Ensuring Integrated Education Delivery in the Philippines PDF

Ensuring Integrated and Seamless Education Delivery in the Philippines A Policy Note for Philippine Business for Education Key Messages Ensuring integrated and seamless education delivery is necessary to overcoming the Philippines’ longstanding learni...

Ensuring Integrated and Seamless Education Delivery in the Philippines A Policy Note for Philippine Business for Education Key Messages Ensuring integrated and seamless education delivery is necessary to overcoming the Philippines’ longstanding learning crisis. Coordinating mechanisms have proliferated in recent years to address governance and gaps in the delivery of education services. However, a review of the legal instruments establishing these coordinating mechanisms show that the policy mix is incomplete, with too many government agencies involved. Evidence from an online survey and two focus group discussions of relevant stakeholders highlighted practical constraints and missed expectations in terms of the councils’ performance. In the short term, existing coordinating councils need to be capacitated and resourced for them to deliver on their promise of effective education delivery. In the long term, establishing a cabinet-level coordinating council for education with clear and publicly available performance metrics and a parallel education policy think tank are recommended. Introduction The Philippines’ recent performance in international large-scale student assessment and progress towards its commitments to the 2030 Sustainable Development Goals show an education system that is not delivering on its promise of an educated citizenry that is free, patriotic, and nationalistic, has physical, moral, spiritual, intellectual, and social well-being, and socio-economic mobility and development. Indeed, there has been a learning crisis plaguing the country, as evidenced by high learning poverty (90.9%, 2019).1 Early Childhood Care and Development, proved to be an essential and effective investment, has left many children behind. One (1) in five (5) infants and children is stunted for the past 10 years.2 Net kindergarten enrollment has declined from 84% in SY 2017-2018 to 63% in SY 2019-2020.3 1 NEDA (2022). Philippine Development Plan 2023-2028. Online. Accessed 08 September 2023. https://pdp.neda.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2023/07/Chapter-02.pdf 2 Business World (2023). Malnutrition rate among Filipino infants, toddlers persistent at over 20% — DoH. Online. Accessed 09 September 2023. https://www.bworldonline.com/the-nation/2023/03/21/511977/malnutrition-rate-among-filipino-infants-toddlers-persistent-at-over-20-doh /#:~:text=At%20least%2021.6%25%20of%20infants,in%20mixed%20English%20and%20Filipino. 3 De la Fuente, J.K (n.d.). Equitable Access to Quality Education in the Philippines. Online. Accessed 05 September 2023. https://www.teacherph.com/equitable-access-quality-education-philippines/ 1  Educational attainment and quality have also been on the decline, as measured by the composite efficiency measure of Learning Adjusted Years of Schooling (LAYS): from 8.4 years in 2017 down to 7.5 years in 2020.4 Post-graduation indicators of employment and productivity are no different. The rate of youth not in education, employment, and training (NEET) remains to be high at 17.1% (2021).5 Annual growth rate of labor productivity (at GDP constant 2015) at 1.2 in 2022 has not recovered from the pre-pandemic level of 3% in 2019.6 The Second Joint Congressional Education Commission (EdCom 2) was convened in 2022 to review the state of Philippine education and chart the course towards quality education and lifelong learning for all. This policy brief is a review of the policy instruments governing education delivery, specifically the laws and practices of coordinating councils established to ensure an integrated and seamless delivery of education services in key life stages requiring more than one government agency for implementation. Short-, medium-, and long-term recommendations addressing policy mix completeness and system efficiency through good governance shall be made. Main recommendations include setting and communicating national human capital development targets, reimagining coordinating agencies, and ensuring that they are well-resourced and capacitated, and developing performance measures as bases for accountability. What does the evidence say? To gather evidence as basis for this policy review, the following research approaches were conducted: (1) a literature and policy review of landmark legislations involving at least two of the three education agencies in charge of life stages with accountability overlaps between agencies, (2) an online survey of 41 stakeholders, and (3) two focus group discussions. The first layer of analysis will use the “complete policy mix” model of Saguin (2019)7 wherein a differentiation is made between substantive and procedural instruments. Substantive instrument refers to the “effecting” or “political” mechanisms of a policy, i.e., what, and how education services are delivered, and how resources are allocated, while procedural instrument refers to a policy’s “detecting” or “operational” mechanisms, i.e., a spectrum of data, funding, tools, and procedures to improve decision-making, goal articulation, and implementation.8 Simply put, this analysis will help outline the “what” and” how” of implementation, and the presence of resources and procedures for tracking progress and informing policy feedback and accountability. The OECD’s framework of strategic vision, 4 USAID. Philippines Education. Online. Accessed 04 September 2023. https://idea.usaid.gov/cd/philippines/education 5 ILO (n.d.) Country Profiles. Online. Accessed 3 September 2023. https://ilostat.ilo.org/data/country-profiles/ 6 Ibid. 7 Saguin, K. I. (2019). Designing effective governance of education. Policy Design and Practice, 182-197. 