Completion Report

Project Number: 25182

Loan Number: 1654
March 2009

PHI: Secondary Education Development and

Improvement Project
 CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – peso (P)

At Appraisal At Project Completion

19 October 1998 14 October 2008
P1.00 = $0.0232 $0.0212
$1.00 = P43.056 P47.095

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank

APIS – Annual Poverty Indicators Survey
ARMM – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao
BSE – Bureau of Secondary Education
CAR – Cordillera Administrative Region
CoP – Community of Practice
DEDP – division education development plan
DepEd – Department of Education
DORP – dropout reduction program
EASE – effective alternative secondary education
HSIF – High School Innovation Fund
INSET – in-service training
JBIC – Japan Bank for International Cooperation
LGU – local government unit
LIBOR – London Interbank Offered Rate
LMP – learning management program
M&E – monitoring and evaluation
NAT – National Achievement Test
NER – net enrollment ratio
NPMO – National Project Management Office
OHSS – open high school system
PCR – project completion report
RME – results monitoring and evaluation
SEDIP – Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project
SEDP – Secondary Education Development Project
SIP – school improvement plan
SRA – Social Reform Agenda
SSA – secondary school alternatives
TA – technical assistance
TEEP – Third Elementary Education Project
TNA – training needs assessment
 NOTES

(i) The school year (SY) takes in parts of two calendar years and is cited in this
report according to that year in which it begins.

(ii) In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.

Vice President C. Lawrence Greenwood, Jr., Operations Group 2

Director General A. Thapan, Southeast Asia Department (SERD)
Director S. Lateef, Social Sectors Division, SERD

Team leader W. Duncan, Head, Project Administration Unit, SERD

Team member M. Camara-Crespo, Assistant Project Analyst, SERD

In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any
designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the
Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status
of any territory or area.
 CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA i
MAP
I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1
II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1
A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 1
B. Project Outputs 2
C. Project Costs 8
D. Disbursements 8
E. Project Schedule 8
F. Implementation Arrangements 9
G. Conditions and Covenants 9
H. Related Technical Assistance 9
I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 10
J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 11
K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 12
L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 12
III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 13
A. Relevance 13
B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 13
C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 15
D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 15
E. Impact 16
IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17
A. Overall Assessment 17
B. Lessons Learned 17
C. Recommendations 18
APPENDIXES
1. Performance Summary against the Design and Monitoring Framework 20
2. Actual Project Costs and Financing Plan 26
3. Yearly Disbursement of Loan Proceeds 27
4. Actual Project Implementation Schedule 28
5. Status of Compliance with Loan Covenants 30
6. Technical Assistance Completion Report 34
7. Trends in Student Achievement Scores 36
8. Dropout Rates for SEDIP Divisions, 2002/03–2006/07 40
9. Net Enrollment Ratios: 2002/03–2007/08 44
10. Completion Rates for SEDIP Divisions, 2002/03–2006/07 46
11. Overall Assessment 47
 BASIC DATA

A. Loan Identification

1. Country The Philippines

2. Loan Number 1654-PHI
3. Project Title Secondary Education Development and
Improvement Project
4. Borrower Republic of the Philippines
5. Executing Agency Department of Education
6. Amount of Loan $53.0 million (original loan amount)
$32.12 million (net loan amount)
7. Project Completion Report Number PCR: PHI 1097

B. Loan Data
1. Appraisal
– Date Started 16 March 1998
– Date Completed 8 April 1998

2. Loan Negotiations
– Date Started 22 October 1998
– Date Completed 22 October 1998

3. Date of Board Approval 11 December 1998

4. Date of Loan Agreement 1 March 1999

5. Date of Loan Effectiveness

– In Loan Agreement 31 May 1999
– Actual 19 May 1999
– Number of Extensions 0

6. Closing Date
– In Loan Agreement 31 December 2006
– Actual 14 October 2008
– Number of Extensions 2

7. Terms of Loan
– Interest Rate LIBOR-based (15 December 2002)
– Maturity (number of years) 27
– Grace Period (number of years) 7

8. Disbursements
a. Dates
Initial Disbursement Final Disbursement Time Interval

1 October 1999 14 October 2008 108 months

Effective Date Original Closing Date Time Interval

19 May 1999 31 December 2006 91 months

 ii

b. Amount ($ million)
Last Net
Original Revised Amount Amount Amount Undisbursed
Category Allocation Allocation Canceled Available Disbursed Balance
Civil Works .203 .203 .203 .163 .040
Equipment .996 .996 .996 .808 .188
Textbook and 21.584 13.584 8.000 13.584 12.226 1.358
Materials
School Mapping .950 2.050 2.050 1.074 .976
and Studies
In-Country 6.000 6.000 6.000 5.156 .844
Training
Overseas .192 .192 .192 .395 (.203)
Training
High School 2.000 2.000 2.000 1.921 .080
Innovation Fund
Consulting 2.333 5.025 5.025 4.859 .166
Services
Interest/ 10.516 5.516 5.000 5.516 5.516
Commitment
Charge
Unallocated 8.226 0.000 4.434
Total 53.000 35.566 17.434 35.566 32.118 3.447

9. Local Costs (Financed)

- Amount ($) 12.266
- Percent of Local Costs 53%
- Percent of Total Cost 38%

C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign Exchange Cost 61.9 42.7

Local Currency Cost 101.5 94.2
Total 163.4 136.9

2. Financing Plan ($ million)

Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual
Implementation Costs
Borrower Financed 56.1 45.8
ADB Financed 53.0 32.1
Other External Financing 54.3 59.0
Total 163.4 136.9
IDC Costs
Borrower Financed
ADB Financed 10.5 5.5
Other External Financing
Total 10.5 5.5
ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction.
 iii

3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual
A. Base Cost
Improving Teaching and Learning Process 108.3 93.5
Improving Access in Underserved Areas 5.5 4.6
Facilitating Decentralized Management 10.4 8.5
Project Recurrent Costs, Taxes, and Duties 9.7 24.8

B. Contingencies
Physical 8.9
Price 9.1

C. Interest during Construction 11.5 5.5

Total 163.4 136.9

4. Project Schedule
Item Appraisal Estimate Actual
Date of Contract with Consultants Q2 2000 Q4 2000
Civil Works Contract
Date of Award Q4 2000 Q3 2000
Completion of Work Q4 2006 Q1 2008
Equipment and Supplies Q3 2000 Q1 2008
Dates
First Procurement Q2 2000 Q3 2000
Last Procurement Q4 2006 Q1 2008
Q = calendar quarter.

