Education Policy and Governance

Policy Brief on Education Delivery in the Philippines

• The policy brief reviews the policy instruments governing education delivery in the Philippines, focusing on laws and practices of coordinating councils that ensure integrated and seamless delivery of education services.

Education Statistics in the Philippines

• One in five infants and children in the Philippines has been stunted for the past 10 years.
• Net kindergarten enrollment has declined from 84% in SY 2017-2018 to 63% in SY 2019-2020.
• Educational attainment and quality have been declining, with a composite efficiency measure of Learning Adjusted Years of Schooling (LAYS) decreasing from 8.4 years in 2017 to 7.5 years in 2020.
• The rate of youth not in education, employment, and training (NEET) remains high at 17.1% (2021).
• The annual growth rate of labor productivity has not recovered from the pre-pandemic level of 3% in 2019, with a rate of 1.2 in 2022.

Coordinating Councils in the Philippines

• Coordinating councils have been established to oversee the delivery of critical education services and track the achievement of education outcomes.
• The policy instruments reviewed include the laws establishing the Early Childhood Care and Development Council (Early Years Act, 2013), UNIFAST (2015), Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education (2016), PQF-NCC (2018), and the Teacher Education Council (2022).
• These laws have implications on basic, tertiary, and lifelong learning, and establish a coordination mechanism involving at least two of the three education agencies, i.e., the Department of Education (DepEd), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), and/or Commission on Higher Education (CHED).

Completeness of Policy Instruments

• The policy instruments reviewed lack important substantive and procedural instruments to ensure seamless, integrated, and effective education delivery.
• A rating system of the policy mix completeness of the laws shows that the laws reviewed lack quantitative objectives, and corresponding indicators and numerical outcome measures are not mentioned.
• Qualitative objectives are articulated, but in very general terms, and the coordinating councils involve many government agencies, with DepEd as the chair of three out of four coordinating councils reviewed.

Challenges and Recommendations

• The coordinating councils lack important substantive and procedural instruments to ensure seamless, integrated, and effective education delivery.
• Recommendations include setting and communicating national human capital development targets, reimagining coordinating agencies, and ensuring they are well-resourced and capacitated, and developing performance measures as bases for accountability.

Coordinating Councils in Education

• Many coordinating councils have been established in the Philippines to oversee education services and track education outcomes.
• The laws reviewed include the Early Childhood Care and Development Council (Early Years Act, 2013), UniFAST (2015), Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education (2016), PQF-NCC (2018), and the Teacher Education Council (2022).

Policy Instruments Review

• The laws reviewed lack important substantive and procedural instruments to ensure seamless, integrated, and effective education delivery.
• Table 1 shows a rating system of policy mix completeness, with a rating of zero indicating an absence and a rating of one indicating the presence of language pertaining to relevant elements.

Stakeholder Experience

• Focus group discussions (FGD) participants expressed a lack of coherent vision for the sector and awareness of specific policy objectives of the coordinating agencies.
• Participants were unaware or had little knowledge of the agency's vision for quality education due to the lack of articulation of the councils' vision to their stakeholders.
• Participants expressed missed expectations regarding the coordinating council's regulatory powers, mandate, employer needs, geographic presence, localization, performance measures, impact, and monitoring and accountability.

Capacity and Monitoring

• Participants reported that the coordinating councils needed a strong secretariat, but in practice, some were not functioning.
• Coordinating agency secretariats are typically small and understaffed, with dwindling resources.
• There is a perception that resources are dwindling, requiring reprioritization.

Third-Party Providers and Online Services

• Third-party providers and online provision of services were recommended to augment government capacity.
• Online delivery of education services can help with teacher professional development and training of day-care professionals.

Performance and Accountability

• There are few opportunities to inform the public of the performance of these coordinating councils and how they impact learning.
• Participants shared that they lacked clarity on the programs of these coordinating councils.
• Participants expressed interest in the creation of regional or provincial versions of the coordinating councils to improve communication and leverage existing coordinating mechanisms.

Data and Performance Indicators

• Participants reported that there are no clear metrics of performance.
• Data on performance has been largely anecdotal, and current data gathering surveys do not capture all human capital development outcomes.
• Participants recommended that a unified performance monitoring and evaluation system be set up to track learner outcomes and overall system performance.

Interventions and Coordination

• Interventions that are cheap and effective in increasing learning outcomes require efficient coordination among various education actors.
• Ensuring that the vision is articulated among all stakeholders, standards are followed, and performance is monitored and measured to improve policy requires coordination with mandate and legitimacy.

Coordinating Councils' Capacity and Performance

• Coordinating council members rated the capacity building activities to help fulfill the council's mandate as the lowest.
• Participation in at least one program of the council and stakeholder consultation in the drafting of the IRR were also rated low.

Monitoring and Accountability

• Monitoring and accountability scores were generally lower compared to other thematic areas.
• Questions on the availability and timeliness of performance data were rated the lowest.
• Respondents were concerned about the consequences of unmet targets.

Local Governance and Capacity

• Local governance and capacity questions were scored low by respondents.
• The question on whether local staffing, budget, and resources were sufficient to enable the council to achieve its targets was scored the lowest.
• The need for local staffing complement was rated the highest.

Focus Group Discussions

• Two focus group discussions were organized to gather feedback on the coordinating councils' strategic vision, process, and capacity, monitoring and accountability, and local governance.
• Public and private sectors and development partners were represented.

Improving Information Dissemination

• Improving information dissemination of the system's performance might be the cheapest way to induce good behavior among implementing agencies and external stakeholders.

Effective Interventions

• Targeted information campaigns on benefits, cost, and quality; teaching at the right level; and improved pedagogy coupled with structured student materials, teacher professional development, and monitoring can be effective interventions.

Decentralization of Education Delivery

• There is interest in decentralization of education delivery, starting with the coordinating councils.
• However, respondents expressed concerns about the capacity and resources available to LGUs to deliver education services.

Oversight Mechanisms

• Oversight mechanisms can act as de facto performance monitoring mechanisms and induce good behavior.
• Coordinating councils with mandated oversight mechanisms are perceived to be working effectively.

Policy Recommendations

• Recommendations include setting and communicating national human capital development targets, reimagining coordinating agencies, and ensuring they are well-resourced and capacitated.
• Developing performance measures as bases for accountability is also recommended.