8 Ibid. 2 process and capacity, and monitoring and accountability was used to analyze stakeholder experience of the coordinating councils. Review of policy instruments In the past decade many coordinating councils have been set up to oversee the delivery of critical education services and to track the achievement of education outcomes. As such, the policy instruments reviewed for this brief are 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).9 The UniFAST and UAQTE Laws are treated as a pair as they are currently being implemented in conjunction with each other. These laws 1) have implications on basic, tertiary, and lifelong learning, 2) 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), or one education agency and other government agencies, and 3) their implementation requires the participation of other actors like local government units (LGU) and private sector partners. In general, the laws reviewed lack important substantive and procedural instruments to ensure seamless, integrated, and effective education delivery. Table 1 below shows a PBEd-generated rating system of the policy mix completeness of the laws. A rating of zero indicates an absence, while a rating of one (1) indicates the presence of language pertaining to the relevant elements of the policy. Table 1. Rating of completeness of the coordinating councils’ policy instruments Policy Instruments of the ECCD Teacher UniFAST PQF-NC Aggregat Early Years Act, Excellence in Council Educatio Board C e Teacher Education Act, n Council UniFAST and UAQTE Acts, and PQF Act Substantive Instruments Policy objective: Quantity 0 0 0 0 0 Policy objective: Quality 1 1 1 1 (access, learning, inclusion) 4 Membership: National 1 1 1 1 4 9 Excellence in Teacher Education Act: https://lawphil.net/statutes/repacts/ra2022/ra_11713_2022.html Early Years Act: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/2013/03/26/republic-act-no-10410/ PQF Law: https://pqf.gov.ph/Uploads/Legal%20Basis/RA%2010968.pdf UniFAST Law: https://pqf.gov.ph/Uploads/Legal%20Basis/RA%2010968.pdf UAQTE Law: https://www.officialgazette.gov.ph/downloads/2017/08aug/20170803-RA-10931-RRD.pdf 3  Membership: Local 1 0 0 0 (sub-national) 1 Membership: Non-government 1 1 1 1 4 Secretariat 1 1 1 1 4 Implementation plan 1 1 0 0 2 Own budget (not drawn from 1 0 0 0 implementing agencies) 1 Procedural Instruments Monitoring and evaluation plan 1 0 1 0 2 Producing Performance Data 1 1 1 0 (e.g., Annual Report, progress tracking) 3 Publishing Performance Data 1 0 1 2 Mandated meetings (progress 1 0 1 0 tracking) 2 Expert feedback 1 1 0 1 3 Congressional Oversight 0 1 1 0 2 Completeness 0.86 0.57 0.64 0.36 2.43 While qualitative objectives are articulated, corresponding indicators and numerical outcome measures are not. Quantitative objectives are not mentioned in any of the policy instruments that established the ECCD Council, TEC, UniFAST Board, and PQF-NCC. That is, these laws do not indicate how many Filipinos are supposed to benefit from this policy. Qualitative objectives on the other hand are articulated, albeit in very general terms. The coordinating councils involve many government agencies and council leadership is almost exclusively under DepEd’s purview. Except for the ECCD Council, there are at least five (5) government agencies involved in these coordinating councils. DepEd is the chair of three out of four coordinating councils reviewed, excluding the UniFAST Board which is chaired by the CHED. Only the Early Years Act specifically mandates representation from local governments (through the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines or ULAP). An implementation plan is typically not mandated, and budgets are dependent on implementing agencies. An implementation plan where the scope of work is defined and how the educational service is delivered is only mandated of the ECCD and TEC. Except for the ECCD Council, the remaining three coordinating councils get their funding from member/implementing agencies. The laws establishing these coordinating councils typically do not include language on monitoring and progress tracking, and accountability. Monitoring and evaluation 4  plans are mandated for the ECCD Council and UniFAST. Only the PQF-NCC is not mandated to produce performance data, while the ECCD Council and the UniFAST are mandated to publish performance data and have mandated meetings. Expert feedback is built into the membership of the ECCD Council, TEC, and PQF, while congressional oversight is mandated of the TEC and UniFAST. Data from the survey Method: respondents were asked to rate on a Likert scale (0-5) their agreement to statements pertaining to strategic thinking, process and capacity, monitoring and accountability of four coordinating councils. Local governance questions were added as riders. Statements were positively worded such that scores of or closer to 5 imply favorable impressions of the workings of the coordinating councils. In aggregate, respondents had generally favorable impressions of the level of strategic thinking, process and capacity, and monitoring and accountability. Respondents had a relatively more positive perception of the coordinating agencies’ process and capacity. Ranking average scores in the three main analytical themes, process and capacity had the highest score, while monitoring and accountability had the lowest. Comparing the scores of all four coordinating councils, the ECCD Council was the most positively viewed while PQF-NCC had the lowest average scores on the three themes. Figure 1. Average rating for coordinating councils on strategic thinking, process and capacity, and monitoring and accountability (n=41) 5  Efforts of the coordinating councils to articulate its strategic vision to its stakeholders were rated low. Articulation of the strategic vision of the ECCD Council, the TEC, and PQF-NCC’s vision to their stakeholders was rated the lowest among questions pertaining to strategic vision, while alignment of the vision to national development plans and it ultimately benefiting learners were rated the highest. Figure 2. Average rating for coordinating councils on strategic thinking