Assessing basic education service delivery in the

Study aims and approach • Public spending tracking and quantitative service delivery survey • Project design in consultation with key stakeholders (De...

0 downloads 50 Views 3MB Size
Assessing basic education service delivery in the Philippines: Highlights from findings regarding teachers

The Philippines Public Education Expenditure Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery Study

Study aims and approach Breakdown of the Department of Education (DepEd) budget, 2015

Basic education facilities, 17%

School MOOE, 4%

Teacher salaries, 62% Other DepEd spending, 16%

Teacher training resources, 1%

•  Public spending tracking and quantitative service delivery survey •  Project design in consultation with key stakeholders (DepEd, DBM, NEDA, ANSA and academics) •  Key issues: ü Resource flow, management and control ü Existence, use and financing of inputs at school ü Equity ü School performance and resources

Survey description LOCAL GOVERNMENTS Province (27) City/muncp (47)


•  Sampling approach developed with international expert •  Survey implemented in 2014 Q4 •  Extensive quality control at each level and 30% of questionnaires rechecked


•  Data cleaning in first half of 2015 Parent Teacher Association (449)


DISTRICT DPWH (54), DepEd (113)

•  Nationally representative excl. ARMM

Public Schools ES – 249 HS - 200

Teachers (1,554)

Student Households (2,189)

Key findings and policy directions

Key findings Teachers

Teacher deployment has improved but signs of inefficiency in teacher allocation

•  123,000 (24% of stock) new teachers hired between 2011 and 2014. Average STR fell from: ü 41:1 to 36:1 elementary ü 37:1 to 27:1 – high school •  but STRs still high compared to regional comparators and other lower-middle income countries (e.g. 31:1 in elementary)

Teacher deployment has improved but signs of inefficiency in teacher allocation

Key findings Teachers

Percentage of elementary schools by student teacher ratio (STR) 2012-2014 school years 80

STR too low - excess supply

STR too high - more teachers needed


•  Based on DepEd standards, around 29% of elementary schools and 37% of high schools still have teacher shortages


•  No standards but school principals suggest shortage of subject specialist teachers (Filipino, Makabayan)


•  New teacher allocations broadly in line with need



36-40 2012

30 to 35 2014


Key findings Teachers

Teacher absenteeism rates are low Primary/elementary teacher absenteeism rates in selected countries, various years



•  Surprise visits but at the beginning of the day •  Elementary (8%) and High School (6%) teacher absenteeism rates low •  Absenteeism for unofficial reasons very low but absenteeism for carrying out official duties relatively high

Cambodia (2004)

Philippines (2014)

Indonesia (2013)












Key findings Teachers

Big improvements in hiring process but significant delays still exist

Percentage of teacher posts allotted in 2013 where teachers were not in post by the final quarter of 2014 40%

•  Significant reductions in the time taken to hire and deploy teachers •  In 2013, average time between DepEd division office receiving new posts to filling positions – 5 months


•  In 2007, similar analysis showed average time was 18 months •  But about one-third of new teacher positions in SY 2013-14 unfilled at end of 2014


ü  Partly related to delays in hiring process ü  But also final step in getting teachers into schools (verifying paperwork etc.)


•  Significant inconsistencies/poor reporting in the recording of fund flows for new teachers between DBM region and DepEd Division offices




High School

•  Transfers rarely used (<2%) although key tool for dealing with weak teacher distribution

Teachers’ performance on content knowledge assessments was poor

Key findings Teachers

Percentage of questions answered correctly by the median teacher, 2014 80%

Grade 6 elementary school teachers









0% English




Grade 10 high school teachers





•  Subject based content assessment on K-12 curriculum – RCTQ PNU •  Detailed analysis shows that teachers possessed some knowledge but lacked higher order problem-solving skills needed to teach effectively •  New teachers did not perform significantly better or worse than more experienced teachers •  Results from teacher strengths and needs assessment show that teachers not very aware of their own deficiencies

Key findings Teachers

Professional development is inadequate

Allotments, obligations and utilization rates for HRTD funds •  Most teachers receive some kind of in-service training but: ü  ü  ü  ü 

PHP billions (2014 prices) 2.5

Duration is shorter than other countries Often ‘mass training’ in school or DepEd office Outside experts rarely used Training not aligned with school or teacher needs


•  ‘More and better in-service training’ was 2nd most frequent response by high school teachers when asked what they need to improve their teaching