5. Project Performance Report Ratings

Ratings
Development Implementation
Implementation Period Objectives Progress
From 10 December 1998 to 30 September 2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory
From 1 October 2002 to 30 November 2002 Unsatisfactory Partly Satisfactory
From 1 December 2002 to 28 February 2003 Partly Satisfactory Partly Satisfactory
From 1 March 2003 to 31 July 2003 Partly Satisfactory Satisfactory
From 1 August 2003 to 14 October 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory
iv

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

No. of No. of Specialization of
Name of Mission Date Persons Person-Days Members

Fact-finding 8–15 October 1997 6 30 a, c, e, f, g

Appraisal 16 March to 8 April 1998 9 45 a, b, c, d, e, f, g
Inception 3–12 November 1999 5 32 a, c, e, f, g
Review Mission 1 24–26 October 2000 2 6 a, e
Disbursement 1 13 August 2001 2 2 c, e
Midterm 28 May to 10 September 2002 7 52 a, d, f
Review Mission 2 18–29 August 2003 2 10 a, d
Review Mission 3 30 August to 23 November 2004 3 20 a, d
Review Mission 4 22 August to 1 September 2005 2 16 a, d
Review Mission 5 22 August to 8 September 2006 2 8 a, d
Review Mission 6 30 October to 16 December 2006 3 27 a, d, h
Review Mission 7 4–6 July 2007 2 6 a, e
Disbursement 2 18–19 September 2007 2 4 a, d
Review Mission 8 24 October to 6 December 2007 1 8 a
Project Completion 9–10 October 2008 2 2 a, f
Review
a
May use reference letters in table, e.g., a – project officer, b – counsel, c – control officer, d – national officer, e –
project analyst, f – consultant, g – consulting services specialist, h – external relations officer.
 I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION

1. The Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP) was

approved on 11 December 1998 and became effective on 19 May 1999. The total project cost
was estimated at $163.4 million, originally comprised of $53 million from the Asian Development
Bank (ADB), $54.3 million from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC),1 and $56.1
million from the Government of the Philippines. During implementation, $17.4 million was
canceled from the ADB loan, reducing the ADB loan amount to $35.6 million. The JBIC loan
covered all of the Project’s civil works.

2. The Executing Agency was the Department of Education (DepEd), while the
implementing agency was the Bureau of Secondary Education (BSE). The Director of BSE was
the project manager. The National Project Management Office (NPMO) implemented the Project.

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION

3. The overall purpose (impact) of the Project was to improve equitable access to quality
secondary education in poverty-affected rural provinces.2 The expected project outcomes were
(i) improved quality and relevance of secondary education in the project provinces; (ii) increased
rates of participation in, and completion of, secondary education in underserved areas within the
project provinces; and (iii) better capacity of division education officials to establish the
conditions for school-based management. The Project aimed to close the gap between SEDIP
divisions and the rest of the country. Four key performance indicators were identified for
measuring reduced disparity: (i) net enrollment ratio (NER), by 5%; (ii) completion rate, by 2%;
(iii) dropout rate, by 2%; and (iv) student achievement (no specific target).

4. The Project was implemented in 27 poverty-affected provinces identified under the

Government’s Social Reform Agenda (SRA) in 1995. 3 Fifteen of the provinces received
complete project interventions while 12 received textbooks only.

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation

5. The project design built upon and extended the accomplishments of the earlier ADB-
funded Secondary Education Development Project (SEDP). SEDP had supported
implementation of the free public secondary education policy and the new secondary education
curriculum, both adopted in the 1990 school year (SY1990). A major expansion and upgrading
of the public secondary education system resulted, but the performance of the system in rural
and poverty-affected areas remained weak and inequitable as measured by enrollment and
completion rates, as well as by learning outcomes.4

1
Loan PH200, Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Closing date is 31 December 2009.
2
The provinces were selected from the 27 poverty-affected provinces identified by the Government’s Social Reform
Agenda in 1995.
3
The 15 project provinces (and their administrative regions) that received complete interventions were Benguet
(CAR), Ifugao (CAR), Antique (VI) Guimaras (VI), Agusan del Sur (Caraga), Surigao del Sur (Caraga), Romblon
(IV-B), Masbate (V), Oriental Negros (VII), Leyte (VIII), Southern Leyte (VIII), Biliran (VIII), Zamboanga del Sur (IX),
Zamboanga Sibugay (IX), and North Cotabato (XII). The 12 project provinces that received only textbooks were
Abra (CAR), Mountain Province (CAR), Kalinga (CAR), Apayao (CAR), Sulu (ARMM), Tawi Tawi (ARMM),
Maguindanao (ARMM), Batanes, Aurora, Capiz (VI), Eastern Samar (VIII), and Basilian (ARMM). Originally, 14
project provinces were identified. In 2002, Zamboanga Sibugay was declared a separate province from
Zamboanga del Sur. Hence, there were 15 project provinces.
4
NPMO. 2008. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.
2

6. A comprehensive education investment package to improve basic education in the

poverty-affected rural provinces was thus conceived: the Third Elementary Education Project
(TEEP), 5 to cover primary education, and SEDIP, to cover secondary education. The two
projects were developed in close collaboration, covered the same provinces, and shared
complementary approaches and strategies. TEEP began a year earlier than did SEDIP.