questions (n=41) Stakeholder perception of the coordinating councils process and capacity were varied in terms of importance, depending on membership type. When only members of the coordinating councils were asked, they rated the capacity building activities to help the council fulfill its mandate the lowest. When all respondents were asked, participation in at least one program of the council and stakeholder consultation the drafting of the IRR were rated low. 6  Figure 3. Average rating of coordinating council members on process and capacity (n=41) Monitoring and accountability scores were typically lower compared to other thematic areas. Questions on the availability and timeliness of performance data were rated the lowest. The question measuring respondent’s worry about grave consequences of unmet targets was rated high across all four coordinating councils. Figure 3. Average rating for coordinating councils on monitoring and accountability questions (n=41) 7  Local governance and capacity questions were typically scored low by respondents. The question on whether the local staffing, budget, and resources were sufficient to enable the council to achieve its targets was scored the lowest for all four coordinating councils. In the same vein, the need for local staffing complement was on average rated the highest. Figure 4. Average rating for coordinating councils on local governance questions (n=41) Data from the focus group discussions Method: Two focus group discussions were organized to gather descriptive stakeholder feedback on questions pertaining to the coordinating councils’ strategic vision, process and capacity, monitoring and accountability, and local governance. The public (i.e., officials from government education agencies, HEIs, coordinating councils) and private (i.e., parents, teachers, researchers) sectors and development partners were represented. In terms of strategic thinking and consistency: FGD participants expressed lack of coherent vision for the sector, and awareness of the specific policy objectives of the coordinating agencies. Undefined vision and targets, participants were unaware or had little knowledge of the agency’s vision for quality education, given the lack of articulation of the councils’ vision to their stakeholders. The participants expressed their missed expectations pertaining to the coordinating council’s regulatory powers, mandate, employer needs, geographic presence and localization, performance measures, impact (on quantity and quality), and monitoring and accountability. For example, participants lamented the lack of powers 8  of the ECCD to ensure consistent local roll out of ECCD programs, the TEC’s lack of power to close down bad performing programs, the lack of PQF-NCC presence in the regions, and the inability of the UniFAST to provide true universal access to quality tertiary education. Participants highlighted the lack of articulation of the functions of the coordinating councils with other education policies. For example, the ECCD Council is now working towards a set of national standards for early childhood care and development that will cover teacher training, certification that is currently with the DSWD, and actual program delivery currently under the purview of local government units. Another example is in the context of teacher education. Participants report that it is still siloed: teacher education standards are not aligned with DepEd needs, while TEIs do not know what kind and how many teachers they need to produce. Participants lamented that implementing agencies do not talk to each other or harmonize implementation, e.g., UniFAST doesn’t report on TVET data; TEC has yet to harmonize the standards outlined in the Philippine Professional Standards for Teachers (PPST), CHED Memorandum Order on Teacher Education, Board Licensure Exam for Professional Teachers, and the DepEd’s hiring standards (i.e., Registry of Qualified Applicants). Capacity-wise, participants reported that the coordinating councils needed a strong secretariat but in practice, some are not functioning. Only the UniFAST has a permanent ED; the ECCD Council and the TEC Council EDs are awaiting confirmation; the PQF-NCC ED has not yet been hired, and as such the TESDA is acting as its interim secretariat. Coordinating agency secretariats are typically small and understaffed. There is a perception that resources are dwindling, thus requiring reprioritization. As these councils’ budgets are dependent on their mother agency, they have to make do with what is allocated for them and achieve as many of their performance targets as possible. For example, the UniFAST is moving away from direct disbursement given that the budgets are now being directly negotiated between the SUCs and DBM. It is now pivoting towards improved quality standards for fund disbursement, equity (i.e., focus on marginalized students as targeted in the law) and coordination (for data and monitoring and evaluation). Third-party providers and online provision of services were recommended to augment government capacity. For the UniFAST for example, third-party student financing providers were cited as good examples of what is currently working in improving access to tertiary education. The respondents highlighted that online delivery of education services can help with teacher professional development and training of day-care professionals. There are few opportunities that inform the public of the performance of these coordinating councils and how they impact learning. For example, one FGD participant shared that the TEC has an annual conference, but it is unclear to participants how that improves teacher education. Another participant said that the PQF-NCC was technically 9  non-functioning, save for one recent consultation hearing that was organized by the Senate. In terms of these councils’ performance, participants shared that they lacked clarity on the programs of these coordinating councils. They also said that their interpretation of the councils’ performance lacks objective bases, as