterte belittles K-12 objectives. SunStar Davao. Retrieved August 30, 2016, from http://www.sunstar.com.ph/davao/local-news/2015/05/17/dutertebelittles-k-12-objectives-408010 UNDP. (1999). Decentralization: A Sampling of Definitions. UNDP. Weiler, H. N. (n.d.). Control Versus Legitimation: The Politics of Ambivalence. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 58 ANNEX 1. LIST OF KEY INFORMANTS Key Informant Institution Position Fr. Bienvenido Nebres Ateneo de Manila University Professor Dr. Fe Hidalgo Department of Education Former Secretary Ms. Lovelaine Basillote Philippine Business for Education Executive Director Mr. Mario Deriquito Department of Education Member of the K-12 Committee Mr. Elvin Uy Department of Education Mr. Roger B. Masapol Department of Education Former Assistant Secretary for Curriculum and Instruction Director IV, Planning Service Mr. Emiljohn Sentillas Department of Education Mr. Benito Espena Benoza SEAMEO INNOTECH ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Policy Research Specialist, Planning Service Knowledge Management and Networking 60 ANNEX 2. LIST OF FGD PARTICIPANTS Participant Institution Position Fr. Marcelo Manimtim Adamson University President Mr. Francisco Cayco Arellano University President Dr. Erna Yabut Centro Escolar University Vice President for Research Dr. Michael Alba Far Eastern University President Dr. Gloria Alberto Feati University Vice President for Research Dr. Vincent Fabella Jose Rizal University President Dr. Denisia Villaos Manuel L. Quezon University Vice President for Research Dr. Reynaldo Vea Mapua Institute of Technology President Mr. Teodoro Ocampo National University President Dr. Ester Garcia University of the East President Dr. Pilar Romero University of Santo Tomas Principal, Senior High School ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 61 ANNEX 3. LIST OF RTD PARTICIPANTS Participant Institution Position Noe Enriquez Adamson University Planning Director Francisco Cayco Arellano University President Juan Miguel Luz Asia Institute of Management School Head, Stephen Zuellig Graduate School of Development Kit Atienza Australian Embassy Senior Program Officer Justin Modesto CHED Consultant Karol Mark Yee CHED Program Director Elvin Uy DepEd Former Assistant Secretary Dr. Rosalie Masilang DepEd – Basic Curriculum Department SVEPS Dr. Marilette Almayda DepEd – Curriculum Instruction Director III Michelle Jean Renido DOLE Conciliator-Mediator Grace Baldoza DOLE- K-12 AMP PMO Deputy Program Manager Lovely Rosenil Dumagan DOLE- K-12 AMP PMO Technical Staff Joseph Richardson Tana House of Representatives- Higher Education Technical Staff Mylene Macapagal Landbank Assistant Vice President Zenaida Rodenas Landbank Activity Head Josan Faderoga Landbank Gene David Landbank Department Manager Abel Ubaldo Lyceum of the Philippines Manila Faculty Ria Lascano PACU Technical Staff Dylan Dellosa PBEd Rhodora Ferrer PEAC Executive Director Martin Ferrer QED Chief Operations Officer Kit Castillo TAF Project Officer Nes Rasgo TAF TAF Consultant Ky Johnson TAF Deputy Country Representative Imelda Taganas TESDA Executive Director Dr. Esther Garcia University of the East President ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 ANNEX 4. THE POLITICS AND GOVERNANCE OF EDUCATION REFORM: THE CASE OF K-TO-12 ANNE LAN K. CANDELARIA With Lorenzo P. Abaquin Note: Annex 4 is an expanded version of Chapters 2 and 4. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 TABLE OF CONTENTS Introduction 66 A. Education Governance and Globalization 69 B. Methodology 72 C. Analytical Frame 73 Part 1: The Quest for Improving Education: Historical Sketch of the K-to 12-Program 74 A. Early Reforms 74 B. Post-EDSA Reforms 78 C. Formalizing the K-to-12 Reform Policy 91 D. Reform Drivers 97 Part 2: What Measures Matter 103 Part 3: Education as a Shared Responsibility 117 A. Decentralization and Education 117 B. Decentralization of Education in the Philippines 120 C. Comparative Sketch of Education Systems across Regimes 123 Part 4: Policy Recommendations and Conclusion 129 References 131 Appendix 135 ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Introduction The education landscape in the Philippines has evolved dramatically, from a community-based apprentice-type of learning during the pre-colonial period to a more centrally managed public educational system today. In SY 2015-2016, there are 23.9 million children ages 5 to 18 years old enrolled in basic education. Over the last 5 years, annual growth rate in terms of enrollment in the elementary level is 1.4%, while in the secondary level enrollment growth average is at 5.7%. Table 1. Enrollment in Basic Education from SY 2010-2011 to 2015-2016 (in Millions) 2010-11 2011-12 2012-13 1.7 2.1 2.2 2.3 2.2 2.1 Elementary 14.2 14.1 14.5 14.5 14.5 14.4 Secondary 7.0 7.1 7.1 7.2 7.3 7.4 22.9 23.3 23.8 24.0 24.0 23.9 Kindergarten Total 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 Source: Department of Education (2016) In the last two decades, the Department of Education (DepEd) enjoys the highest allocation of the national budget in terms of absolute value. However, as a percent of the budget, allocation in the last 16 years have been mostly steady, except in 2007 where education is 19.8% of the total budget, about 6% more than the average as shown in Table 2. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Table 2. DepEd Allocation as a Percent of Total Government Budget (FY 2000-2016) Fiscal Year In Billion Pesos Percentage of share Growth Rate from the National (% increase from previous Budget fiscal year) 2000 82.7 14.03 2001 no data no data no data 2002 95.2 13.5 n/a 2003 95.4 13.2 0.2 2004 107.5 13.7 12.6 2005 102.6 12.3 -4.5 2006 112 11.3 9.1 2007 126.8 19.8 13.2 2008 138.2 12.2 8.9 2009 158.2 12.3 14.5 2010 161.4 11.4 2.0 2011 192.3 12.6 19.1 2012 201.8 13.2 4.5 2013 232.5 14.6 15.2 2014 281.7 13.6 21.1 2015 321.1 14.1 13.9 2016 411.9 14.4 28.2 Sources: Department of Budget and Management (www.dbm.gov.ph) www.philrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Still-a-non-priority.pdf (for FY 2004) www.philrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Stating-the-Obvious.pdf (for FY 2006) It is therefore not surprising that the burgeoning of the education sector brings with it complex set of problems. Bautista, Bernardo and Ocampo (2009) cites that as early as 1925, problems such as high dropout rates, low pupil performance, poor teacher quality, irrelevant learning materials, excessive centralization and lack of financial resources were already pointed out in The Monroe Survey commissioned by the United States. Subsequent papers on the state of education in the country did not depart much from the sentiments of the Monroe Survey despite numerous attempts by the Philippine state to reform its educational system. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 In 2010, the government of introduced the K-12 as part of the Aquino administration’s Ten-point Education Agenda. Among other things, this reform intends to improve the chances of Filipino graduates in finding work here or abroad, entrepreneurship or pursuing university. Part of the strategy was the addition of two more years of high school aside from making Kindergarten mandatory. This increased the country’s required basic education schooling from 10 to 13 years. The program was adopted in SY 2011-2012 and is currently in its sixth year of implementation. Many welcomed the K-to-12 as a long overdue reform but critics of this program were quick to point out that the additional years of schooling adds unnecessary financial burden on the part of the families, among others. It is within this context that this paper located. Education reform is a long and tedious process, influenced by a complex set of factors. Policymaking in developing countries has been known to be elite-driven, where preferences of societal values such as education do not necessarily reflect those of the majority. More recently, there is the ongoing debate within policy circles in education about the effects of regional integration in the knowledge economy of nations. The historical analysis of the context and process of education reform is useful in nuancing the roles and relationship of actors who simultaneously operate on different policy spheres. This paper is divided into four main parts. The first part provides a narrative sketch of the history of K-to-12. In doing so, it aims to do two things: (1) explore the factors that influence education reform in the Philippines; and (2) determine how these factors influence the reform policy in terms of its design. By design, we refer to the goals, framework, tools, targets and implementation aspects of the reform policy. Understanding the various factors that affect education reforms in the country, the second part attempts to offer an inclusive set of indicators that intends to assess the educational, economic and political impact and outcomes of K-to-12. In doing so, we assume that education is a system, shaped by various goals and constrained by a myriad of factors other than organizational or bureaucratic. The third part explores the sharing of responsibilities of education between those who designed the reform and those who are tasked to implement it. Currently, discussions on how to re-imagine shared governance of education are active. Thus, ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 we attempt to further this discussion with possible institutional and decision-making implications on the K-to-12 given plausible scenarios. Finally, some policy recommendations are offered as a conclusion. The overall significance of this paper, therefore, is not only to capture the reform narrative of the K-to-12 but to underline the important link between research and policy work, a convergence that do not always happen in developing country as pointed out by Gaerlan and Bernardo (2013). A. Education Governance and Globalization Education reform is not a one-box-fits-all project. Gaerlan and Bernardo (2013) notes that it has in fact taken various forms as well as direction. The manner of conducting public affairs in the last three decades has changed quite dramatically. Public sector reforms in the 1980s and 1990s have led to a shift from hierarchical bureaucracy to a more horizontal type of interaction that increased the role of non-state actors in the delivery of public goods and services. The word 'governance' can be used to capture these changes that took place. It can also be used to describe new patterns of rules that arise from the evolving role of the state and its relationship with non-state actors. Many regard the classic work of James Rosenau as a good starting point in defining governance. Hufty (2011) notes that there is almost no commonly agreed definition of governance but there are three groups of approaches: • as synonymous with government with an explicitly hierarchical meaning • as a normative framework, [i.e., as a political and methodological tool associated with the World Bank, where it is used to identify the effective sites of power (Smouts 1998)] used to evaluate the norms and practices of States or to assess certain applications for funding • as an analytical framework for non-hierarchical coordination systems, following corporate governance, global governance and modern governance schools of thought This study uses an alternative approach to understanding governance called “Governance Analytical Framework” or GAF. This is the work of the North-South research program of the Swiss National Center of Competence in Research, proposed by Marc Hufty. GAF views governance as the "processes of interaction and decision ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 making among the actors involved in a collective problem that lead to the creation, reinforcement, or reproduction of social norms and institutions" (Hufty, 2011, 405). In other words, governance is not a normative or prescriptive concept but a social fact that aims to analyze public policy as systems of social norms and collective action. It is not a priori either good or bad and not to be used as a political tool to change societies. It is not a model, but an intermediary variable that affects the dependent variable but at the same time is affected by the independent variable. Finally, it is a practical realistic methodological tool that is interdisciplinary and reflexive. There are five important factors that GAF considers important when analyzing public polices – (1) problems as a social construction, (2) actors whose collective action leads to the formulation of the social norms, (3) norms that guide, prescribe, and sanction both collective and individual behavior, (4) nodal points or physical and/or virtual interfaces where problems, processes, actors, and norms converge, and (5) processes (Hufty 2011, p. 407). Particularly in education, governance revolves around school improvement and effectiveness concerns. Studies in education governance therefore focus on how to make schools work, ascertained by how well it is able to promote positive increase or significant gain of students’ learning abilities. The business of making schools work is even more important in underdeveloped countries where a majority of the population lives under unacceptable human conditions. For people living in poverty, education is their only way out. Hence, over the last two decades, the quest for school improvement in developing countries spread like wildfire. School improvement and effectiveness governance is generally organized along the goal of equity, factors that improve school’s organization, processes and culture, as well as productivity. Indicators for success centered on access, school-site management, parental choice, community involvement, and improved test scores among others. Globalization and Education The implications of globalization and the emergence of a borderless world in education are immense. Postmodern education theorists such as Edwards and Usher (1997) suggested that globalization usher the demise of a nationally controlled ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 educational system to give way to a regionally or globally determined norm that is lodged within a framework of the market. With this, the role of education as a transmitter of national culture, critical to state formation, becomes displaced by a shift of its to servicing the global economy. The Education for All movement or EFA, conceived in the year 1990 during the World Conference on Education for all in Jomtien, Thailand, highlights this contradiction. Launched by UNESCO, UNICEF, and the World Bank, EFA is a global commitment to provide quality basic education for all children, youth, and adults. Ten years later, the international community met again in Dakar, and with many countries far from reaching the goals, pledged their commitment to meet six internationally agreed goals by 2015. These goals are: (1) expanding and improving comprehensive early childhood care and education, (2) ensuring all children have access to complete, free and compulsory quality primary education, (3) equitable access to appropriate learning and life-skills programs, (4) improvement in levels of adult literacy, (5) achieve gender equality in primary and secondary education, and (6) improve all aspects of the quality of education and ensure excellence of all so that all recognized and measurable learning outcomes are achieved by all, especially in literacy, numeracy and essential life skills (UNESCO, Dakar Framework for Action, 2000). EFA goals contribute to the achievement of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) adopted in 2000 and is closely connected as well with other international frameworks such as the UN Development Assistance Framework and the Poverty Reduction Strategy Papers of the IMF and the World Bank (www.uncesco.org). Despite these global efforts to raise the quality of life around the world, there are those who look at these initiatives with critical eyes, claiming that there can be no one solution in achieving the goals. Vandemoortele (2009) observes that nations are so keen on reaching the absolute targets that they fail to recognize the domestic realities particularly in developing countries. He argues, for instance, that it is unfair to expect Africa to achieve the checklist stipulated in the MDGs because one also needs to take into account the socio-historical background of the state. It is, therefore, more difficult for Africa to achieve the development goals compared to nations who have the institutional capacity to complete the MDG checklist. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 The sentiment that there should be no “one-size-fits-all” approach in meeting the MDGs is also evident in the experience of Burkina Faso in 2003 where it was called out for not being on track to meet the second MDG (universal primary enrollment), yet the rate by which Burkina Faso has expanded its elementary education is more than twice than that of Western historical experience (Easterly, 2009). This shows that a nation not being able to meet the set targets does not necessarily mean a “failure” on the part of that nation. Drawing from Easterly and Vandermootele’s assessments of the Millennium Development Goals, it is clear that while there is an effort to establish a global standard for human development, policymakers must not be detached from local realities as each nation has its own institutional capacities and, likewise shortcomings. Thus, alongside the pursuit for a globalized set of values and norms must be the recognition of what domestic institutions can and cannot achieve because there remains to be disparities among the capacities of nations (Grindle, 2000). B. Methodology This is a qualitative study that utilized process tracing, elite interviewing, and participant observations as methods of inquiry. Process tracing is considered advantageous for analyzing complex political phenomena placing emphasis on discovering the causal mechanisms that connect the independent and dependent variables, especially in a case study (George and Bennett 2005). It requires the critical examination of various written sources to be able to infer causal relationships. Tansey (2007) notes however the importance of elite interviews in process tracing as they are also a valuable source of information about the political process of interest. Elite interview is useful to corroborate information cited in other sources, to establish what a set of actors thinks, to reconstruct events or a set of events, and to make inferences about a larger population’s decisions (Tansey 2007). Meanwhile, participant observation is useful for understanding the context that affects a study’s participants, their relationships among and between other people, contexts, ideas, norms and events (Jorgensen, 1989). We used process tracing and key informant interviews to reconstruct the events that led to the K-to-12 reform. Participant observation and key informant interviews were used to understand local education governance challenges and opportunities among local government officials. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 This study therefore drew from both written and oral sources of information. We interviewed past and current DepEd officials, other education policy elites including those in the private sector, and key local government officials. We also conducted documentary analysis to help reconstruct events and make sense of the debates and discourses surrounding current education reform efforts vis-à-vis local governance. Various online and written records of the DepEd, SEAMEO Innotech and other organizations were collected and analyzed including the proceedings of the Senate Committee on Education, Arts and Culture conducted in 2012. C. Analytical Frame This work acknowledges that education reform is part and parcel of socioeconomic reforms. Hence, initial data analysis for this paper is loosely framed along Riddell’s (1999) proposition that educational development and reform be viewed from the educational, the economic, and the political. The educational lens focuses on access, quality and equity. Indicators for this lens follow the evidence suggested by educational research, particularly school effectiveness and school improvement studies. However, it must be pointed out that frameworks developed along this lens are heavily informed by experiences of schools in the West, or English-speaking countries. The economic lens, on the other hand, looks at internal and external efficiency. These relates to the correlation between the input and output of education and performance incentives. Likewise, economic lens can also provide good picture of the absorptive capacity of the educational system in terms its ability to utilize the inputs vis-à-vis producing the expecting learners outcomes. Finally, the political lens is primarily concerned with process and issues of implementation, whose interests are being met, and what the role of the state in the reform process. The political lens is an important guiding frame when understanding the role of power (i.e., behavior of actors) in shaping and mainstreaming reform initiatives. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 PART 1. The Quest for Improving Education: Historical Sketch of the K-to-12 Program The K-to-12 Program is considered to be the biggest education reform in the country in recent years - an educational reform that sought to improve the Philippine basic education curriculum and lengthen its years. In 2011, the Department of Education introduced this as part of the Ten-Point Education agenda of then newly elected Benigno Simeon Aquino III. Two years later, in 2013, The K-12 program was officially institutionalized through the passage of Republic Act 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Law. Concerns over the adequacy and content of Philippine basic education, however, began even before the educational reform initiatives of the Aquino Administration. Rather, it was a product of a very long, often subtle, iterative, sometimes disjointed decision-making process. A. Early Reforms Two studies were commissioned during the American period. The Monroe Study of 1925, the earliest recorded study on the state of education in the country pointed out problems such as high dropout rates, low pupil performance, poor teacher quality, and irrelevant learning materials. Use of the English language as a medium of instruction was also raised as Filipino students struggled with lessons in the classrooms. The Prosser Study of 1930, on the other hand, highlighted the need to strengthen vocational and technical skills training to develop a cadre of citizens to fill the manpower needs of local industries including agriculture. The state of Philippine education post-American occupation faced almost the same concerns, as expressed in the 1949 UNESCO Survey and the 1960 Swanson Survey, as then – the problem in the use of the English language in the classrooms, the lack of educational facilities and the quality of teachers among others. These reviews already recommended the lengthening of the years of basic education. It must be noted that since the establishment of public education by the Americans in the Philippines in 1901, primary education required at least 7 years to complete. However, through the Education Act of 1940, Grade 7 was removed because of the rising number of enrollments. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 The UNESCO Survey of 1949 reiterated the problems expressed by previous surveys while, additionally, stressing the importance of adopting a curriculum that would be able to produce students with nationalist traditions and ideals, and with the attitude for social development and participation. In 1970, the Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education expressed the need for a Philippine education geared towards productive citizenship and national development. This is aligned with UNESCO’s earlier recommendation stressing the importance of a curriculum that would be able to produce students with nationalist traditions and ideals, and with the attitude for social development and participation. During Martial Law, a secondary education program called “Cooperative Work Curriculum” was introduced through Department Order No. 6 series of 1973. This program saw the need for a work-oriented curriculum with the aim of equipping secondary school students with skills needed in employment after graduation. More so, this policy intends to strengthen nation building by producing graduates who have the skills needed in local industries or agriculture. Curricular offerings therefore were relevant to local development needs. Recommendations to restore Grade 7 in the primary level and make secondary school 5 years (or a total of 11 years of basic education) were proposed also during this time. However, Congress at that time passed Republic Act 579 which stipulated that government will only implement additional years of schooling if resources were available. The recommendations of the surveys during the early period of formal Philippine Education, illustrate a reform that is driven by education-related goals, particularly access and improvement of quality. As the country progressed as an independent nation, the narrative of reform evolved into a political one, driven by the need to produce a cadre of citizens in its pursuit of nationalist goals. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Table 3. Various studies on Philippine education prior to 1987 Study Year Published Proponent(s) Recommendations Dimension of Reform Educ Monroe Survey 1925 Paul Monroe The materials that shall be used in teaching the English language must be within the reality and background of the students. X Teacher proficiency in writing and speaking in the English language must be improved. X Prosser Survey 1930 C.A. Prosser Recommended the incorporation of vocational and skills training in the curriculum such as shop work, gardening, home economics and agriculture. UNESCO Survey 1949 Mary Trevelyan To conduct further studies on how to effectively use of English language as a medium of instruction in the classrooms. Eco X X X To create a curriculum that orients the learner to understand and appreciate Filipino traditions and prepares the child for economic productivity, family responsibility and group living. Restoration of Grade 7. SocioPol X X Increase the budget on education. Improve the quality of teachers. X X Strengthening community school movement. RA 896 or the Education Act of 1953 1953 Swanson Survey 1960 J. Chester ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 X Recommended the restoration of Grade 7. X Reiterated the problems of previous surveys such as the problems in the use of the X 76 Swanson English language as the medium of instructions in classrooms, the poor quality of education and teachers. Observed problems in the education of minorities and adaptation of foreign educational methods to local realities. X X Recommended the increase of investments for primary and secondary school. Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education Survey of Outcome of Elementary Education (SOUTELE) 1970 1973 Ferdinand Marcos Reiterated the problems identified in previous surveys in particular the language problem. X X Recommended the reorientation of education to produce manpower for the national economy and in order to address unemployment in the country. X X Training of out of school youths. X X Recommended the reorganization of an over centralized education system – through this the Bureau of Higher Education (BHE), Bureau of Nonformal Education (BNFE), Educational Project Implementation Task Force (EDPITAF), and the National Manpower and Youth Council (NMYC) were created. X UNESCO and Revealed that students were performing poorly in basic reading, writing and UNICEF quantitative skills. X X Linked inequalities in socioeconomic status to differences in educational outcome. Revealed that there are no significant improvements in terms of educational performance between Grade 5 and Grade 6 students. Hypothesized that the cause for this is curriculum redundancy meaning that the courses being taught in Grades 5 and 6 offer the same intellectual skills. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 X 77 B. Post-EDSA Reforms A more developmental take on education reform emerged after the 1987 People Power revolution where education is considered the main responsibility of the State. Under Section I of Article XIV of then newly adopted 1987 Constitution, it is declared that: “The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” This made access to quality education as the centerpiece in designing the reforms needed and free public education in elementary and high school has now become a right guaranteed by the State.2 What made this period of education reform unique from the previous one was the involvement of the Philippines in several international education movements. In 1990, the Philippines committed itself to the Education for All (EFA) movement. This movement was initiated in 1990 at the World Conference on Education for All convened by highly influential development organizations - UNESCO, UNDP, UNICEF and the World Bank. Driven by six goals, the movement sought the commitment of nation states to achieve the following by the year 2000: (1) expansion of early childhood care and developmental activities (2) universal access to and completion of basic education (3) reduction of the adult illiteracy rate (4) improvement of learning achievement (5) expansion of provision of basic education and training in other essential skills required by youth and adults (6) knowledge, skills, and values required for better living and sound and sustainable development 2 The right to education is not embodied in the 1935 Constitution. In addition, the 1973 Constitution merely placed education as a social service that the State was supposed to provide. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 78 Using the above framework as guide for educational reforms and development, the Philippines identified and to committed to the achievement of three specific goals and areas for improvement: (1) Early Childhood Care and Development (2) Universal Primary Education (3) Alternative Learning Systems In 1991, the start of the EFA decade, the Congressional Committee on Education or EDCOM was organized under the administration of former President Corazon Aquino. The committee reviewed and assessed the state of Philippine education by holding regional consultations in all fourteen administrative regions with stakeholders in education such as parents, students, teachers, school administrators, officials from the DECS regional offices, business industry and local government officials, representatives from NGOs, civic and religious leaders, workers and farmer groups. The EDCOM Report found that the Philippine government was not spending enough for education in comparison to the countries in the ASEAN. As such, there was seen to be a lack of access to formal and non-formal education in depressed regions. The EDCOM also reported that achievement levels are low and mismatches occur between the supply and demand for educated and trained manpower. As a result, the country’s educational system was re-organized and a trifocalized structure was introduced in 2001. RA 7722 created the Commission of Higher Education that was tasked to lead and manage higher education of the country. RA 7796, on the other hand, established the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) that deals with postsecondary vocational and technical skills training. Finally, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) was streamlined into the Department of Education (DepEd), a body whose duty is to manage the country’s 10-year basic education. Subsequent laws were also passed in order to improve the quality of Philippine teachers, such as RA 7784, “An Act to Strengthen Teacher Education in the Philippines by Establishing Centers of Excellence Creating a Teacher Education Council, etc.”, RA 7836 “An Act to Strengthen the Regulation and Supervision of the Practice of the Teaching Profession and Prescribing a Licensure Examination for Teachers and for Other Purposes” and RA 7797 “An Act to Lengthen the School Calendar from 200 days to not more than 220 Class Days”. Likewise the number of ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 79 elementary and high schools was increased especially in towns with no public or private schools, while teachers’ salary were also increased. The efforts undertaken during the EDCOM responded to the goals of the EFA movement. The building of more educational facilities sought to reach out to far-flung areas in order to provide access to basic education to more children. Quality teachers would aid in the improvement of learning achievement. The institutionalization of TESDA would see to it that practical and technological skill sets would be provided to address the mismatch in manpower demands. In the same decade, two more studies were undertaken to further review the state of Philippine education – the Philippines Education Sector Study (PESS) of 1998 and the Presidential Commission on Educational Reform. The PESS was a study by the Philippine government with the Asian Development Bank, and the World Bank while the PCER was organized through EO No. 46. The findings of both studies saw similarities with what the previous EDCOM reported. Issues such as the inadequacy of schools and educational facilities, lack of access to education especially by poor households and communities and effectiveness of teachers were highlighted by the PESS and PCER. However, both PESS and PCER additionally emphasized the need to involve the private sector more in improving the quality of education. This decade, hence, saw the implementation of internationally assisted projects such as the TEEP (The Third Elementary Education Project), SEDIP (Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project), and SEMP (Social Expenditure Management Projects), financed by organizations such as the World Bank, GOP, JBIC, and ADB, with the goals of reaching out to poor communities and providing them with facilities and textbooks. Communities and private institutions also played their part in the reform process with projects such as the Brigada Eskwela in 2002 under former education secretary Edilberto de Jesus and Adopt-a-School Program. Though education reforms early in the decade attempted to work within the framework of nation-building and social development, the reform narratives later on became more about external efficiency concerns (i.e., graduates being unable to meet labor market’s expectations) as the country found itself committed to various international accords. As these accords require the country to be more integrated into the global community, it seemingly dis-integrated the developmental objectives of ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 80 education reform. For instance in 2001, under Education secretary Raul Roco, the contents and structure of the curriculum was changed. The RBEC or the Revised Basic Education Curriculum was implemented to address the lack of relevance of education and the underperformance of students in early grade levels – issues that were expressed in the EDCOM, PESS and PCER. With the RBEC in place, the number of subject were cut down into fewer learning areas, namely Filipino, English, Science, Mathematics, and Makabayan. The cutting down of learning courses allowed schools to allot more hours in the teaching of these subjects. The Philippine government continued its commitments to the EFA movement up until the decade following the EFA 2000. In 2006, still working under the framework of the EFA movement, four universal goals and objectives to be met by the year 2015 were identified: (1) Universal Coverage of Out-of-School-Youths and Adults; (2) Universal School Participation and Elimination of Dropouts and Repeaters in Grades 1-3; (3) Universal Completion of the full basic education cycle with satisfactory annual achievement levels; and (4) Total Community Commitment to attainment of basic education competencies for all. Internal efficiency, however, remained a nagging concern, driven by the continuous decline of student performance indicators despite the implementation of several reform policies. This resulted in the decentralization of school improvement responsibilities to the community, thereby redistributing some of the (state) power from the center to the periphery. A concrete attempt to raise the quality of learning outcomes in English, Science and Mathematics among incoming first year high school students is the Bridge Program, implemented in 2004. The program asked students graduating from elementary and who have poor academic proficiency, as determined by the High School Readiness Test (HSRT), to consider another extra year of schooling (known as the “bridge year”) to prepare them academically for secondary school. However, the program was not able to gain the support of both parents and teachers and was shelved eventually by the DepEd by the end of the school year. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 81 In 2004, then Secretary Abad launched the Schools First Initiative (SFI) which encouraged the improvement of basic education outcomes through a more participatory approach. In principle, SFI shifted the reform strategy from departmentled (top-down) to school-led (bottom-up). The SFI became the impetus of the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA). It is a set of reform frameworks that intends to address issues in education in a long-term ‘systems’ approach rather than piecemeal programs. This agenda came with 5 Key Reform Thrusts (KRTs), namely: (1) School-Based Management, (2) Teacher Education Development, (3) National Learning Strategies, (4) Quality Assurance and Accountability and Monitoring Evaluation and (5) Organizational Development with Resource Mobilization and Management and Information Communication Technology. BESRA is the Philippines’ strategy to achieve the EFA goals by 2015. The Presidential Task Force on Education (PTFE) was organized by former President Arroyo in 2007 through EO 652. Through the PTFE, the Philippine Main Education Highway working under the framework of a “Knowledge Based Economy” was introduced. Unlike previous reforms, the Philippine Main Education Highway puts emphasis on producing competent citizens equipped with skills for industries within and outside the country. Through what was referred to as the harmonization of a “trifocalized” Philippine education system, technical and vocational education was strengthened and linkages between tertiary education institutions and industries were tightened. The emergence of the PTFE and its plans for Philippine education coincided with the Philippines commitment to the ASEAN 2015 during the ASEAN Summit in 2007. The ASEAN 2015 seeks to build a more economic and socio-culturally integrated ASEAN region. With education reforms being steered towards the goal of producing competent citizens in both domestic and international industries, the Philippines is fulfilling its role being a member of the greater ASEAN community. Strengthening and improving technical and vocational education would eventually be continued under the leadership President Aquino through his Ten-Point Education Agenda. It was here that the agenda of adding more years of schooling and re-tooling ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 82 the curriculum to address the demands of the 21st century global economy was crystalized. Building on the BESRA framework and other previous reform attempts, such as the Philippine Main Education High-Way under former President Gloria Macapagal-Arroyo, and former President Benigno Aquino III’s Ten-Point Education Agenda, from which the K to 12 agenda emerged. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 83 Table 4. Educational Reform Policy Landscape post-1987 Policy Inputs Name & Nature Year Proponent(s) Recommendations EDCOM (Committee to review Philippine Education) 1991 Created by a Joint Resolution of the Eighth Philippine Congress Development of the Filipino Child Making quality basic education accessible to everyone Policy Outputs Edu X Enhance Higher Education Ensure a sustainable and effective management of basic education X Policy Name Technical Education and Skills Development Act of 1994 X Develop a competent, productive citizenry Improve teacher and administrator status and quality Socio- Eco Pol Type Republic Act 7796 Year Implemented 1994 Features An act creating a body that would be in charge of developing technical and vocational education in the Philippines X X X X Better planning, coordination, ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 84 monitoring and evaluation of education and training X Financing education X Higher Education Act of 1994 Republic Act 7722 1994 An act creating the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), a body that shall formulate and recommend programs on higher education and research. Set minimum standards for higher education institutions. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 An Act to Strengthen Teacher Education in the Philippines by Establishing Centers of Excellence Creating a Teacher Education Council Republic Act 7784 1994 Aims to provide and ensure quality education through the strengthening of teacher training and education by establishing a national system of excellence for teacher education. An Act to Strengthen the Republic Act 7836 1994 To promote, develop and professionalize teaching 85 Regulation and Supervision of the Practice of the Teaching Profession and Prescribing a Licensure Examination for Teachers and for Other Purposes PESS 1998 ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Address the textbook shortage in basic education by reducing acquisition inefficiencies X through the regulation of the licensure examination. An Act to Republic Act Lengthen the 7797 School Calendar from 200 days to not more than 220 Class Days 1994 An act increasing the number of school days. Philippine NonInternationally Formal Education funded project Project 1994-2002 Enhancing access to education by supporting nonformal education programs. Specially focused on improving the literacy and numeracy skills of the uneducated. Project in Basic Education (PROBE) Internationally funded project 1996-2001 Focused on the quality of teaching and teacher training. Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) Internationally funded project 1998 A project funded by the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) and the World Bank (WB) that targeted the poorest 86 Identify new investments in primary education for disadvantaged areas and groups Improve teacher effectiveness Tap private sector capacity to invest in secondary education ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 provinces in the Philippines. The project provided support for school building construction and maintenance, training of teachers and school-based management. X X X Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP) Internationally funded project 2000 Funded by the Asian Development Bank (ADB) and the World Bank (WB) which covered 26 poor provinces in the Philippines. Similar to TEEP, this project provided support for school resources acquisition, teacher training and school management in secondary education. Basic Education Assistance for Mindanao (BEAM) Internationally funded project 2002 Funded by the Australian Agency for International Aid (AusAid) which targeted indigenous and Muslim populations of Mindanao. It assisted in capacity building of personnel, curriculum and material development, and access to quality education. 87 PCER 2000 Executive Order No. 46 Strengthen teacher competencies at the basic education level X Creation of a National Council for Education Use of the vernacular or the Lingua Franca as medium of instruction for Grade 1 X X Social Expenditure Management Projects (SEMP) Internationally funded project 2000 Financed by the World Bank (WB) to provide funds for textbooks, equipment, teachers’ manuals, schools and classrooms. Also provided support for information systems and human resource management. Restructured Basic Education Curriculum Program (RBEC) Department Order (No. 25, s. 2002) 2002 Initiated by then education Secretary Raul Roco which aimed to revise the basic education curriculum to allot more hours on subjects that focus on basic skills such as Filipino, English, Science and Mathematics. High School Readiness Test/Bridge Program DepEd Memo 140, s. of 2004 2004 Recommended that incoming high school students undergo an extra year of academic preparation before enrolling for secondary education. However, the Bridge Program was not supported by parents and teachers thus was eventually terminated by the Department of Education. Creation of the National Education ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 88 Evaluation and Testing System X Schools First Initiative Sought to improve basic education outcomes by encouraging schools and the community to work closely together. Three components: 1. Enhancement of Learning 2. More Resources for Learning 3. Focused Organization for Learning BESRA 2006 Department of 5 Key Reform Education Thrusts: 1) School Based Management 2) Teacher Education Development 3) National Learning Strategies 4) Quality Assurance and Accountability and Monitoring and Evaluation 5) Organizational Development with Resource Mobilization and ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 X Presidential Task Force on Education Executive Order (No. 652, s. 2007) 2007 Created the “Philippine Main Education Highway” as a framework for education reforms. This framework emphasized the need for the “trifocalization” of the DepEd, CHED, and TESDA to develop global competencies in technical and vocational skills. Recommended tighter linkages between higher education institutions and industries. 89 Management and Information Communication Technology ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Kindergarten Education Act Republic Act (10157) 2013 An act making pre-school education mandatory. Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 Republic Act (10533) 2013 Also known as the K to 12, where the Philippine basic education cycle was lengthened from 10 to 12 years. Likewise, overhauled the basic education curriculum. 90 C. Formalizing the K-to-12 Reform Policy In public policy, agenda-setting is when problems and solutions either gain or loose the public and the policy elite’s attention (Birkland 2011). An agenda is different from an issue or policy problem because the former is a collection of the latter, framed by different understandings of causes, symbols and solutions, and has come into the attention of policy makers. Concretely, the various issues plaguing the Philippines’ educational system has always been known, as evidenced by the numerous studies identified in this paper. Attempts to solve these problems, although diffused and at times sporadic, have also been offered by the government across several regimes. However, it has been noted that the need for a large-scale reform is only a recent agenda. As one former official of the DepEd said: “Basic education was doing all kinds of efforts. There were many international projects that we were implementing. And then we change department secretaries almost every year. There were no consistency in the things that we are doing. There were many reforms (prior to K to 12) but we realize we are not achieving anything if we don’t legislate.” Owing to this experience where the biggest challenge was in fact political, several bills were passed in both Lower and Upper House of the Philippine Congress, at the beginning of the administration of Benigno Aquino III in 2010. These efforts attempted to consolidate the various demands to reform our country’s educational system. In 2012, two hearings were held by the Senate Committee on Education, one on February 16th and the other on June 5th. These were attended by representatives from the Department of Education (DepEd), Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), Steering Committee on K to 12, Student Council Alliance of the Philippines, the Coordinating Council of Private Educational Association, Inc. (COCOPEA), Catholic Educational Association of the Philippines (CEAP), National Institute for Science and Math Education (NISMED) and heads of selected schools and universities. There were several bills filed by the 15th Congress, beginning with HB 2182 in 2010 and SB 2713 in 2011 as observed in Table 5. Although the need to improve the quality of our education as well as align the graduates’ skills with those that are needed in the workplace were mentioned in all bills, legislators were not in synch ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 91 with regard to specification as to where (and if needed so) the additional years were to be placed. This lack of agreement was evident as well from the different stakeholders during the interviews. Some of the interviewees strongly expressed the need to add two more years of education, with one respondent saying that it is like “adding two more floors into a collapsing building”. Others were quick to point out that improving on what our country currently has (i.e., textbooks, teacher quality, etc.) is a better starting point. For those who said that additional years were needed, there is also no consensus in the beginning as to where this will be placed. Some iteration include the additional years at the pre-school level, restoration of Grade 7, and the establishment of a Junior College instead of a Senior High School. What finally was adopted into law in 2012 was HB 6643 sponsored by Hon. Salvador Escudero III and SB 3286 co-authored by Senators Edgardo Angara, Sr., Franklin Drilon, Ralph Recto and Loren Legarda. Among other things, Republic Act 10533, otherwise known as the Enhanced Basic Education Law, expanded the basic education offering of the country from ten years to thirteen years, beginning with mandatory Kindergarten, six years of Primary Education, four years of Junior High School and two years of Senior High School (1+6+4+2). According to one respondent, the main reason for adopting this design is political because the constitution guarantees free public education only in the basic education level. An additional two years outside of basic education does not obligate the State to finance it, and might therefore lead to inaccessibility of education, especially among the poor. Known as the K to 12 program, the overall goal is to produce holistically developed Filipinos with 21st century skills such as information, media and technology, learning and innovation, communication, and life and career. To do so, the following features are implemented: 1. Universal Kindergarten 2. Contextualization and enhancement of the curriculum to make it more relevant to learners 3. Spiral progression to ensure integrated and seamless learning 4. Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education in the early primary years ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 92 5. Specialized upper secondary education, or Senior High School, where students can choose from four tracks: academic, technical-vocational-livelihood, sports, and arts. These features are designed to prepare learners for four curriculum exits: higher education, employment, entrepreneurship and mid-level skills development. What this new program does is to streamline several unmet education and economic needs, particularly the call to improve the quality of graduates for a globalized world of work. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 93 Table 5. Bills Filled from 2010 to 2012 leading to the K to 12 SB # / HB# Year HB 2182 2010 Proponent(s) Eulogio Magsaysay Jr. Aims Features To improve the education system that is considered substandard and incomplete. A curriculum designed to equip students with skills in the tracks of their choosing (academic, business or technology) To ensure that students are prepared for tertiary education or for the world of work. A mandatory 12-year education cycle for both public and private school students. Does not specify where to put the +2 HB 4219 2011 Feliciano Belmonte Jr. To improve the poor quality of basic education in the Philippines. To design a decongested curriculum to address the underperformance of students in achievement tests. To address the problems in the mutual recognition of qualifications that OFWs face. Does not specify which part of the education cycle to put the +2 years. To change the perception that secondary education is not just a preparatory stage for tertiary education but also for the world of work. The additional two years will ensure that graduates are more mature and are of legal age to enter the workforce. HB 6643 2012 Salvador Escudero III ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 To provide quality education. One year kindergarten, 6 years primary education, 6 years secondary education To see to it that graduates can "co-exist in fruitful harmony with local and global communities". Decongested and seamless curriculum. To prepare students for the world of work. Curriculum that is oriented to 21st century skills. To change the perception that secondary education is not just a preparatory stage for tertiary education but also for the world of work. Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) Allows schools to hire graduates of Math, Science, 94 Engineering and other degrees to address the shortages of teacher provided that they pass the LET within 5 years of hiring. Allows schools to hire TESDA graduates provided that they have certifications from TESDA and undergo training with DEPED. Schools must have regular career advocacy activities. Expansion of Expanded Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (E-GASTPE) SB 2713 2011 Ralph G. Recto To prepare students for formal education and to address the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTBMLE) dropout problem which is more prevalent in the early years of basic education (Grades 1 to 3). Proposes +2 in Early Childhood education (Nursery and Kindergarten) Restoration of Grade 7 SB 3258 2012 Loren Legarda Address the low quality of Philippine education. Ensure that graduates are able to "coexist in fruitful harmony with local and global communities. To change the perception that secondary education is not just a preparatory stage for tertiary education but also for the world of work. Mandatory kindergarten, 6 years elementary, 6 years secondary MTBMLE for the first three years Decongested and seamless curriculum Allows schools to hire graduates of Math, Science, Engineering and other degrees to address the shortages of teacher provided that they pass the LET within 5 years of hiring. Allows schools to hire TESDA graduates provided that they have certifications from TESDA and undergo training with DEPED. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 95 Schools must have regular career advocacy activities. Expansion of Expanded Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (E-GASTPE) SB 3286 2012 Edgardo Angara, Sr. Franklin Drilon Ralph Recto Loren Legarda Address the low quality of Philippine education. Mandatory kinder, 6 years elementary, 6 years secondary To see to it that graduates can "co-exist in fruitful harmony with local and global communities". MTBMLE for the first three years Decongested and seamless curriculum To prepare students for the world of work. To change the perception that secondary education is not just a preparatory stage for tertiary education but also for the world of work. Allows schools to hire graduates of Math, Science, Engineering and other degrees to address the shortages of teacher provided that they pass the LET within 5 years of hiring. Allows schools to hire TESDA graduates provided that they have certifications from TESDA and undergo training with DEPED. Schools must have regular career advocacy activities. Expansion of Expanded Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (E-GASTPE) ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 96 D. Reform Drivers As mentioned, the agenda of adding more years to Philippine basic education is not entirely new, but the conditions of the 21st century helped transition it from a longstanding agenda into a long-term public policy. Birkland (2011) asserts that there are several levels of agenda, beginning from the agenda universe that contains all issuerelated ideas that can be discussed in a broader context. This universe is then filtered and the more politically and socially acceptable ideas then move on as systemic agenda. Ideas that are explicitly taken up for active and serious consideration by concerned governmental institutions are called institutional agenda. Finally, decision agenda are those set of ideas that are articulated in a proposed policy instrument that is about to be acted upon by a governmental body. Following this argument, three reform drivers can be observed: (1) international commitments; (2) bureaucratic stability; and (3) legislative support. 1. International Commitments What is obvious is that beginning the 1990s international commitments were beginning to be a regular undertaking by the Philippine state. Table 6 illustrates a historical sketch of the reform programs undertaken by the Philippines from 1925 up to the present vis-à-vis systematic studies as well as international agreements signed. Consistent with the observations of Edwards and Usher (1997), it seems international commitments were the most important drivers for most, if not all, of the Philippines’ education reform initiatives. The Education For All movement in 1990 ushered several large-scale reviews as well as externally funded projects by the World Bank and other development agencies. The MDG in 2000 set the stage for the establishment of a comprehensive review of options for long-term reform. Finally, the ASEAN Community 2015, accelerated the reform process because it deliberately linked the goals of education with those of the market. Particularly, the Philippines’ integration into the greater ASEAN economic community entailed the preparation of Filipino workers with skills and competencies to meet the manpower demands of the region. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 97 Table 6. Timeline of Significant Events in the Reform Process Year International Commitment/s Review/Reform 1925 Monroe Survey 1930 Prosser Survey 1936 Commonwealth Survey 1940 Education Act 1949 UNESCO Survey 1960 Swanson Survey 1970 Presidential Commission to Survey Philippine Education 1973 SOUTELE Survey 1989 Philippines Australia Science and Mathematics Project 1990 EFA 1991 EDCOM 1990 Second Elementary Education Project 1994 Philippine Non-Formal Education Project 1996 Project in Basic Education 1998 Philippine Education Sector Study 1998 Third Elementary Education Project 2000 Millennium Development Goals 2000 2001 Presidential Commission on Education Reform ASEAN Mutual Recognition Arrangement 2004 Bridge Program 2005 “Philippine Education in crisis” 2006 EFA 2015 2006 2007 Basic Education Sector Reform Program Hastening of the ASEAN Community to 2015 ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 98 2007 Philippine Main Education Highway 2010 Aquino’s 10-Point Basic Education Agenda 2012 RA 10157 or the Kindergarten Education Act 2013 RA 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act The last international agreement, the ASEAN Community 2015, produced a sense of urgency for the Philippines to generate a policy that can maximize economic liberalization of regional integration, particularly seamless movement of people and services. This problem is highlighted when interviewees from both the business sector and the Department of Education characterized Philippine basic education as an inadequate preparation for high school graduates for the world of work or entrepreneurship or higher education. Most graduates are too young to enter the labor force and that graduates are not automatically recognized as professionals abroad. As one former DepEd official puts it: “there was no mutual recognition of qualifications”. Thus, stakeholders from the private sector and industries were among those very much vocal in the push for the K to 12 reform especially in including it in President Aquino’s 10-Point Education Agenda. Even after the K to 12 was passed, businesses and industries continued to support the education reform. Certain industries in the private sector, through agreements with the Department of education, have expressed their openness to provide internships or on the job training to senior high school students who shall be undergoing the technical and vocational track. Apart from the demand for manpower in the ASEAN region, our commitment to international movements such as the Education for All and the Millennium Development Goals urged policy-makers to seek for long-term remedy for the comparatively low achievement performance of students. The Philippines ranked 34th out of 38 countries in 2nd Year HS Math and 43rd out of 46 in 2nd Year HS Science while the Philippines placed 23rd out of 25 on both Math and Science. And in 2008, the Philippine ranked the lowest in the Advanced Math category despite the fact that the participating students all came from science high schools. It seemed that the quality of education, despite the various short-term reforms implemented in the past, could not quite keep up with the quality of education abroad. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 99 2. Bureaucratic Stability The Department of Education is the country’s largest bureaucracy, employing almost a third of the government’s entire workforce. However, stability in the DepEd leadership was a perennial problem (Luz, 2004; Taguiwalo, 2007; Bautista, Bernardo, and Ocampo, 2009). Since 1986, there have been 19 education secretaries or an average turnover of once every 13 months. Worse, new appointments sometimes come in in the middle of the school year. This disruptive and unstable practice has caused many implementation problems for educational policies such as the 10-year World Bank-funded project “Third Elementary Education Project” or TEEP, which was virtually left orphaned when former DepEd Secretary Raul Roco, the champion of this reform, left (Bautista, Bernardo, and Ocampo. 2009). It was only during former President Aquino III’s administration that the DepEd had one secretary of education for the duration of the president’s term of 6 years (from 2010-2016). Undersecretaries and assistant secretaries were rarely, if at all, changed. This stability on the top was critical not only in policy advocacy, but also in making sure that there was continuous bureaucratic support (such as the creation of the K to 12 committee) to manage the implementation of the reform. Table 7. Philippine Education Secretaries (1986-2016) Philippine Education Secretary Lourdes Quisumbing Years Served President February 1986 – December 1989 Corazon Aquino Isidro Carino January 1990 – June 1992 Armand Fabella July 1992 – July 1994 Ricardo Gloria July 1994 – December 1997 Erlinda Pefianco February 1998 – June 1998 Bro. Andrew Gonzalez July 1998 – January 2001 Joseph Estrada Raul Roco January 2001 – August 2002 Gloria Arroyo ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Fidel Ramos 100 Edilberto De Jesus September 2002 – August 2004 Florencio Abad September 2004 – July 2006 Ramon Bacani (OIC) July 2005 – August 2005 Fe Hidalgo (OIC) August 2005 – October 2006 Jesli Lapus October 2006 – March 2010 Mona Valisno March 2010 – June 2010 Bro. Armin Luistro June 2010 – June 2016 Leonor Briones June 2016 - Present Benigno Aquino III Rodrigo Duterte 3. Legislative Support Consonant with the goals of the Philippine Education for All 2015, the additional years were institutionalized into the education cycle through Republic Act 10533 or the “Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013” approved in May 15, 2013. As mentioned in the earlier section, several previous DepEd officials note that reforms in the past were easily discontinued because there was legislation support. What made K to 12 different from other reform initiative was the fact that the government made sure that parallel to its bureaucratic efforts is a legislative one. But even in legislation, the path towards which it was pursued was incremental. Two years and a half years prior to the passing of RA 10533, a law that institutionalized Kindergarten as part of basic education was passed. It is interesting to note that there is no direct reference to K to 12 in this legislation. In fact, Republic Act 10157, known as the “Kindergarten Education Act”, was framed along the lines of access in consonance with the Philippines’ commitment to EFA and MDG. A closer look of the law however reveals the articulation of elements related to K to 12 such as the use of mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) as a medium of instruction as well as the creation of a new division under the Bureau of Elementary Education (BEE) to oversee and supervise kindergarten education. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 101 Prior to this, Kindergarten education was part of early childhood education program framed as community-level, family-centered intervention development of children from 0 to 6 years old. Its management and implementation therefore is under the Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD), the Early Childhood Care and Development Council (ECCD), and the local government units. This incremental approach to legislative support proved to be useful, especially in a highly contentious and radical reform such as K to 12. It only took 6 months after the assumption into office by a new president to pass the Kindergarten Act followed by the Enhance Basic Education two and a half years later to reorganize the country’s basic education system as it realign its goals and outcomes with the rest of the world. It can be said therefore that the K-to-12 reform was undertaken at critical political junctures, hastened by international and regional development that called for the serious questioning of domestic education policies. This is different from the dominant narrative that education reforms are framed and guided by experiences of the implemented curriculum, which often follows an evolutionary process of iteration and change. Policy design, therefore, is not based on information generated from the systematic collection and analysis of classroom experiences, but more importantly on externally created indicators and norms. It is too early to tell the impact of the reform. It has only been six years since the mandatory Kindergarten was implemented and just this year that the senior high school started. Some initial outcomes presented during the Department of Education National Planning Conference are presented below: Table 8. Comparative indicators of selected student performance (SY 2010 and 2015) Gross Enrolment Rate 2010 Kindergarten 2015 Net Enrolment Rate Cohort Survival Rate Completion Rate Achievement Rate 2010 2010 2015 2010 2015 2010 2015 2015 Dropout Rate 2010 2014 79.4 93.5 57.2 53.4 n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. n.a. Elementary 114.7 106.3 95.6 90.5 74.2 87.5 72.1 86.7 68.1 70.8 6.29 3.26 Secondary 86.4 83.6 64.7 68.0 79.4 81.4 75.0 80.0 47.9 50.3 7.95 6.73 Source: Department of Education (2016) ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 102 PART 2. What Measures Matter K to 12 is one massive reform, driven by a long period of internal incremental tweaking and experimentation in the country’s educational system as well as changes brought about by external forces, particularly globalization. As such, its curricular standards are no longer exclusively nationalist in orientation, but include neo-liberal elements and market-orientation as well. According to the former DepEd official, prior to the K to 12, initial monitoring were focused on inputs (i.e., how budgets were spent and where) and outputs (i.e., how many teachers were trained, how many textbooks were delivered to schools, etc.). Annually, DepEd publishes data in its website on key elementary and secondary education indicators such as gross enrollment rate (GER), net enrollment rate (NER), cohort survival, and the national achievement test (NAT). Nutrition data are also collected, although not automatically published online, to help gauge the target of the school based feeding program. While these data sets are aggregated at the national level, it at least presents a concrete glimpse of the education sector’s health and wellbeing. But because the nature of K to 12 has profoundly altered the country’s education landscape, a more inclusive and holistic assessment strategy is necessary to measure the impact of such reform. The following are three important factors critical in developing the framework for monitoring and evaluating the K to 12: 1. learning outcomes in each subject area are constructed along a global set of standards 2. curricular exits (i.e., as emulated in the SHS tracks) are also market-oriented 3. supra-national players’ and international organizations’ role in reform are more prominent than ever Learning outcomes, is the heart of a country’ educational system. It articulates what the learners will know and are able to do at the end of the program. Learning outcomes are defined in every subject and for each and every level of schooling that a child goes through. However, because K to 12 is structured along the lines of a global education agenda (i.e., EFA, ASEAN, etc.), its curricular design therefore is patterned within a mutually recognized standard among regional and international sovereign peers. Thus, a national assessment of achievement levels among students (such as the NAT) is no longer enough. While the recognition of the Philippine Qualification Framework (PQF) is a necessary step, it should not end there. The Philippines must ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 103 also actively participate in regional and international testing such as TIMSS, PISA and SEA-PLM in order to periodically assess itself if standards in Philippine classrooms are at par with the rest of the region and the world. In addition, since the K to 12 Program also intends to produce a seamless transition from the classroom to the workplace, a set of economic factors are also helpful. These indicators must be based on the curricular exits of the program. While these concerns are not entirely new for the country, the organizations that manage labor market data (DOLE, etc.) are independent from educational data (DepED, TESDA, CHED). Also, the tri-focalized management system of education in the country inadvertently created three “islands” of education database, which makes cohort tracking very difficult if at all possible. Hence the challenge is to create a database that can track a learner from the beginning of his/her education (i.e., Kindergarten), until he/she becomes a member of the workplace/ a productive member of society. Finally, as Levin and Lockheed (1993) pointed out, the importance of politics in ensuring that policies ensure the facilitation implementation of education reform programs cannot be underestimated. Key to a successful institutionalization of K to 12 is governance, or the ability of government to manage the external environment of the school in response to a new and enhanced internal processes to achieve the goals of the policy. This includes the ability of the organization to manage resources optimally and most importantly, a strong resolve from the relevant government agencies to pursue politically-sensitive choices that will sustain the gains of the reform. Expanding the space for genuine participatory policy making is also critical in managing the challenges and gains of K to 12. As such, existing structures for local education governance, particularly the School Governing Council (SGC) and the Local School Board (LSB) must be strengthened through expansion of its membership, agenda, fiscal capacity and ability to conduct and implement its own plans and programs. Therefore, a useful analytic framework must not only measure the outcomes of K to 12 but also how changes in the system were managed. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 104 Table 9. Recommendations for more Inclusive Evaluation Indicators Basis Recommendations 1. Learning outcomes constructed along global standards 2. National Assessment in each learning stage (Gr 3,6,10,12) 3. Participation in international assessments (TIMSS, PISA and SEA-PLM) 2. Curricular exits as partly market-oriented 1. Track cohort survival per exit from K to workplace 2. Compare first batch of graduates of K to 12 with national averages 3. Important role of supra-national players and international organizations 1. Education governance evaluation and monitoring system Table 10 presents a more detailed set of indicators, working definitions, what is currently in place, where we want to go (i.e., targets) and suggested means of verification. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 105 Table 10. Proposed operational framework for monitoring the impact of K to 12 Issue & Definition Education Effectiveness The effectiveness of an educational institution is reflected in how it is able to forge mastery of basic skills in its students. Baseline Target DO 57, s. 2015 - The EGRA or the Early Grade Reading Assessment is an oral assessment that aims to measure the literacy skills of children in Kindergarten to Grade 3. - EGMA or the Early Math Assessment is a test that aims to measure the numeracy and math skills of children in Kindergarten to Grade 3. In the proposed K to 12 curriculum, the Department of Education set overall learning outcomes specific to subject areas which students are expected to achieve in these key learning stages: DO 45, s.2014 - Sets guidelines for assessing Gr. 9 TLE teachers. DO 73, s. 2012 - Sets guidelines for the assessment and rating of K to 12 learning outcomes DO 8, s. 2015 - Sets guidelines on evaluating student learning inside the classroom. DO 74, s. 2012 - Sets guidelines and standards in ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 (1) (2) (3) (4) Means of Verification Grade 3 Grade 6 Grade 10 Grade 12 For all levels: Students must achieve mastery over the skills and subjects taught in basic education. For all levels: Literacy rate (simple and functional) Annual conduct of national “exit” assessment per subject area for each learning stage. 106 awarding honors to pupils in Grades 1 through 10. DO 55, s. 2010 - Sets guidelines for the national assessment and grading system framework for the K to 12 - Proposed assessments: 1. Early Language Assessment (Gr. 3) 2. Exit Assessment (Gr. 6, 10, & 12) 3. Career Assessment (Gr. 9) 4. Accreditation and Equivalency Assessment (for OSYs and adults to certify completion of elementary and secondary education) 5. Grade Level Placement Assessment (for learners in special circumstances such as disadvantaged children or children in conflict with the law) As of 2011, Elementary and Secondary Students in the Philippines scored a total of 68.15 and 47.93 respectively in the National Achievement Test, failing to reach the 75% EFA 2015 target. The 10-year Philippine basic education cycle that ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 PISA Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM) For TVL Track: For TVL Track: 100% of Grade 12 graduates in TVL Track are employed and/or engaged in small-scale livelihood within 1 year after graduation. # of passers in the TESDA skills qualifications test (NC I and II) # of graduates who are employed within 1 year For Academic Track: For Academic Track: 100% of Grade 12 graduates in Academic Track are enrolled in the HEIs. # of Grade 12 graduates accepted in HEIs # of students enrolled in courses aligned with their SHS Strand # of students enrolled in courses NOT aligned with their SHS 107 the K to 12 replaced was thought to be substandard in comparison to the 12-year basic education cycle that most countries have. RA 10533 was pushed in order to improve the quality of Philippine basic education. Access Refers to the ability of people to enroll in educational institutions regardless of class, race, or gender. Access also includes equal opportunity are given to boys and girls to be in ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 29% of children aged 6 are not enrolled in grade one in SY 2012-2013, reflecting a 24% gap from the 95% EFA 2015 target. 4% of school-age children did not enter grade school in SY 2012-2013, reflecting a 2.86% gap from the 98.1% EFA 2015 target. 35% of school-age children did not enter high school in SY 2012-2013, reflecting a 23% gap from the EFA 2015 target. As of 2015, DepEd reported a Net Enrolment Rate of: Strand 100% Cohort Survival from Grade 12 to Year 4 University # of students who graduated from HEIs vis-à-vis # of students from same cohort who graduated from Grade 12 Acad Track four years prior 100% of boys and girls ages 6 to 18 are in school Net Enrollment Ratio % of Boys and Girls enrolled in: • Kindergarten • Elementary • Secondary • Senior High School # of ALS students being absorbed into formal education stream 108 school - 53.4 for Kindergarten 90.5 for Elementary schools 68.0 for Secondary schools As of 2015, DepEd reported a Gender Parity Index of: - 1.01 for Kindergarten - 1.01 for Elementary Schools - 1.15 for Secondary Schools Efficiency requires that resources and staffs are maximized, hence the educational system must be able to keep children in school within the minimum prescribed years of schooling ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 As of 2015, DepEd reported a completion rate of 80.0 for secondary schools Transfer Rate – no data As of 2015, DepEd reported a cohort survival rate of: - 87.5 for Elementary schools - 81.4 for Secondary schools As of SY 2012-2013, the Philippine Statistics Authority reports a: - 0.62 dropout rate for elementary schools - 4.32 dropout rate for secondary schools 100% graduation rate in Grade 6 and Grade 12 # of graduates in Grade 6 and Grade 12 100% Transfer Rate from Grade 6 to Grade 7 # of students enrolled in Grade 7 over # of Grade 6 graduates from the previous year 100% Transfer Rate from Grade 10 to Grade 11 # of students enrolled in Grade 11 over # of students who completed Grade 10 from the previous year 100% Cohort Survival Rate Cohort Survival Rate 0% Dropout in all levels Dropout Rate 109 Equity According to UNESCO equity in education refers to the provision of the “best opportunities for all students to achieve their full potential and act to address instances of disadvantage which restrict educational attainment.” All children must be given the opportunity to have quality education. As of 2015, teacher-pupil ratio for elementary schools was 1:33 while 1:25 for secondary schools. As of 2012, DepEd achieved a 1:1 student-textbook ratio. As of 2014, DepEd reported that it has achieved a 1:1 student-to-school seat ratio in the elementary level while 1:095 in the secondary level. To achieve the following, especially in highlyurbanized, disaster prone and poor areas: 1:40 Student-teacher ratio # of students who shifted tracks (i.e., from Academic to TVL) *Data must be segregated Student-teacher ratio 1:1 student-textbook ratio Student-textbook ratio As of 2014, DepEd reported a classroom-learner ratio of 1:34 for the elementary level while 1:48 for the secondary level. 1:40 student-classroom ratio Enough equipment per student in TechVoc and Livelihood track Student-classroom ratio Student-Equipment ratio Less, if possible eliminate, double shifting of classes Segregate data by: • Urban-Rural • High Risk (disaster prone) • High Vulnerability ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 110 (high poverty incidence) Mutual Recognition of Learning Outcomes The academic qualifications of Filipino graduates who wish to pursue further studies outside of the country are not recognized in some countries. Filipino students must possess educational qualifications that are at par with international standards. Refers to a set of qualifications (AQRF or the ASEAN Quality Reference Framework) standards set by the ASEAN Economic Community to ensure exchange of quality service. Political (Governance of education) Strengthen local governance of public schools measures the ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Recognition of the Philippine Qualifications Framework by counterparts in SEA Increase number of exchange among HEI students in Southeast Asian universities. Increase number of students pursuing graduate studies in other countries without additional year/s as a pre-condition Highly centralized management of schools; Management of education needs the stronger participation of local government units to respond quickly to public school concerns. Empower local governments by devolving to them more responsibilities and resources to manage Less / no additional education requirement for job intake of Filipino workers in Southeast Asian countries Functioning LSB and SGC • regular meetings are held • minutes of 111 capacity of institutions to absorb changes that will mainstream and sustain the goals of the reforms; participation in policy formulation, planning, and management public schools within their jurisdictions. • • meetings are kept complete set of members and/or expanded membership observed diverse agenda (i.e., beyond SEF) Increased budget of LGUs for education Performance-based budget for SEF Increased demand for evidence-informed policy-making Accountability Refers to the assignment of responsibilities and tasks to school or government officials in public school management. Allow stakeholder access to how the ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 For All: Increased demand for data sharing between LGU, DepEd and the community For the School: Full disclosure of contracts, school budgets and accounts. Functioning PTA and 112 schools are being managed by school administrators; ensure proper management of public schools. SGC Full disclosure of PTA-collected funds, solicitations, etc. For the LGU: Full disclosure of contracts, SEF budget and other documents related to education projects, programs and disbursements. Make the local government officials accountable to the people as well as to the central education bureaucracy to ensure that the local government is doing its mandate. Community Participation Empower stakeholders to participate in school decisionmaking and management. Regular consultations held between local government officials and the local DepEd Studies suggest that community participation improves school performance Regular consultation meetings held between LGU, school and community Increased demand for participatory planning (both LSB and SGC) Increased ratio of public-private partnerships in various ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 113 K to 12 related projects Increased participation in Brigada Eskwela Economic Market Match matching students to industry needs As of July 2016, the Philippine Statistics Authority reports a 17.3 underemployment rate. The TVL track in the K to 12 cycle seeks to equip students with necessary skills to meet the demands of the industries. Less underemployment rate of SY 2018 TVL graduates of Grade 12 Less underemployment rate of SY 2022 graduates of HEIs Less unfilled positions in skilled job market Implemented an expanded Brigada Eskwela program (ex: quarterly vs annual, etc.) Underemployment rate of first batch of Grade 12 TVL graduates visà-vis national average Underemployment rate of first batch of Academic Track graduates vis-à-vis national average # of vacancies in skilled market Employability of graduates within the country One of the aims of the K to 12 curriculum is to ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 As of July 2016, the Philippine Statistics Authority reports a 5.4 unemployment rate. Increased hiring in skillsintensive industries by FY 2018 % of Grade 12 TVL graduates immediately hired (within 3 months after graduation) per service industry % of Grade 12 TVL 114 prepare SHS graduates for the world of work since graduates of the previous educational cycle are not of legal age to be employed. Employment of graduates outside the country *Disaggregate data by Region (i.e., ASEAN, etc.) Mutual recognition of qualifications per profession Skills and qualifications of K to 12 graduates must be recognized by industries outside the Philippines. graduates hired with additional condition (i.e., additional certification, # of OJT hours, etc.) per service industry Increased hiring of TVL graduates in skillsintensive industries by FY 2018 % of Grade 12 TVL graduates immediately hired (within 3 months after graduation) per service industry per region % of Grade 12 TVL graduates hired with additional condition (i.e., additional certification, # of OJT hours, etc.) per service industry per region Seamless exchange of manpower between local and global industries. The current ASEAN Mutual ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 115 Recognition Arrangements sets up qualification standards for manpower exchange. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 116 PART 3. Education as a Shared Responsibility Decentralizing authority in decision-making and governance has become a trend in democratizing states. Borrowing the words of Bardhan (2002), “decentralization is the rage” in matters concerning governance. Developing countries, in particular the transition economies in Latin America, Africa and Asia, have been adopting decentralized policies in the past decades (Bardhan, 2002). A. Decentralization and Education Broadly speaking, decentralization “refers to the degree to which the powers of the national government are shared with or transferred to intermediate or local governments in both systems of governments” (Salvador, 1999). Decentralization literature argues that the transfer or allocation of decision-making authority from the central down to the local governments allows for the accommodation of more and diverse actors to participate in governance, which, as Tobbala (2012) suggests, is a key characteristic of democracy. “Less government” presumably enables the members of different sectors from the private and civil society to assume a more participative role in economic, social and political decisions and governance (de Guzman, 2007; UNDP, 1999). While decentralization as an approach to governance is the distribution or sharing of authority from the central down to local governments, it must be noted that there are certain degrees to how power is distributed in a decentralized setting. There are four types of decentralization. These are, in order of the degree in which power is distributed, (1) deconcentration, (2) delegation, (3) devolution, and (4) privatization. Deconcentration, the first form of decentralization is the “handling over of some amount of administrative authority or responsibility to lower levels within the central government ministries and agencies” (de Guzman, 2007). This shifts some of the decision-making responsibilities of the central government to satellite offices outside the capital. This allows some discretion to field agents to plan and implement policies, or to adjust central orders to local conditions. These responsibilities, however, are still bound to the guidelines set by the central office. Delegation, on the other hand, refers to the “transfer of managerial responsibility for specifically defined functions outside the regular bureaucratic structure and which are only indirectly controlled by the central government” (de ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 117 Guzman, 2007). Ultimately, however, the responsibility still rests on the central authority. Devolution, the third type, is “the creation or strengthening, financially or legally, of sub-national units of government, the activities of which are substantially outside the direct control of the central government” (de Guzman, 2007). Unlike the first two typologies of decentralization, devolution gives local governments or units the autonomy to pursue policies that are fit for the locality. When there is central authority involvement, this is only indirect or supervisory. The