7. SEDIP built upon and extended SEDP’s accomplishments. While SEDP had provided
nationwide and centrally defined support, SEDIP was designed to support strategies formulated
by the Government to address the inequities affecting secondary education in the poverty-
affected provinces. The main strategies of the Government supported by the Project included (i)
directing greater support and resources to low-performing areas and schools; (ii) decentralizing
education management functions to division and school levels to encourage schools to manage
and deliver quality education, with particular attention to supporting school heads in carrying out
pedagogical leadership; and (iii) a joint and coordinated effort to address common issues
affecting elementary and secondary education.6

8. The project design focused on improving the learning environment by providing large
amounts of reading and learning materials (textbooks, supplementary and library materials),
supplemented by physical improvements (building new schools; upgrading classrooms, libraries,
and science laboratories). The project design also encouraged secondary schools to identify
innovative and locally suitable initiatives to address constraints on quality teaching and learning
and to incorporate a system supporting students in assessing their own areas where learning
needed improvement. The Project also supported a module-based alternative secondary
education service program for students who were unable to attend school regularly.

9. The design appropriately incorporated capacity building to improve teaching and

learning processes and to promote decentralization. Intensive in-service training for classroom
teachers included new methods for teaching, better classroom management (especially for
large classes), student-centered assessment, classroom-based progress monitoring and test
development, and classroom equipment maintenance. Teacher training also included certificate
programs in mathematics and science for teachers who had not specialized in these subjects,
as well as specific training in identifying the needs of students at risk of dropping out. In-service
training for school heads in the 15 provinces covered school analysis and school improvement
planning, school management and administration, instructional support to teachers, and
community participation in secondary school improvement. Formal and on-the-job training was
provided to strengthen the capacity of DepEd division offices in the planning and management
of secondary education, as well as external, in-country, and on-the-job training for staff of
central and regional offices in sector and project monitoring and evaluation. On the whole, the
design of the Project was timely, appropriate, and comprehensive. All civil works as well as
classroom and laboratory equipment were covered by the JBIC financing.

B. Project Outputs

10. The Project had three components, or outputs, with numerous subcomponents. Details
of the Project’s key outputs and performance against the original targets are in Appendix 1. The

5
The World Bank-supported TEEP was approved in November 1996, started on 2 July 1997, and ended on 30 June
2004. It covered all of the poverty-stricken SRA provinces. The project aimed to i) build the institutional capacity of
the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to manage the change process associated with TEEP; and ii)
improve learning achievement, completion rates, and access to quality elementary education in 27 poor provinces.
The project had parallel financing from JBIC.
6
NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.
 3

Project performed very well in achieving its targets, as all targets were either met or exceeded.
At the end of the Project, the overall physical accomplishment was 99.4%.

1. Output 1: Improved Teaching and Learning

11. Output 1 aimed at improving the quality and relevance of secondary education in the
project provinces through the following sub-outputs: (i) better skills and competence of school
heads in providing instructional support to teachers, (ii) improved teaching skills and subject
matter knowledge among teachers, (iii) improved availability of learning resources, (iv) improved
physical environment for learning, and (v) piloting of the High School Innovation Fund (HSIF).

12. More than 800 secondary school heads, against an original target of 650, were provided
with two in-service training programs: (i) a learning management program (LMP) and
instructional support; and (ii) student assessment tools, practices, and alternative approaches.

13. The LMP aims to create a learning community where every member learns and grows
continuously by managing his or her own learning. School heads were provided with the
opportunity to self-identify the skills and competencies they needed to acquire, or improve upon,
in order to implement a school improvement plan (SIP), 7 teacher professional development
plans, and the teachers’ individual career plans. School heads were then trained to implement
the LMP for their teachers and students. Teachers were given the opportunity to self-identify the
teaching competencies they needed to improve upon, or learn, with regard to supporting
students’ learning, implementation of the SIP, and their own personal career plans. In many
schools, the LMP took on the form of a Community of Practice (CoP) where teachers sought
support from one another with regard to their learning needs. Upon establishing CoPs, school
heads in many schools visited during the Project Completion Review Mission had no role in
sustaining them. Rather, teachers were inclined to sustain the CoPs themselves since they
found sharing of classroom experiences and teaching materials useful.

14. Under the LMP, students were to self-identify skills and knowledge necessary for their
mastery of the basic competencies in English, mathematics, science, Filipino, and social studies.
In theory, the program for students was seen as a way of supporting and managing self-directed
learning. In reality, however, implementation of the LMP for students was limited, according to
division in-service training (INSET) coordinators interviewed during the Project Completion
Review Mission. It was reported that the main purpose of supporting self-directed learning was
lost because teachers were overwhelmed by the formal process and paperwork that students
needed to complete. The SEDIP staff development program evaluation also states that some
SEDIP divisions had to carry out the LMP training more than once to ensure understanding of
the forms. 8 BSE and SEDIP divisions are reevaluating the LMP and making the necessary
changes for improved teacher implementation and student participation. Division INSET
coordinators in several divisions are looking to revise and incorporate the LMP into the second
INSET program to be offered to school heads on student assessment methods.