•  Common for principals to observe classroom teaching but little support for subject knowledge - mostly support for teaching practice


•  Significant increase in funds for training but only 50% of funds downloaded to region and division offices •  Delays in downloading result in low utilization rates











Obligations 2005



ü  fewer than 15% of regional offices received their allotment by end of first quarter. ü  20% of divisions did not receive cash allocation for HRTD funds even after allotment released

•  Bulk of funds accounted for but limited information on what regional and division offices use training funds for

Key findings Teachers

Summary findings

• Teacher deployment improved but is still inefficient • Teacher absenteeism rates are low • Big improvements in hiring process but still significant delays • Professional development is inadequate • Teachers’ performance on knowledge assessments was poor

Key findings Teachers

Summary policy suggestions

Report and other publications •  Full report •  A set of education notes: ü  Education Note 1: Increasing Investment to Improve Basic Education Outcomes ü  Education Note 2 Assessing Systems for Hiring and Deploying Teachers ü  Education Note 3: Developing a Proficient and Motivated Teacher Workforce ü  Education Note 4: Building Better Learning Environments ü  Education Note 5: Assessing School-based Management ü  Education Note 6: Providing Schools with Adequate Resources to Deliver Quality Education ü  Education Note 7: Assessing the Role Played by Local Government in Supporting Basic Education ü  Education Note 8: Understanding the Drivers of Public School Performance and Efficiency

Thank you Gabriel Demombynes [email protected]

Availability of key facilities has improved but classroom deficits remain

Key findings Infrastructure

Indicators of classroom quality from direct classroom observation 30% High School


•  Student classroom ratio (SCR) fell from: ü  46:1 to 43:1 in elementary schools ü  64:1 to 47:1 in high schools


•  Majority of schools have SCRs that meet DepEd norms (45:1 – 55:1) but 24% of elementary and 30% of big high schools in HUCs have SCRs in excess

15% 10%

•  Around 1 in 7 existing classrooms are classified by DepEd as condemnable/condemned and others in poor state of repair inadequate seating

without electricity

poor sound insulation

poor ventilation




poor state of repair

% of observed classrooms


•  Significant progress in addressing backlog of classroom construction. Between 2010 and 2013, 81,000 new classrooms built

•  Nearly 40% of high schools and 20% of elementary schools do not have enough toilets according to DepEd norms (50:1) •  School facilities in HUCs and other cities tend to be under more stress than municipal schools

Public infrastructure improvement projects suffer from poor implementation Common problems faced by DPWH in implementing school infrastructure projects, 2014

•  In 2014, PHP 45 billion (US$ 965 million) for infrastructure (16% of bas ed spend) but utilization rate is low (64%)


Political intervention

10% Specifications too rigid

ü  Schools only confirmed half of the projects recorded by DepEd/DPWH ü  but 25% of projects reported at schools could not be found in DepEd/DPWH records ü  Content of projects also differed even when schools verified project had took place


Late receipt of project list

•  Large discrepancies in tracking elementary school projects:


Insufficient DPWH staff

ü  Around a fifth of projects are reported as incomplete ü  40% of projects in 2013 rated as unsatisfactory by schools


Attracting contract bidders

•  Project difficulties lead to low completion rates and dissatisfaction at the school level:


Impractical uniform pricing

ü  Delays in transferring project lists and funds ü  Project implementation difficulties


Site availability

•  Low utilization partly due to:

% of DPWH offices reporting

•  Allocations broadly in line with need but 30% of projects went to elementary schools that had SCRs below norms


Insufficient funds for hauling

Key findings Infrastructure

Key findings School funding and management


Limited discretionary funding at the school level

Composition of all school funding, 2013/14 school year (PHP 000s)

•  Over 80% of school funding devoted to teacher and staff salaries


•  Less than 15% of school revenue is available to schools to use for operational expenses and support improvement plans


•  Over 80% of funds come from national government (70%-83% of discretionary funds)


•  DepEd discretionary funds chanelled through school MOOE and SBM grants


•  Significant disparities in discretionary funding between schools serving wealthy and poor students 0 Elementary




Other in-kind


ü  Wealthiest 20% of students attend schools that have on average 50% more non-MOOE discretionary funding