performance indicators are not made public. Participants expressed interest in the creation of regional or provincial versions of the coordinating councils to improve communication and leverage existing coordinating mechanisms like the local school boards and the regional development councils. Region 1’s regional TEC was cited as a best practice. Participants report that there are no clear metrics of performance. Data on performance has been largely anecdotal and current data gathering surveys like the Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey do not capture all the human capital development outcomes that need to be tracked. One participant shared that the last national graduate tracer study was from more than 10 years ago (i.e., survey of graduates of AY 2010-2011). Data reporting has been spotty, especially for services that have been decentralized (e.g., ECCD to LGUs, UniFAST to individual SUCs). This information asymmetry was cited as one of the reasons for mismatches between expected and actual performance. Participants recommended that a unified performance monitoring and evaluation system be set up to track learner outcomes and overall system performance. Indicators include, kindergarten enrollment, early grade reading and numeracy, international learning assessment scores, NAT scores, university-value add, teacher quality measures (e.g., value-add to retention and student learning), school head/leadership measures, attrition, equity and inclusion measures, “carrying capacity” of SUCs, budget utilization, and post-graduation outcomes. What do these findings mean? The policy mix lacks completeness. The existing laws are especially weak when it comes to quantitative objectives, budget, and monitoring and accountability instruments. Granted that supporting policy documents like administrative orders and agency plans were not analyzed. However, it can be argued that landmark legislations should articulate a vision that is consistent, implementable, and trackable. The complexity and the number of actors delivering education services at key life stages where accountabilities overlap require efficient coordination. However, the membership of too many government agencies already requires a high degree of coordination within the council itself, which the policy instruments do not easily facilitate. 10  Clarifying expectations in terms of performance standards, desired results, and the scope of a coordinating council’s mandate in relation to other education-related policies need to be prioritized. Concretely, given that performance tracking feedback is not embedded in the policy instrument, information about the performance of the education system is typically not accessible to the public. This is corroborated by the results of the online survey and the focus group discussions, which highlight the expressed interest of stakeholders in information on the system’s performance. Improving information dissemination of the system’s performance might be the cheapest way to induce good behavior both of implementing agencies and external stakeholders (e.g., increasing agencies’ motivation to achieve targets; parents investing more in education). Interventions that are proved to work require efficient coordination among various education actors. In a 2020 review of literature, Angrist et. al.10 found that interventions that are cheap and effective in increasing LAYS by 3 years for as little as US$100 are targeted information campaigns on benefits, cost, and quality; teaching at the right level instead of grade; and improved pedagogy coupled with structured student materials, teacher professional development and monitoring. Ensuring that the vision is articulated among all stakeholders, standards are followed and implemented across delivery levels, and performance is monitored and measured to improve policy requires coordination that has mandate and legitimacy, especially when incentivizing good behavior and asserting accountability. There is weighed interest in decentralization of education delivery, starting with the coordinating councils. While respondents expressed the importance of some form of decentralization of education delivery, they also worried about the capacity of and resources available to LGUs to deliver. The capacity issue will need to be studied and addressed before coordination mechanisms at the sub-national levels are established. Oversight mechanisms act as de facto performance monitoring mechanisms and induce good behavior. Coordinating councils whose laws mandated an oversight mechanism are perceived to be working. Congressional hearings can induce good behavior like performance reporting, and accountability, as was the case for the PQF-NCC. No mention was made of education in emergencies. This could be a problem given that many scientists now estimate that climate change induced disruptions like pandemics and extreme weather conditions will become more frequent and unpredictable. Future education policies should have the substantive and procedural instruments that would address these possibilities. 10 Angrist, et. al. (2020). How to Improve Education Outcomes Most Efficiently?. World Bank. Online accessed 10 September 2023. https://documents1.worldbank.org/curated/en/801901603314530125/pdf/How-to-Improve-Education-Outcomes-Most-Efficiently-A-Compari son-of-150-Interventions-Using-the-New-Learning-Adjusted-Years-of-Schooling-Metric.pdf 11 How then can the insights from the evidence be acted upon? Implications and recommendations are phased and evaluated based on the time required to implement, the facility of implementation given socio-political context, and possible cost implications. Table 2 below outlines the recommendations arising from this policy review. Table 2. Recommendations Intervention Who is Time Facility Cost Responsible required Implications Short term Information campaign EdCom2 6 months Easy Cheap on the state of Philippine education Development of an EdCom2 1 year Easy Expensive education sector plan In the 2024 General Congress