15. Training on instructional support provided school heads with the opportunity to develop
their competence as managers and instructional leaders. School heads interviewed during the
Project Completion Review Mission reported that the training made them more aware of their
role in the teaching-learning process, particularly in terms of being a mentor to teachers in

7
School heads were trained to develop SIPs during in-service training provided under Output 3. See para. 29.
8
NPMO. 2008. SEDIP Staff Development Program Evaluation for Batch 1 and 2 Divisions: Final Report. Manila
(p. 25).
4

planning classroom instruction. Many also reported improved personnel relations, based on
better communication with their teachers. Many school heads mentioned that they previously
viewed their work as limited to managerial issues only. The Government’s project completion
report (PCR) 9 found that 61% of school heads continue to develop and use instructional
supervision plans. Teachers who were interviewed appreciated that their school heads were
supporting the teaching-learning process by providing the necessary classroom materials.

16. More than 11,000 secondary school teachers (versus an original target of 9,700)
received INSET in four areas: (i) modern teaching methods; (ii) classroom management; (iii)
care and use of learning support materials; and (iv) student-centered assessment tools,
practices, and alternative approaches. Teachers interviewed during the Project Completion
Review Mission mentioned that the most useful training program was on classroom
management, because they were taught to think of the student holistically and to understand
that students learn best through experience. Most science and mathematics teachers identified
training on care and use of learning support materials to be most useful, since their classrooms
were recipients of new science and mathematics equipment through the Project (JBIC
financing). The Government PCR found that 90% of teachers surveyed consistently applied the
knowledge and skills learned in classroom management, and in the proper care and use of
learning support materials.

17. Division-based training needs assessments (TNAs) were conducted to identify specific
training needs for teachers that were not covered by the Project’s four major teacher INSET
programs. Divisions concentrated mainly on designing and conducting teacher training
programs on test preparation. Teachers learned to construct standardized test items, conduct
authentic assessment, and understand their roles as managers of student learning.10 A total of
8,804 teachers (against a target of 8,000) received TNA-based training. Students interviewed
during the Project Completion Review Mission commonly described the use of learning
portfolios as a form of organizing class assignments. Teachers mentioned that before every
grading period they asked students to rate themselves on their progress by looking at the work
collected in their learning portfolios. The use of a rubric in the students’ rating process would
have improved the reliability of this assessment.

18. In order to improve the teaching of science and mathematics at the secondary level, and
in acknowledgment of the widespread mismatch between teachers’ specializations and the
subjects they are assigned to teach, the Project provided a certificate course in science and
mathematics for “mismatched” teachers through selected regional science and teaching centers.
A total of 1,377 teachers who were teaching but not qualified in science and mathematics
completed the certificate course (against a target of 1,300),.

19. Textbooks provision exceeded the target of 4.1 million books, as 5.9 million textbooks in
mathematics, science, English, Filipino, and social studies were delivered to 850 schools. The
number of teachers’ manuals (146,300) supplied to the same 850 schools also exceeded the
original target (125,217). A total of 302,215 basic library collections—exceeding the target of
296,603 copies—were delivered to 850 schools. In 2007, to ensure proper care of textbooks
and reduce losses due to wear and tear and negligence, a total of 792,324 book bags were
provided to high school students in all of the SEDIP divisions. The book bags were not part of
the original target deliverables. Also, to compensate for the general shortage of materials in the
group of subjects making up values education, the Project reproduced and distributed to

9
NPMO. 2008. Results Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) Report: Leading Indicators and Initial Gains. Manila.
10
NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.
 5

schools 359,674 effective alternative secondary education (EASE)11 modules. This was beyond
the project targets. Despite the enormous effort expended in making textbooks available, the
project target of a 1:1 student:textbook ratio was not achieved. In some provinces 80% of
schools reported a 1:1 ratio, but in five provinces it was below 50%. The average for all schools
was only 34%. This disappointing result was due to faster than expected enrolment growth; the
establishment of many new so-called “annex” schools, which reduced efficiencies in textbook
usage; the rise in floods, typhoons, and other natural disasters that damaged book collections;
as well as possible miscounting as schools often did not understand that some of the books
developed earlier under other projects were actually reprinted and resupplied by SEDIP.

20. Delays in textbook delivery were caused by failures in the bidding process due to
noncompliant bidders. In addition, the Project’s procurement needs had to compete with
DepEd’s other procurement requirements after a department-wide procurement committee was
established. To solve this problem, DepEd created a special bids and awards committee tasked
to handle the procurement requirements of foreign-assisted projects. To further minimize
failures in the bidding process, DepEd also unbundled the contracting process for the
development of manuscripts from the printing and delivery of textbooks.

21. Under the JBIC financing, the Project supported the construction and rehabilitation of
school facilities and procurement of furniture and equipment for classrooms, science
laboratories, and other school facilities. School requirements were assessed through a school
mapping exercise. The Project’s school building program required local government units (LGUs)
to provide 25% of the construction costs for the required school facilities. LGU involvement was
incorporated into the school building program to promote partnership with local stakeholders.
Most LGUs found it difficult to provide the equity funds, which resulted in postponed
construction. Involving LGUs brought other forms of support for some schools, however, such
as security to protect new school facilities from theft and vandalism.

22. The High School Innovation Fund (HSIF) initially encouraged schools to experiment with
responsive and sustainable solutions to critical school problems prioritized in their SIPs. During
project implementation, however, the scope of the HSIF shifted from innovative projects to
remediation projects. The shift in focus was brought about by the very poor performance of
mostly first- and second-year high school students. A significant number of students (from
SY2003–SY2007) were found to have very poor reading and numeracy skills. HSIF provided
financial assistance to schools with project proposals approved by their division review and
evaluation committees organized by the SEDIP divisions. In all, 351 schools implemented HSIF
projects reaching 61,736 student beneficiaries, mostly in the first year of high school. Most of
the HSIF projects were for reading remediation (59%). Others were for science (15%);
combined English, science, and mathematics (11%); and mathematics alone (8%). Schools
reported a decrease in the number of students identified as readers at the “frustration level” and
an increase in the number of students identified as readers at the “instructional” and
“independent” levels. Similarly, there was an improvement in the comprehension level from
“literal” to “interpretative.” As a result of the reading remediation programs, the students were
also able to form good study habits, become more participative in class, and improve their
school attendance.