last one – privatization – is the “total transfer of authority to private establishments or individuals” (de Guzman, 2007). Regardless of form, it must be pointed out that decentralization is not an alternative to centralization (UNDP, 1999). Decentralization and centralization must complement each other to reach a particular objective. On the one hand, a centralized approach to governance is imperative especially for the survival of a weak state (de Guzman, 2007). Power that rests on one central authority ensures a dominant and assertive leadership to consolidate state power. Moreover, Salvador (1999) adds that centralization can also be viewed as a mechanism against the emergence of powerful regional blocs and dynasties that may dominate politics in an otherwise autonomous environment. Likewise, a centralized system ensures the “universal delivery of basic services” and the universal protection of human rights (Salvador, 1999). However, on the other hand, power that is heavily concentrated in the center restricts the prospects of broader civic participation. While this allows the central government the authority to distribute public goods and services, a monopoly over decision-making runs the risk of coming up with policies that do not correspond to the various needs of the different regions and localities of a state especially in countries made up of a very large territory and comprised of heterogeneous cultural groups (Weiler, 1993). De Guzman (2007) argues that there is a “demand among local institutions for autonomy from the central government to enable them to be more responsive to the local problem situations and strengthen a weak status. Studies arguing for decentralization claims that decision-making authority concentrated at the central government make for an inefficient delivery of public goods and services. Decentralizing decision-making authority, according to Capuno (2009), makes the distribution of public services and goods more efficient because power is transferred down to local authorities who are more knowledgeable of the ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 118 needs of their localities. In an extremely large and hierarchical organization such as the government, the delegation of powers and responsibilities down to its lower rungs becomes necessary in order to effectively address local needs because officials there “would know more than their superiors about the needs of the target beneficiaries and the local condition. Also, they could respond more directly and promptly to their clients’ needs. Thus, an organization gains an information advantage if it delegates the appropriate authority to the lower-level officials. Apart from the “efficiency” argument for decentralization, Capuno raises one aspect of governance that could also well justify the distribution of power down to the local levels. This “accountability” argument for decentralization insists that authority be given to the local level as well so that the citizens can play a role in decision-making. According to Campos and Hellman (as quoted from Capuno, 2009): “At the local level, citizens can more easily learn of the activities and programs that their local leaders have promoted and supported, discern how much effort they have devoted to improving public services, and confirm whether they have delivered on campaign promises. In other words, the information that citizens need to make judgments is more readily accessible under decentralization.” While a decentralized form of governance has its gains, it also has its shortcomings. Capuno’s case study on the devolution of health services in the Philippines revealed disparities in the spending and, consequently, quality of health services among LGUs. Particularly, LGUs with weak absorptive capacities are at risk of not being able to meet the necessary standards for delivering health services. Without the strong presence of a central governing agency to provide for universal health services, the quality of services offered in one locality may be inferior to the one being offered in the other. One particular area of governance that is affected by the decentralization vs. centralization debate is the management of education. Most of the literature written on the decentralization of education shows that locally governed schools improve access to education especially. Empirical studies conducted in Latin American countries such as El Salvador, Bolivia, Colombia and Guatemala showed that decentralizing the management of education showed an increase in enrollment and participation. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 119 On the other hand, Weiler (1993) presents a contradiction in the decentralization of education – that states, in fact, has a dual interest: that of maintaining control and effectiveness and sustaining its legitimacy. However, the more the state maintains control over governance, the more detrimental this would be to its legitimacy. If the state relinquishes its power over the governance of certain services, the state’s control will be diminished. This is what he calls the “politics of ambivalence”. B. Decentralization of Education in the Philippines The formal Philippine education system that we have today can be traced back to 1901 when Act No. 74 was institutionalized. Through this act, a highly centralized public schools system was established where all schools and colleges were under the direct regulation and supervision of the Bureau of Public Schools and the Bureau of Private Schools (de Guzman, 2007). The attempt of decentralize education started seventy four years after the institutionalization of the Philippine school system as part of the government’s Integrated Reorganization Plan. Through a series of structural and bureaucratic reorganizations the education Department aimed at increasing its effectiveness and efficiency (de Guzman, 2007). Transitioning from a highly centralized bureaucracy to a decentralized one allowed regional directors to respond to the concerns and needs of the different regions while those at the Central Office had more time to design and improve policies in delivering education to the people. Decentralizing education management is considered to be a necessary step in realizing the efficiency and effectiveness of delivering basic education in the Philippines (de Guzman, 2007). In 1987, through Executive Order 117, the Ministry of Education and Culture’s mandate was expanded to include sports and was thus renamed to the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports in which it was “responsible for the formulation, planning and implementation and the coordination of policies, plans, programs, projects, in formal and non-formal education at all levels and areas including elementary, secondary, technical-vocational and non-formal education, and supervising all educational institutions, public and private, and providing for the establishment and maintenance of a complete, adequate and integrated system of education relevant to the goals of national development”. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 120 In the following decade the education bureaucracy was once again restructured to improve the delivery of the Philippine educational system. The Congressional Commission on Education or EDCOM was created to assess and review the state of Philippine education. The EDCOM recommended (a) enhancing the educational system’s internal capability to be able to implement the constitutional provisions on education, (b) providing the system with financial and infrastructure support by strengthening its linkages in all sectors involved with human resource development to achieve the developmental goals of the nation. Thus, the Philippine government established three separate institutions responsible for basic education, tertiary education and technical and vocational education. This created the Department of Education (DepEd), whose mandate was to focus on basic education and non-formal education, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA). It can be noted that decentralizing education in the Philippines is designed at widening the scope of who can participate in the management and governance of education so as to provide sustained support from below. Republic Act 9155 of 2001 or the Governance of Basic Education Act enumerates the following principles: 1.Shared governance recognizes that every unit in the education bureaucracy has a particular role to fulfill. 2.The process of democratic consultation shall be observed in the decision-making process. 3.Principles of accountability and transparency shall be observed 4.Communication channels of field officers shall be strengthened among government and nongovernment organizations to facilitate the flow of information and build linkages. In practice, the decentralized education management is espoused by the School-Based Management approach. The SBM transfers authority and decision making from the central and regional offices to the school divisions in the provinces and cities; sharing the responsibility of education management with other stakeholders such as the local government, parent-teacher associations and the community. Through this approach, stakeholders from the community whether from the government or not are allowed relative autonomy to decide on matters concerning the school. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 121 Widening the scope of participation to include local stakeholders allows for issues and concerns in the local schools to be identified and addressed quickly and efficiently. According to de Guzman (2007), decentralization does not intend to weaken central authority rather it attempts to wield a “bigger stick” to address issues related to quality control and equity assurance functions. Problems and concerns where the central office cannot immediately address, the local stakeholders who are actually there on the ground who witness these problems first hand can be given the authority to act on them. The Local Government Code of 1991 through the passage of RA 7160 expanded the participation of stakeholders in education. This law created Local School Boards (LSB) in every province, city and municipality. The creation of LSBs allowed the participation of more stakeholders in the management of education. Table 11. Composition of the Local School Board ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 122 Specified under the Republic Act, the function of the LSB is to determine and operationalize the SEF allocation for the schools in their respective localities. These include operations and maintenance of school, construction, and repair of school buildings, educational research, establishment of extension classes, purchase of books and periodicals, and sports activities and development. The LSB also is tasked to assist as advisory committee on educational matters to the local legislative body as well as to recommend changes in the names of public schools within their areas. However, the extent to which education governance in the Philippines is decentralized is limited. RA 9155 only deconcentrated certain administrative functions of the central office to its field offices, such as monitoring and ensuring quality of instruction, hiring and promotion of teachers, appointments of school heads, etc. Furthermore, RA 7160, which seemingly ascribes to devolution, does not grant the LSB full authority and autonomy in decision-making. Matters such as the reconfiguration of education services are left to the central office. Ultimately, local officials still have to answer and are still accountable to the national education policies set by the central office (Capuno, 2007). While the powers granted to LSBs and local officials are limited, they still play an important role to play in managing the delivery of education services to their constituents especially in matters concerning the implementation of the policies and objectives set by the central office. This is evidence by the fact that local investments in education has been increasing over the years as pointed by a study conducted jointly by AusAID and the World Bank in 2010. Several LSB-related bills were also filed in the 16th House of Representatives that seeks to expand the purposes of SEF to include acquisition of school sites, salaries and benefits of teachers, procurement of equipment and teaching aid, loan collateral, etc. (see HB 614, HB 1183), while others seek to strengthen the LSB by expanding its powers and membership (see HB 1184, HB 1884, and HB 2599). C. Comparative Sketch of Educational Systems across Political Regimes The Duterte administration has been very keen on keeping its campaign promise of pushing for a federal form of government in the country. Owing to this new development, there is a plethora of consultation about federalism, how different countries practice it, and whether we can move towards this direction. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 123 Bearing this in mind, a quick comparative survey of three unitary (Guatemala, Indonesia, France, and the Philippines) and seven federal (Brazil, Australia, Malaysia, United States, Malaysia, India and Germany) nation states were conducted. There are two parts to this comparative sketch. The first one looks at how each country’s educational system is organized from the learner’s point-of-view. While this takes into account the number of years a learner is expected to devote to formal basic education schooling, it also pinpoints the transition stages and exits that the State is expected to supervise and manage. The second part compares how education as a shared responsibility between central and local government is operationalized. Three major areas were analyzed: structure, responsibilities and financing. Recent developments that indicate a shift how education is governed are also mapped out if any. Figure 1 below summarizes how educational systems are organized from the perspective of the learner. The structure and content of primary education in the countries examined are generally similar. In these early years of education where children spend around six to seven years on average, the pupils are taught general subjects to train them in literacy and numeracy. Upon completion of primary education, students proceed to secondary education. In most of the education systems of the countries examined save for Germany, secondary education is divided into two lower and upper levels. In the lower half of secondary education, general subjects are taught to students while in the upper half, students are allowed the option to specialize in tracks. In most of the countries, students are given the option to proceed in either academic or technical and vocational tracks. In India, the Philippines, USA France, Indonesia, Brazil and Malaysia, and Australia, there are technical and vocational institutions and polytechnic schools available for students who wish to pursue technical and vocational education. In Germany, however, secondary education is structured differently. While Germany has secondary schools (namely Hauptschule, Realschule, and Gymnasium) each offering specialized tracks, students are placed in one of the three schools depending on their academic performance and abilities. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 124 Figure 1 Comparison of Education Cycles in Ten Countries ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 125 Table 12. Comparative Features of Secondary Education Features of Secondary Education for each country Guatemala Philippines Indonesia Brazil Middle Divided into After Junior Upon Education Junior High Secondary completion a. Basico School and Education, of Lower (Junior High Senior High students can Secondary School) – School. proceed to Education, introduces Senior High either Senior students can students to a School allows General proceed to wide range of students to Secondary either Upper subjects to choose either Schools Secondary prepare them academic, wherein they Education for different vocational or can specialize where working roles; business in either students are lasts 3 years tracks. This natural taught level aims to sciences, general Secondary prepare social subjects or Education students for sciences, Technical a.. the world of languages or and Diversificado work or for religious Vocational (Specialized further studies, or Education. schools) – lasts studies in the Senior 3 years universities Technical or technical and and Vocational vocational Schools institutions. wherein students are issued a certificate upon completion. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Australia In the last years of secondary education in Australia, students can proceed to an academic or vocational track. The purpose of Senior Secondary Education is to prepare students for adult life and for the world of work. Malaysia Upon completion of Lower Secondary Education, students take the Lower Secondary Assessment to determine if they can proceed to upper secondary education. Upper Secondary Education offers academic and vocational tracks. After students complete their chosen tracks, they either take the Malaysian Certificate of Education Exam and the Malaysian Certificate (Vocational) Exam. France Secondary Education begins in Middle School (College) and lasts 4 years; specializations are introduced at this level. Students then can proceed to a High School (Lycee) or a Vocational High School (Lycee Professionel). The Lycee Professionel allows students to enter manual or clerical jobs, or pursue further vocational studies. The Lycee offers general subjects that are being taught at the college level. In addition, students may specialize in technical tracks. The main function of the lycee is to prepare students for the baccaulaureate, a university entrance exam. India Senior Secondary Education in India allows students to proceed to either an academic or vocational track. Vocational education is offered by Polytechnic institutes in both secondary education and higher education. Germany Secondary schools in Germany are classified according to the academic performance of the students they accommodate: a. Gymnasium - for students with high grades in the preceding 4 years. - Grade 5 to 13 - prepares students for university or for a dual academic and vocational certificate b. Realschule - for average students - Grade 5 to 10 - leads to part-time vocational schools and higher vocational schools USA Secondary Education in the USA is divided into Middle School and High School. General subjects are taught in Middle School while in High School, students can choose tracks as preparation for university or for vocational and technical education in higher education. The USA also has technical and vocational high schools. c. Hauptschule - for students below average - Grade 5 to 9 - teaches the same subjects as in the Gymnasium and Realschule but a slower pace 126 Table 13, on the other hand, summarizes the comparative analysis on three factors: structure, responsibilities, and financing. Current reform initiatives are also noted. A more detailed table (data per country) is found in the appendix section of this paper. Initial findings suggest that decentralization is a key strategy in achieving universal access as it tends to strengthen the link between the school and the community. However, centralization is important in ensuring quality in the form of: (a) a national curriculum framework, and (b) a nationally created and administered assessment / test. Finally, because financing of education rests solely in the state in a federal form of government, the absorptive capacity of the local governments and the community to optimally operate schools is key. Thus, local entrepreneurship is an important element in a federal system. In contrast, while some aspect of school management may be decentralized in a unitary state, the more expensive elements of running a school system such as teacher’s salaries, textbooks and other learning materials, are absorbed by the central government. In effect, unitary systems enable schools to remain open even when there is market failure. Table 13. Comparative Analysis of Education Governance in Ten Countries Structure Unitary While there exists a central government agency for the administration of education, certain administrative powers and responsibilities are devolved locally to either school or city level. Generally, as in the case of the Philippines, Guatemala, and Indonesia the local education boards are comprised of community members and local officials. Federal While both federal and state governments have roles in the administering of public education, in most cases, such as in Australia, Germany, Brazil and the USA, the state or municipal government has the primary responsibility of providing education to its constituents. Certain responsibilities and powers are also devolved down to the local level. In Australia and the USA, local school boards or councils are comprised of school administrators, parents, students and members of the community. Malaysia, however, has a very centralized structure in education governance. The ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 127 Responsibilities The responsibilities of administrators at the school and local level, in general, are matters concerning the internal operations of the school. In Guatemala and Indonesia and the Philippines, school boards have a say in the budget allocation for the maintenance and operation of the schools within their jurisdictions. Educational assessment is done at the national level. Minister of Education appoints the members of the Board of Governors for each state. The responsibility of providing education rests primarily on the state governments in a federal setting. The federal government only plays a minimal role in the governance of education. For instance, in India, Germany, Australia, Brazil and the USA, the federal government merely prescribes the educational standards that states should be able to deliver. In most cases, the curriculum is set by each state. However, the trends in policy concerning the curriculum in Germany and Australia show that there seems to be a necessity for a national curriculum framework to maintain quality education. Local school boards are mostly concerned with the internal operations of school. In contrast to the local school boards in a unitary setting, the school boards in the federal country cases have more responsibilities such as the hiring of school staff. Additionally, they also have the responsibility of setting the direction of schools. Financing The financing of schools rests primarily on the central government. In the case of the Philippines, however, local school boards are, by law, allowed to levy 1% from the local Property Tax. This is called the Special Education Fund. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Educational assessment is done at the national level. Schools are primarily financed by the state government from their tax revenues. However, the federal government also reserves a small percentage from its tax revenue for education. I 128 Current shifts in education governance direction None observed In the case of the USA, federal funding comes in the form of aid for disadvantaged states. USA: Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) This education law replaced the No Child Left Behind Act whose policies were considered “unrealistic” due to its one-size-fits-all model. The ESSA allows state governments more autonomy to manage the schools within their jurisdiction. Australia and Germany are currently in the process of drafting a national curriculum framework. PART 4. Policy Recommendations and Conclusion The case of education reform in the Philippines highlights the impact of globalization on domestic policymaking. Of particular importance is the role of external ideas, as expressed through international agreements, as a wick for a domestic policy reform. As these norms are internalized, policy networks, organized along similar policy beliefs, played a key role in transforming agenda into an institutionalized one. 1. Towards a strong system-wide evidence based policy making capacity K to 12 is a complex reform brought about by internal and external factors. A strong system-wide infrastructure for evidence-based policy making is therefore necessary. a A G2G (gov’t to gov’t) data sharing mechanism must be established to allow horizontal or inter-agency (i.e., DepEd, TESDA, CHED, DOLE, DILG, etc.) as well as vertical (between central government and local government, between DepEd and LGU) interface of data collection and report generation for evaluation and policy use. It is necessary to set-up an infrastructure that can synchronize and generate data that allows government to track each cohort from K-to-workplace. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 129 b A collection system that requires data to be disaggregated based on gender, disability, poverty, vulnerability (caused by man-made and natural disasters), ethnicity to measure equity 2. Increase the demand for participatory policy making at the level of school and community Political will, especially at the grassroots level, is necessary to sustain the gains as well as overcome implementation challenges of K to 12. Key is to balance the need for quality control and the demand for more community support and sharing of resources. a Review RA 7160, particularly the provisions for LSB on role/ power, membership, and financing (i.e., Synergeia LSBs). b Align philosophies and purposes of decentralized education stipulated in RA 9155 on SBM and RA 7160 on LSB; these laws should be insynched with one another to avoid confusion of roles and responsibilities at the school and district level 3. Top-down bottom-up assessment of learning outcomes At the heart of all education reform is the welfare students. On the one hand, this requires government to be able to gauge what kind of learning takes place inside the classroom, regardless of where this maybe. On the other hand, it also requires our reform process to provide an institutionalized space for classroom realities (what works, what does not work) to mainstream into the policy discussions at the national headquarters. a Rethink the NAT to include assessment in all key learning stages mentioned in the K to 12 b Institutionalize action-based research in all classroom as a requirement to DepEd’s annual planning and review of curricular standards, instructional materials and teacher development c Participate in international assessment such as TIMSS, PISA and SEAPLM ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 130 References West, A., Allmendiger, J., Nikolai, R., & Barham, E. (2010). Decentralisation and educational achievement in Germany and the UK. Vandermoortele, J. (2009). The MDG Conundrum: Meeting the Targets Without Missing the Point. Development Policy Review, 355-371. UNDP. (1999). Decentralization: A Sampling of Definitions. UNDP. Tansey, O. (n.d.). Process Tracing and Elite Interviewing: A Case for NonProbability Sampling. Retrieved from PSOnline: www.apsanet.org Sundaryani, F. (2015, April 10). Education ministry to roll out new system of national exams. The Jakarta Post. Robredo, J. (n.d.). Reinventing Local School Boards in the Philippines. Retrieved from PCIJ: http://pcij.org/blog/wpdocs/Robredo_Reinventing_School_Boards.pdf Riddell, A. (1998). The need for a multidisciplinary framework for analysing educational reform in developing countries. International Journal of Educational Development, 207-217. Reeg, C. (2015). The German School System Explained. Retrieved from Young Germany: http://www.young-germany.de/topic/study/the-german-schoolsystem-explained Pepin, B. (1998). Curriculum, cultural traditions and pedagogy: understanding the work of teachers in England, France and Germany. Retrieved from Education-Line: http://www.leeds.ac.uk/educol/documents/000000872.htm Ocampo-Salvador, A. (1999). Philippine Local Governments: Toward Local Autonomu and Decentralization. In Politics and Governance: Theory and Practice in the Philippine Context (pp. 117-157). Quezon City: Ateneo de Manila University Office of Reasearch and Publications. Magno, C. (2010). A brief history of educational assessment in the Philippines. Educational Measurement and Evaluation Review, 140-149. Lockheed, M., & Levin, H. (1993). Creating effective schools. In H. L. Lockheed, Effective Schools in Developing Countries (pp. 1-19). London: The Falmer Press. Jimenez, E., & Sawada, Y. (1999). Do Community-Managed Schools Work? An Evaluation of El Salvador's EDUCO Program. Oxford Journals, 415-411. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 131 Guzman, A. d. (2007). Chronicling decentralization initiatives in the Philippine basic education sector. International Journal of Educational Development, 613-624. Grindle, M. (2000). Ready or Not: The Developing World and Globalization. In J. S. Donahue, Governance in a Globalizing World (pp. 178-207). Washington, DC: Brookings Institution Press. Green, A. (1997). Education, Globalization and the Nation State. New York : Macmillan Press Ltd. Gershberg, A. I., Meade, B., & Andersson, S. (2009). Providing better education services to the poor: Accountability and context in the case of Guatemalan decentralization. International Journal of Educational Development, 187-200. Ferrer, G. (2006). Educational Assessment Systems in Latin America. Washington, DC: Partnership for Educational Revitalization in the Americas. Faguet, J.-P., & Sanchez, F. (2008). Decentralization's Effects on Educational Outcomes in Bolivia and Colombia. World Development, 1249-1316. Espiritu, S. C. (2000). Philippine Educational System. Quezon City: Katha Publishing Co., Inc. Easterly, W. (2009). How the Millenium Development Goals are Unfair to Africa. World Development, 26-35. Capuno, J. (2009). A case study on the decentralization of health and education in the Philippines. HDN Discussion Paper Series. Caldwell, B. (n.d.). REALIGNING THE GOVERNANCE OF SCHOOLS IN AUSTRALIA: ENERGISING AN EXPERIMENTALIST APPROACH. Caldwell, B. (2014). Realigning the Governance of Schools in Australia: Energising an Experimentalist Approach. Bautista, M., Bernardo, A., & Ocampo, D. (2009). When reforms don't transform: A review of institutional reforms in the Department of Education. Manila: UNDP-HDN. Bardhan, P. (2002). Decentralization of Governance and Development. Journal of Economic Perspectives, 185-205. Bandur, A. (n.d.). A Study of the Implementation of School-Based Management in Flores Primary Schools in Indonesia. UNESCO. (2014). World TVET Database: United States of America. UNESCO. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization. (2011). World Data on Education. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 132 The World Bank. (2014). World Bank and Education in Indonesia. Retrieved from The World Bank: http://www.worldbank.org/en/country/indonesia/brief/world-bank-andeducation-in-indonesia US School System. (1999). Retrieved from Fulbright Commission: http://www.fulbright.org.uk/study-in-the-usa/school-study/us-school-system The Education System in the Federal Republic of Germany. (2013). Retrieved from www.istp2016.org/fileadmin/Redaktion/Dokumente/.../dossier_en_ebook.pdf SIGN. (2016). School Councils. Retrieved from School Improvement and Governance Network: http://www.viccso.org.au/school-councils/school-council-qas California School Boards Association. (2007). School Board Leadership. Retrieved from California School Boards Association: https://www.csba.org/~/media/51E3FBB839504700825CB16B7265F3C4.ash x Running for the School Board. (2016). Retrieved from New York State School Boards Association: http://www.nyssba.org/about-nyssba/running-for-the-schoolboard/ Australian Department of Education. (2014). Review of the Australian Curriculum: Initial Australian Government Response. National Committee on Education for All. (1999). Philippines: Education for All 2000. Philippine Task Force on Education. (2008). Philippine Main Education Highway: Towards a Knowledge-Based Economy. National Education for All Committee. (2014). Philippine Education for All 2015 Plan of Action: An Assessment of Progress Made in Achieving the EFA Goals. National Education for All Committee. European Commission. (2010). Organisation of the education system in Germany. European Commission. Congressional Commission on Education. (1991). Making Education Work: An Agenda for Reform. Quezon City: Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. Local School Councils. (2016). Retrieved from Chicago Public Schools: http://cps.edu/Pages/Localschoolcouncils.aspx Senate Economic Planning Office. (2011). K to 12: The Key to Quality Education? ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 133 Educational Assessment. (2008). Retrieved from US Department of Education: https://www2.ed.gov/about/offices/list/ous/international/usnei/us/assessment.d oc (2011). Education System: France. Education System in Guatemala. (2012). Retrieved from Classbase: http://www.classbase.com/countries/Guatemala/Education-System The World Bank. (2004). Education Policy Reforms in Action: A Review of Progress since PESS and PCER. Education policies and curriculum at the upper primary and secondary levels. (1998). Retrieved from scripts.mit.edu/~varun_ag/readinggroup/images/9/9c/Secondary_Education.pd f Education in Guatemala. (2013). Retrieved from Avivara: http://www.avivara.org/aboutguatemala/educationinguatemala.html Education in France. (2016). Retrieved from About-France.com: http://aboutfrance.com/primary-secondary-schools.htm DepEd. (2010). Discussion Paper on the Enhanced K+12 Basic Education Program. DepEd. National Education for All Committee. (2006). Basic Education Reform Agenda. DepEd. Asia Educational Examination Systems. ( 2011). Retrieved from Business-inAsia.com: http://www.business-in-asia.com/asia/asia_education_exam.html Weiler, H. N. (1993). Control Versus Legitimation: The Politics of Ambivalence. In J. Hannaway, & M. Carnoy, Decentralization and School Improvement: Can we fulfill the promise? (pp. 55-83). San Francisco: Jossey-Bass. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 134 Appendix: Guatemala Regime Type Unitary Presidential Local School Board Responsibilities Source of Finance Local school Councils or COEDUCA are formed under Guatemala's community managed schools (PRONADE). Hiring and supervision of Ministry of Public school teachers Finance The COEDUCA is comprised of 15 community representatives. Buying school materials Monitoring teacher student attendance Monitoring libraries school Creating school calendar School feeding program Curriculum Development Curriculum standards provided by MINEDUC (Guatemalan Ministry Education) Assessment National Program for School are Achievement Assessment the (PRONERE). This was however discontinued when financial support from the WB of stopped. No national assessment tests have been administered since. Philippines Regime Type Unitary Presidential Local School Board Responsibilities 1. Mayor (Co-chair) 2. City Superintendent (Cochair) 3. City treasurer 4. Representative of the SK 5. President of parents teachers’ organization 6. Duly elected representative of teachers’ organization in the city 7. Duly elected representative of the nonacademic personnel of public schools in the city. Determine the budget for maintenance operation of schools. Source of Finance needed the and public Special Education Fund (1% Real Property Tax) Curriculum Development National Assessment National Achievement Test Authorize the local treasurer to disburse funds from the SEF Serve as advisory committee to the city council concerned with educational matters such as the use of local appropriations for educational purposes. Recommend the changing of names of public schools ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 136 Indonesia Regime Type Unitary Presidential Local School Board 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. Responsibilities School (Chair) Principal An advisory body for determining policies at the school level Representatives of teachers, parents, Supports both financial and non-financial matters of the local community school. Local government Transparency and Alumni accountability at the school level Students (if secondary school) Mediator between school, government and community. Source of Finance Curriculum Development Funds from the BOS National (Bantuan Operasional Sekolah or the Schools Operations Fund) – provided by the central government. Assessment Ujian Nasional (UNAS) - prior to 2016, this exam determined if a student can graduate high school or not. Currently, results of the UNAS are used to determine if a student can be admitted to a university. *Members are elected ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 137 Brazil Regime Type Local School Board Federal Presidential State Sao Paolo (1990s): Responsibilities of Addressing basic school building maintenance problems. *Under the leadership of Paulo Freire, parents, students and educators were encouraged to participate in the decision making of school related matters. Debating school's educational programs Electing and determining the appointment of school administrators. State of Minas Gerais Councils participate in designing (1990s): school budget ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Source of Finance Education primarily rests on the states and municipalities. Constitutionally, however, the federal government must reserve 18% of tax revenues for education while states and municipalities reserve 25% each. Curriculum Development National 1. curriculum framework is provided by the national government but each locality design the 2. specific contents of their curriculum according to the needs of the community. Education primarily rests on National curriculum Assessment Basic Education Assessment System (SAEB) - for teacher training and curricular developm ent. National High School Examination System (ENEM) - since 2009, serves as an entrance exam to universities in Brazil. 2. Basic Assessment Education System 138 the states and *Schools were given Participate in establishing the municipalities. autonomy and put under the priorities in the use of funds Constitutionally, management of School however, the Councils: federal government must 1. School principal reserve 18% of tax revenues for 2. Representatives of education while teachers, parents, states and and students (from municipalities age 16) reserve 25% each. ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 framework is provided by the national government but each locality 3. design the specific contents of their curriculum according to the needs of the community. (SAEB) - for teacher training and curricular developm ent. National High School Examination System (ENEM) - since 2009, serves as an entrance exam to universities in Brazil. 139 Australia Regime Type Federal Parliamentary Local School Board Responsibilities State of Victoria: Establish the broad direction and vision of the school within the community. 3 Categories: 1. Parents (Elected; should comprise more than 1/3 of the council) 2. DEECD employees (Elected; should not comprise more than 1/3 of the council) 3. Community representative (appointed by the parents) Supply the needed resources for the operation of the school. Raise funds for school related purposes. Encourage the community to get involved in the governance of the schools. Source of Finance 90% of the state's annual budget for education are decentraliz ed to schools. Curriculum Development In 2014, a nationwide review was conducted to come up with a national curriculum. Prior to 2014, curriculum were designed by the states. Starting 2015, states have started to adopt the Australian Curriculum Assessment National Assessment Program me – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) administered yearly for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 Terminate or employ teachers and school staff. *Council members are only given 2 years to serve in the council. Recommend the appointment of a principal Oversee the school budget ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 140 State of Australia: Western . Parents 2. Community Members 3. School staff 4. Students (must not be under 18 years old) Principal *Majority of the Council must be comprised of parents and community. *Principal automatically becomes a member of the council only if their capacities allow it. Take part in establishing State and reviewing from time to revenues time the school’s objectives, priorities, and general policies; planning financial arrangements necessary to fund those objectives, priorities, and directions; evaluate the school’s performance in achieving its objectives, priorities and policies. Promote the school in the community Tax In 2014, a nationwide review was conducted to come up with a national curriculum. Prior to 2014, curriculum were designed by the states. Starting 2015, states have started to adopt the Australian Curriculum National Assessment Program me – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) administered yearly for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 Take part in formulating codes of conduct for students Determine, in consultation with students, their parents and staff of the school, a dress code for students when they are attending or representing the school ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 141 State of Wales: New South Staff Members community of the Students (must be at least 18 years of age) *Majority of the Council must be comprised of parents and community Set the school goals of the Makes sure that the community plays an active role in the schools Assessing the financial needs school's Giving advice to the principal on matters such as how well the school is reporting the students' achievements State revenues Tax In 2014, a nationwide review was conducted to come up with a national curriculum. Prior to 2014, curriculum were designed by the states. Starting 2015, states have started to adopt the Australian Curriculum National Assessment Program me – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) administered yearly for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 *No one group should be large so as to out-vote all the rest. *Each school has the authority to decide how many members the council will have and how many seats shall be reserved for parents, staff, community members... ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 142 Australian Territory: Capital the principal of the school; and (b) 1 member (the appointed member) appointed by the director-general as the appointed member; and (c) 2 members (the staff members) elected by staff of the school and appointed by the director-general; and (d) 3 members (the parents and citizens members) elected by the parents and citizens association of the school and appointed by the director-general; and (e) the members (the board appointed members) (if any) appointed by the board under subsection (6); and (f) for a school prescribed under the regulations—2 members (the student members) elected by the students at the school and appointed by ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 (a)to establish strategic direction and priorities for the school; and (b) to monitor and review school performance and to report on it to the director-general, parents of students at the school and staff; and (c) to develop, maintain and review curriculum for the school; and (d) to develop and review education policies at the school; and (e) to establish budgetary policies for the school and approve the school budget; and (f) to establish policies for the efficient and effective use of school assets and the management of financial risk; and (g) to develop relationships between the school and the community and between the school and community organisations; and (h) to make recommendations to the director-general on issues affecting the school; and (i) to encourage parent participation in their children’s learning; and (j) to exercise any other State revenues Tax In 2014, a nationwide review was conducted to come up with a national curriculum. Prior to 2014, curriculum were designed by the states. Starting 2015, states have started to adopt the Australian Curriculum National Assessment Program me – Literacy and Numeracy (NAPLAN) administered yearly for years 3, 5, 7 and 9 143 the director-general. (3) A person is eligible to be elected or appointed as a staff member only if the person is employed as a member of the staff of the school. (4) A person is eligible to be elected or appointed a student member only if the person is a student at the school. (5) The appointed member, staff members, parents and citizens members and student members are appointed for the prescribed period. (6) The school board may appoint 1 or more people to be members of the board for a term ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 function given to the board under this Act or any other Territory law. (2) The director-general may give written directions to the school board about the exercise of its functions, either generally or in relation to a particular issue. (3) The school board must give effect to the director-general’s directions. (4) The director-general is not required— (a) to accept, or act in accordance with, a recommendation of the school board; or (b) to carry out a policy decided by the school board. 144 Malaysia Regime Type Federal Parliamentary Local School Board According to the UNESCO Education Review on Malaysia, governance of education is highly centralized. Education is the responsibility of the federal government. The Malaysian Education Act of 1996 provides guideline for the establishment of board of governors exclusive only to national-type primary schools. Nationaltype schools are government or government aided schools. Responsibilities Source of Curriculum Finance Development "The Minister may make National National Curriculum regulations for the establishment of a board of governors and for the management of an educational institution by a board of governors and, without prejudice to the generality of such power, the Minister may, in the regulations, prescribe the duties of the governors and other persons responsible for the management of educational institutions." (Education Act of 1996) Assessment The Primary School Assessment Test – taken by primary school students on their 6th year Lower Secondary Assessment – taken by secondary school students in their 3rd year. This determines what academic strand they will take up in the upper secondary school. Malaysian Certificate of Examination – Compulsory national examination taken by upper secondary school students in their 2nd year The Board of Governors are appointed by the Minister of education ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 145 France Regime Type Unitary Presidential Semi- Local School Board Responsibilities Centralized governance education Responsibilities of the Recteur: of France is divided into 30 educational districts called academies. Each academie has a "recteur" which is appointed by the state as the official representative of the Minister of Education. Teacher training Supervision examinations of Source of Finance National Curriculum Development National Curriculum Assessment French Baccalaureate exam (college entrance exam) national Award of diplomas Ensure the implementation of laws and regulations on national education Manage facilities personnel and Develop relationship with other state agencies (academic, political, economic, socioprofessional, local authorities) Implement the regional training program Report to the Mnister of the functioning of public service of national education ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 146 India Regime Type Local School Board Federal Parliamentary Republic District Boards Education Responsibilities of District Boards of Education - plan and administer Village Education education at the level Committee of the district. increase school infrastructures, develop materials for school instruction, teacher training. Village Education Committee enrolment and retention of students in schools; supervise the functioning of schools; mobilize resources for schools; monitor teacher absenteeism. Source of Finance Central and State governments handle education but the former only establishes the framework and directions for the states. Curriculum Development The NCERT sets a national framework for curriculum but they are merely suggestive and not prescriptive. Assessment 1. All India Secondary School Examination (AISSE)- End of Year 10 (completion of Year 10 and entry to Year 11 of upper secondary) Provided by: Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) 2. Indian Certificate of Secondary Education (ICSE) End of Year 10 (completion of Year 10 and entry to Year 11 of upper secondary) Provided by: Council for Indian School Certificate Examination (CISCE) 3. All India Senior School Certificate ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 147 Examination (AISSCE) - End of Year 12 (entry to higher education) Provided by: Central Board of Secondary Education (CBSE) 4. Indian School Certificate (ISC - End of Year 12 (entry to higher education) BY [Private board for Anglo-Indian studies] ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 148 Germany Regime Type Local School Board Federal Parliamentary Very minimal federal Republic role in education. States (Lander) hold the responsibility of providing education. At the federal level: Federal Ministry of Education and Research At the state (Lander) level: Ministry of Education and Cultural Affairs ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Responsibilities Source of Finance The Lander is in charge of implementing school acts and the administration of schools while local authorities are in charge of building maintenance and the appointment and remuneration of nonteaching staff. State government Curriculum Development Curriculum is set by the education ministers for each Lander. However, debates are currently ongoing regarding comparability of education between Landers Assessment Assessments are designed at the national to monitor education comparability across Landers PISA 149 USA Regime Type Local School Board Federal Presidential Chicago (Local School Councils) Parents Responsibilities Source of Finance Select principal State government Renew contract school's principal's Teachers Principal Student representatives *Members are elected by communities ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 Approve the school improvement plan for advancing academic achievement Approve budget for year school school Curriculum Development Curriculum is set by each state Assessment PISA National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an annual assessment of students in years 4, 8 and 12 in mathematics, reading, writing, the arts, natural science, U.S. history, civics, and geography SAT 150 California: Members of the school district can become members of the board. Are nonpartisans Boards consists of three, five or seven members Hiring and evaluating the superintendent Adopt district policies Approve Local Control Accountability Plans Adopt and budgets Monitor Monitor performance students district and Listen to comments public Setting direction for school State Government Curriculum is set by each state. PISA National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an annual assessment of the knowledge gained by a representative sample of nearly 140,000 public and private school students in years 4, 8 and 12 in mathematics, reading, writing, the arts, natural science, U.S. history, civics, and geography SAT Establishing an effective and efficient school district structure Ensuring accountability to the public ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 151 New York: Members can be anybody residing within the district (must be a US citizen and 18+ years.) Create a shared vision for the future of education Set the direction of the school district to achieve the highest student performance Provide rigorous accountability for student achievement results Develop a budget and present it to the community, aligning district resources to improve achievement State Government Curriculum is set by each state. PISA National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP) is an annual assessment of the knowledge gained by a representative sample of nearly 140,000 public and private school students in years 4, 8 and 12 in mathematics, reading, writing, the arts, natural science, U.S. history, civics, and geography SAT Support a healthy school district culture for work and learning Create strategic partnerships with the community stakeholders Build the district’s progress through continuous improvement ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 152 Adopt and maintain current policies Hire and evaluate the superintendent Ratify collective bargaining agreements Maintain strong ethical standards ASOG WORKING PAPER 17-005 153 With the support of: Ateneo School of Government