Key findings School funding and management

Significant portion of MOOE allocations do not reach schools

•  School MOOE appropriations increased significantly since 2011

ü  Elementary – PHP 317 (US$ 7) to PHP 566 (US$ 13) ü  High school – PHP 731 (US$ 16) to PHP 948 (US$ 21)

Share of original MOOE allocation downloaded and received, 2013 100% 84%

•  But recent work suggest that allocation needs to more than double to meet DepEd norms


•  Formula used for MOOE funding but actual allocation often different •  Lack of knowledge of formula in division offices, schools and among parents •  Only 77% of total allocations for MOOE reached schools in 2013

ü  equivalent to PHP 1.8 billion (US$ 39 mill) of total MOOE appropriation

•  Over 60% of division offices held onto some MOOE despite obligation to download in full

ü  Used retained funds to procure items on schools behalf

Central MOOE allocation

MOOE downloaded to MOOE received by schools by division schools from division

Key findings School funding and management

Schools face significant difficulties in using MOOE funds

Average hours per week spent on MOOE administration, 2014 school year

[VALUE] hrs

•  70% of schools unable to use all of the MOOE funds they receive because: ü  Difficulties in meeting reporting requirements ü  Insufficient time ü  Difficult to identify suppliers

[VALUE] hrs

•  Difficulties result in significant delays in submitting liquidation reports

ü  Over half of liquidation reports in elementary schools and two-thirds in high schools are submitted late

•  and delays/cancelling of further MOOE advances •  Managing and accounting for funds by schools in onerous

elementary schools

high schools

Key findings School funding and management

Transparency and accountability for fund use is relatively weak at the school level

•  Transparency – regulations obligate schools to maintain a transparency board but fewer than 60% of schools had board displaying MOOE information

Percentage of parents who know about the SGC and SIP, 2014 60%

•  Majority of schools rate themselves at the lowest level of implementing school based management •  School level accountability through School Governing Council (SGC) and Parents Teacher Association is generally weak


•  Limited involvement of parents in school decision making ü  Only 13% of elementary schools received input from SGCs on MOOE use

•  Parental awareness of school level institutions, processes and performance is low ü  Most schools have an SGC but few parents are aware ü  Fewer than half of parents were aware of school improvement plan (SIP) ü  Fewer than half of parents had seen the school report card or received a report on their own child

•  Social accountability initiatives have limited coverage

ü  Only 20% of high school principals aware of ‘Check My School’ and only 10% had received a visit in the last 2 years


0% Aware of School Governing Council Elementary

Aware school has an improvement plan High School

Key findings Local government funding

Local government funding to basic education - low, declining and unequal Composition of annual school funding in schools reporting direct LGU support (PHP 000s), 2013/14

•  Local government support to basic education small and declining ü  ü  ü  ü 

PHP 14.3 billion (US$ 310 million) in 2014. 6% of total public spending on basic PHP 744 (US$ 16 ) per basic education student Large unspent surplus of SEF

•  Large regional and school level inequalities

10,000 DepEd

ü  Wealthier regions have higher LGU spending ü  NCR accounts for 44% of all LGU spending despite having only 10% of basic education students ü  LGU spending reinforces inequality at the ES level


•  Fewer than 50% of schools receive direct LGU funding and support is very small (<5%) and mostly in-kind


•  Only 58% of total LGU funding accounted for at school level.

Barangay Local school boards Other


•  No consistent reporting on what remaining funds spent on (teacher allowances and utility payment possible) •  Reflects large inconsistencies and poor reporting ü  24% of elementary schools reported no LGU funding despite LGU reporting support

0 Elementary

High School

Policy directions Increase public spending on education Improve allocation through better planning

•  Despite significant improvements infrastructure and teacher shortages remain •  More school level discretionary and professional development funding needed

•  Introduce medium term planning (2-3 years) for key resource inputs •  Increase role of division/district offices and schools in planning

Give schools greater authority and simplify reporting

•  Give greater authority to schools during implementation (e.g. infrastructure) •  Simplify reporting requirements for MOOE through grant approach

Improve transparency of fund allocation and resource use

•  Developing simple reporting formats and bolster incentives (e.g. LGU seal) •  Introduce and widely disseminate a set of school standards

Strengthen role of school governing councils/ PTAs

•  Increase authority of SGC in oversight of school planning and resource use •  Raise awareness of SGC role and provide support/training

Address funding and quality inequalities

•  Focus on ‘schools under stress’ to address poor learning environments •  Introduce equity component into division and school funding formulas