23. HSIF coordinators interviewed during the Project Completion Review and other missions
confirm that the reading remediation programs have continued to operate in the schools by
using the materials initially provided, albeit with some modifications. For instance, instead of

11
For more on EASE modules, see para. 27.
6

running the program during weekends, when food and transportation costs need to be met,
schools will continue the program during regular school hours to alleviate the extra costs. In
many schools, the reading remediation program is now offered to all first-year students.

24. HSIF coordinators at the division level mentioned that the focus on remediation for first-
and second-year high school students has further led to a stronger focus on reading skill
development at the elementary schools. This is reflected as a bridge between elementary and
secondary education in some division education plans.

2. Output 2: Increased Completion and Participation Rates

25. The Project implemented the dropout reduction program (DORP), which provided SEDIP
divisions and schools with the steps needed to decrease the high dropout rates prevalent in the
SRA provinces. The Project provided division- and school-level training programs for developing
and implementing coordinated student dropout reduction plans. Exceeding the target of 180,
240 schools were able to establish programs for increasing student retention. From a total of
25,620 students identified as being at risk of dropping out, 99% or 25,487 students were
positively affected by the DORP in their schools.

26. The secondary school alternatives (SSA) program constituted an integral part of the
DORP. Its main feature was the effective alternative secondary education (EASE) modules,
which were self-instructional distance education materials. EASE modules were meant to be
used by students who could not come to school for parts of the school year, generally because
they were required to work, as well as by advanced learners who found the formal school
system too slow and preferred to study at their own pace. This intervention had only limited
success because low achieving students lacked the literacy skills needed to cope with a self-
instruction program, especially at first-year level.

27. The Project expanded the SSA intervention by providing a more comprehensive and
systematic approach to dealing with high school dropouts. The EASE modules were
complemented by the open high school system (OHSS) and other school-initiated interventions.
The OHSS was another alternative for students unable to attend school at certain times. Similar
to EASE, OHSS was based on self-instructional modules that students completed in their own
time and at their own pace. OHSS also made use of non-print media. This was complemented
by school-based initiatives that were customized to the needs of students identified as being at
risk of dropping out, and it included school scholarships, specific financial support from donors
e.g. for transport, the adopt-a-student program, peer monitoring and support, and home visits.
These interventions were mainly implemented by the school guidance coordinator, counselor,
and teachers school-wide.

28. During the Project Completion Review and other missions, a number of SSA and HSIF
coordinators agreed that the HSIF supported the objectives of SSA. Both programs focus on
first-and second-year high school students who are low achievers and are at risk of dropping out.
Program coordinators observed that the individualized attention students receive in the HSIF
program from teachers who work to meet their specific learning needs encourages them to stay
in school.

29. Just as the HSIF reading remediation programs have received attention from elementary
schools, so has SSA. Several SEDIP divisions have connected SSA to elementary schools in
 7

their division education plans.12

3. Output 3: Decentralized Secondary Education Management

30. The Project provided school heads with training on school-based management,
instructional supervision, and strategic planning to equip them with the skills and knowledge
necessary for managing and leading schools in a decentralized system. A number of school
heads interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission mentioned that the training
they received has led them to change their perspectives and attitudes in terms of teacher
management. School heads described themselves as being more proactive and supportive in
guiding teachers to improve teaching and learning in the classroom.

31. School heads developed their SIPs as part of the training they received. Training in the
development of the SIP was a critical input in preparing school heads for implementing school-
based management. Almost all of the 850 project schools in the 15 SEDIP divisions have SIPs
for SY2005–SY2007. At the close of the Project, most of the project schools had completed 3
years of SIP implementation. 13 In working to develop the SIP, school heads created school
planning teams which included teachers, students, parents, community members and village
and LGU officials. The participatory process by which the SIP was formulated enabled school
heads to build stronger relationships with key stakeholders.

32. To support SIP implementation, the Project employed appraisal, monitoring, and
evaluation mechanisms at the division level. Selected division personnel were trained to
appraise SIPs and to track SIP implementation. The review and appraisal parameters and
processes were made available in the Guidebook for the Review of School Improvement Plans,
prepared in 2003. The guide provides a standard set of review criteria and indicators. However,
each division was encouraged to apply additional review criteria and indicators in order to
address specific requirements. The Guide on Monitoring and Evaluation of SIP Implementation
was also prepared to aid divisions in formulating customized monitoring and evaluation plans.

33. The Project also trained division staff to prepare division education development plans
(DEDPs) to better manage basic education services and operation of the division offices.
Divisions formulated their DEDPs in consultation with school heads and other stakeholders in
the field. Division office staff interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission stated
that the training they received in developing DEDPs changed their perceptions about their role
in educational planning and management, as well as the relationship with school heads. They
expressed a greater understanding of the need for more interaction with school heads during
monitoring and evaluation.

34. The Project also established an INSET mechanism in each of the project divisions, so
that in-service training could thereafter be conducted at the division level rather than relying on
national programs. The INSET mechanism aims to provide appropriate and timely capability
building interventions to division personnel in order for them to be responsive to the
requirements of decentralized education management. All divisions have INSET coordinators,
and most have INSET co-coordinators to share the workload. Seven out of the 15 divisions
have school-based INSET coordinators. The divisions adopted schemes such as the clustering
and twinning of schools to better facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process, given the
number of target schools and the limited number of people in the divisions charged to conduct

12
NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.
13
NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.
8

monitoring and evaluation. Selected school heads were trained and assisted in cluster
monitoring.14

35. A major strategy supporting the INSET mechanism was the SEDIP training of trainers
program that sought to develop division teams of competent trainers for developing, conducting,
managing, and monitoring training programs for education supervisors, school heads, and
classroom teachers. A total of 740 trainers were trained and developed by the Project.

36. Key personnel from the central, division (including schools and districts), and regional
offices were also trained on the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of the system in a
decentralized setting. The Decentralized Management Development Program was a 6-month
program addressing human resource issues specific to the decentralization efforts. The program
has become a nationwide effort and was extended to non-SEDIP provinces. A total of 551
DepEd personnel were reached: 288 from the division level (including 72 school heads and 34
district supervisors), 132 from the regional, and 131 from the national office. The program was
developed based on the recommendations of the technical assistance (TA) on decentralized
education management attached to the ADB loan.15

C. Project Costs

37. At appraisal, the project costs were estimated at $163.4 million equivalent and were to
be financed by (i) an ADB loan of $53.0 million from ordinary capital resources, (ii) $54.3 million
from the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund, and (iii) $56.1 million from the Philippine
Government. Two cancellations occurred during project implementation for a total of $17.4
million, comprising $8.0 from textbooks and materials, $5.0 million from interest and
commitment charges, and $4.4 million from contingencies. At completion, the actual project cost
was $136.9 million, made up of (i) ADB lending of $32.1 million (23.4%), (ii) Overseas Economic
Cooperation Fund financing of $59.0 million (43.1%), and (iii) the Government’s contribution of
$45.8 million (33.5%). The final project costs and financing plan are in Appendix 2.

D. Disbursements

38. At completion, disbursements under the project loan amounted to $32.1 million (90.3%
of the net loan amount). The breakdown of ADB disbursements is as follows: (i) textbooks and
materials at $12.2 million, or 38% of total disbursements; (ii) in-country and overseas training at
$5.5 million, or 17%); (iii) consulting services at $4.8 million, or 15%; (iv) HSIF at 1.9 million, or
6%; (v) school mapping and studies at $1.0 million, or 3%; (vi) equipment at $0.8 million, or 3%;
(vii) civil works at $0.2 million, or 1%; and (viii) interest charges at $5.5 million, or 17%. The
amount of $3.4 million was cancelled upon loan closing. The breakdown of annual
disbursements is in Appendix 3. The imprest account was used efficiently. An amount
equivalent to $8.1 million of ADB-financed expenditure was paid through the imprest account, of
which $5.8 million was under the statement of expenditure procedure, which made
implementation more efficient. The amount of $18.5 million (net of $5.5 million interest charges)
was paid directly to suppliers.

E. Project Schedule

39. SEDIP was approved on 11 December 1998 and became effective on 19 May 1999.

14
NPMO. 2008. SEDIP Staff Development Program Evaluation for Batch 1 and 2 Divisions Final Report. Manila.
15
The project completion report for the TA is in Appendix 6.
 9

Project implementation began in 1999 and originally was to be completed by 30 June 2006. The
Project was extended twice, however, the first time being for 1 year to 30 June 2007. A further
6-month extension was needed merely to accommodate the approval of three large
procurement contracts (mainly for textbooks) that had been delayed by a 2-year textbook review
and were then held up in the DepEd-wide procurement committee. The obstacle was overcome
only after the Secretary of Education agreed to establish a separate procurement committee for
SEDIP. The Project encountered many difficulties in the initial years of implementation, resulting
in low disbursements and delayed delivery of outputs. At the time of the midterm review, at the
end of 2002, the total physical accomplishment was 7% and implementation was estimated to
be 2–2.5 years behind schedule. Disbursements were only 3% against the elapsed loan period
of 44%. After a restructuring of the NPMO and project procedures recommended by the
midterm review, as well as changes in the senior management of DepEd, implementation
progressed rapidly. The Project was successfully completed on 30 June 2008. A detailed project
implementation schedule showing physical achievement by component over time against the
original implementation schedule is provided in Appendix 4.

F. Implementation Arrangements

40. The Project was implemented by BSE, in DepEd. The NPMO managed and coordinated
overall project activities. The NPMO was headed by a project manager (the director of BSE),
assisted by a deputy project manager, who managed NPMO’s daily operations, and by chiefs of
the different components supported by technical and administrative staff. The Project followed a
quasi-mainstreamed approach through the integration of BSE staff in the NPMO and the direct
involvement of regular BSE staff in leading implementation. Selected education program
specialists from the BSE and DepEd’s Office of Planning Services headed the different
programs. Contractual staff were employed for technical and administrative positions.

41. The 15 SEDIP divisions implemented the Project at the provincial level. Each division
implementation office was headed by the schools division superintendent as project manager,
who was assisted by the assistant schools division superintendent as deputy project manager.
Education supervisors headed the different components.

G. Conditions and Covenants

42. The status of compliance with the loan covenants was generally satisfactory despite
some delays. At the time of the midterm review in December 2002, the majority of the
covenants still lacked compliance. This was due to: (i) slow implementation of some time-bound
activities; (ii) frequent changes of leadership in DepEd; and (iii) changes made to the project
design. The covenant relating to the establishment of a Project Management Advisory
Committee was waived, as such a committee was deemed unnecessary by DepEd. Policy
guidance was instead given by DepEd's Executive Committee. By project completion, all
covenants had been complied with. Appendix 5 reviews the final status of each loan covenant.

H. Related Technical Assistance

43. A TA project investigating the decentralization of basic education management was

attached to the ADB loan. In support of SEDIP’s third output, the TA aimed to (i) develop a 10-
year plan for decentralization of the basic education system, and (ii) conduct a cost-benefit
analysis of a decentralized basic education organization. The specific objectives were to (i)
review and suggest modifications regarding policies and laws regulating basic education; (ii)
define appropriate roles, responsibilities, and functions for different levels of governance (center,
10

regions, divisions, districts, schools); (iii) review and recommend long-term improvements as to
financial and staff resource allocations; (iv) identify necessary changes in management and
staffing at each level; (v) analyze the institutional culture appropriate for decentralization and
identify strategies for its promotion; (vi) estimate the financial and staff implications of
decentralization; and (vii) estimate the costs of different options for decentralization. The TA
was relevant, as it supported the Government’s intention to decentralize education management,
and the TA design and objectives were appropriate for this purpose.

44. The TA produced a comprehensive model and strategy for decentralizing the
management of basic education. The final report consisted of six volumes covering
decentralization and organizational structures, budget and financial management, the education
management information system and legal issues, quality enhancement in basic education, and
community-based school management. The reports built upon the views of a cross-section of
education personnel (with a focus upon operational field staff, principals and teachers, village
captains, local school boards, and parents) and were of satisfactory quality.

45. The centerpiece of the system was the locally managed school. The most important
change recommended at school level was the formation of school advisory councils as partners
to the principal in running the school. Policy development, standards setting, and regulation
were to remain with the center, with almost all of the line functions relocated to the division level.
The divisions were to refocus their attention upon quality promotion and school support
activities, rather than administration and supervision.

46. At the same time, an Act on the Governance of Basic Education was developed and
passed into law. This Act provides a broad framework for the decentralization of basic
education. The TA final report was used as a basis for developing the implementing rules and
regulations for the new Act. During 2003 and 2004, DepEd implemented many of the TA
recommendations, including that to realign the functions of the center, regions, and divisions,
with most management and administrative decisions pushed down to the levels of divisions and
schools. The position of school principal was professionalized, as recommended, and principals
were being given a greater role in financial management and teacher selection. School
governance has been strengthened by establishing school advisory councils in all schools, in
addition to the existing parent-teacher associations whose main purpose is fund-raising

47. The TA was rated successful. Its recommendations formed the basis for developing the
implementing rules and regulations for the Governance of Basic Education Act. The
recommendations continue to provide a valuable road map for the policies, strategies, and actions
currently being followed by DepEd to further the decentralization process, including to formulate
the nationwide DMDP. The TA’s completion report, circulated to the Board on 1 June 2004, is in
Appendix 6.

I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement

48. Consultants were selected and engaged in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the
Use of Consultants. The Project engaged two packages of consulting services: (i) Package A for
ADB financing, covering education programs; and (ii) Package B for JBIC financing, covering
school facilities development. Inputs for Package A were 65 person-months of international
consulting services and 214 person-months of national consulting services. These person
months were reduced from the original project design (106 international and 279 national
person-months) due to a shortfall in the budget allocation.
 11

49. The bulk of procurement under the Project was for textbooks and instructional materials,
with an allocation of $13.5 million or 38% of the net loan amount. The Project exceeded the
targets of 4.1 million textbooks (achieving 5.9 million) and 296,603 library books (delivering
302,215 to 850 schools). This was due mainly to the introduction of an international competitive
bidding procedure after project approval and the recentralization of textbook procurement, which
lowered the estimated costs substantially.

50. SEDIP procurement was built on the existing policies for procuring textbooks. DepEd's
plan to decentralize textbook procurement to schools (reflected in the project design) had
proved impractical by the late 1990s, as there was not enough time to institute the training and
infrastructure needed for local-level textbook selection and management, or for the system to
ensure accurate consolidation and transmission of orders. At the same time, the Government
made a decision to introduce international competitive bidding procedures for textbooks as part
of a comprehensive procurement reform process, thus implying centralized procurement. The
policy to privatize textbook publishing was instituted in January 1999, directing that textbooks
would henceforth be developed by the private sector, although the mandate for their approval
for public use remained with the Instructional Materials Council Secretariat, the DepEd agency
responsible for textbook management. To maintain consistency with all of these practices, the
Project employed centralized procurement based on an open and competitive process for all
textbook procurement.

51. To further streamline the process, DepEd unbundled the development of manuscripts
from contracting for the printing and delivery of textbooks. That proved to be successful, since
small publishers were then able to develop textbook manuscripts and printers could focus on
printing without having to collaborate with publishers to develop manuscripts.

52. Serious delays occurred, however. In 2005, critical content quality issues were raised in
the media. In response, DepEd launched an exhaustive content reevaluation of textbooks that
lasted for 2 years. As all textbook procurement was prohibited during this time, there were
serious delays in the Project’s procurement of textbooks. The establishment of a DepEd-wide
procurement committee caused further delay since the Project’s procurement needs had to
compete with department-wide procurement requirements. This was finally resolved by creating
a special bids and awards committee for SEDIP. Hence, most of the textbook procurement
occurred toward the end of the Project, and ultimately this necessitated a project extension.

J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers

53. During the initial years of project implementation (2000–2002), the NPMO was not happy
with the performance of consultants engaged for Package A. The international consultants also
found it difficult to work with the NPMO. The midterm review noted these difficulties. Late
mobilization of the consulting team had caused a number of activities to start without any review
or input from the consultants. In addition, the lack of communication and coordination between
the project manager and team leader profoundly hampered implementation of the Project and
resulted ultimately in resignation of the team leader.

54. By June 2003, after the midterm review and project restructuring, a new team leader for
Package A was in place. The new NPMO staff identified the need for additional international
expertise, and new domestic consultants were also hired. These changes had a positive
influence on implementation from that time onwards, marked by much better capacity among
NPMO and division staff in project management, and in planning for mainstreaming,
institutionalization, and sustainability. The new NPMO was happy with the consultant team and
12

new team leader. Overall, therefore, the performance of the consultants was considered
satisfactory. The consulting firm’s contract was extended and was coterminous with the Project.

55. The performance of suppliers was also satisfactory, with the quality of instructional
materials and equipment meeting specifications in all cases. The instructional materials
suppliers were on time, and the quality of printing was satisfactory. The equipment suppliers
also performed satisfactorily, and there were no major delivery problems.

K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency

56. Senior management support for the Project’s efforts to support the decentralization of
secondary education management was weak from soon after the project start-up and for about
18 months. The midterm review found that the initial years of project implementation also did not
reflect a decentralized approach, as its orientation was top-down and overly centralized.
Moreover, the national framework to guide the implementation of decentralization, intended to
be an output of the Project’s attached TA (see Appendix 6), had not been completed because
the recommendations had not been accepted by the then-Secretary of Education.

57. In September 2002, a new Secretary was appointed who was committed to
decentralization. Actions were soon initiated to implement many of the TA recommendations,
paving the way for increased decentralization of education management as envisaged. After the
midterm review, the new DepEd management instituted a series of further changes that
demonstrated its strong commitment to getting the Project back on track and implementing it as
designed. The changes included reinstating a decentralized approach to project management,
replacing key NPMO personnel, and appointing a new director at BSE. The recommendations
were used to develop the implementing rules and regulations for the Governance of Basic
Education Act. From then on, project performance improved significantly, all outputs were
successfully achieved, and there was continued strong support from senior management and
the new BSE director. The Government’s performance can therefore be rated as satisfactory.

L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank

58. Due to an initial lack of monitoring and supervision, ADB’s overall performance was only
partly satisfactory. Between the inception and midterm missions, ADB conducted only one
review mission with a duration of 3 days. Moreover, although the quarterly reports were
submitted to ADB regularly, noncompliance with the loan covenants was not flagged prior to the
midterm review. ADB’s lack of involvement after the political transition in 2001 paved the way for
TEEP activities to take priority over SEDIP activities at the division offices. A number of
opportunities for ADB to intervene at critical periods were missed. After the midterm review,
however, ADB approved the necessary project management changes, worked closely with
DepEd senior management in revising the design and monitoring framework and inputs, and
fielded eight successful missions monitoring progress until the end of the Project. Regular
meetings were held with the NPMO, especially in the years immediately following the midterm
review when only one review mission per year was budgetted. At the NPMO’s request, ADB
approved an 18-month extension of the Project that enabled it to achieve all of its deliverables.
 13

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE

A. Relevance

59. The Project was highly relevant at the design stage and remained so at the time of the
Project Completion Review Mission in 2008. The Project was in accordance with both
government policy and ADB sector strategies at the time of appraisal, and it continues to be so.
It contributed to improving the quality of teaching and learning in secondary schools, keeping
at-risk students in school, and decentralizing the basic education system in the project
provinces. These priorities remain very relevant today. Focusing assistance on the country’s
poorer provinces and giving priority to schools that were (i) unsupported by previous physical
facilities projects, (ii) annex schools,16 (iii) newly established, and (iv) located in communities
with poor socioeconomic conditions begins to strategically address the national concern.

60. The project design reflected lessons learned from the 1988 SEDP and the 1993
Nonformal Education Project,17 as well as earlier World Bank-funded projects. Experiences from
these projects suggested the need to target and concentrate resources to the more needy and
disadvantaged schools. School leadership was found to have contributed greatly to maximizing
and sustaining impacts generated from the support provided. These lessons justified a more
demand-driven project planning and management process with substantial beneficiary
participation. Project preparation thus entailed detailed school-level analysis; focus group
discussions; and a participatory provincial planning process involving school heads, division
staff, and the LGUs in the pilot provinces. The project design was kept flexible to permit
integration of further findings. Changes were made to the design during implementation in
response to numerous implementation issues that caused delays and questioned the quality of
outputs delivered. As weaknesses in project management personnel and the textbook
procurement process were unforeseen, changes involving both were timely responses.

B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome

61. The Project was considered effective. For the first outcome (improved teacher and
learning processes), the data available indicates that the average competency scores of SEDIP
students increased slightly during the Project (from 49.3% to 50.6%) and are well above the
national average of 45.2% (see Appendix 7). For outcome 2 (increased participation), student
dropout was reduced successfully (by almost 2 percentage points) through an array of very
successful dropout reduction programs (see Appendix 8). Trends in enrolment rates are difficult
to track from the beginning of the Project because new population projections reduced the
overall rates from SY2004 onwards. Since then, the national enrolment rate has remained
stable at around 45%, while for SEDIP divisions it increased from 37.5% to 40.1% (see
Appendix 9). Completion rates decreased nationwide by 5.3%─ a disappointing development.
However, the decline was slower (at 3.9%) in the SEDIP provinces. By SY2007, more SEDIP
students (57%) completed high school than for the country as a whole (55%, see Appendix 10).
The Project was successful, therefore, in ameliorating the decline in completion rates, even
though the SEDIP provinces are among the poorest in the country.

16
Annex schools are small schools in rural areas that are established and financed by communities. Current DepEd
regulations do not recognize annex schools as independent public schools unless enrollment reaches 100 per
grade. One-quarter of the public schools in project pilot provinces were annex schools.
17
ADB. 1993. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the
Republic of the Philippines for the Non-Formal Education Project. Manila (Loan 1254-PHI).
14

62. Scores on the National Achievement Test (NAT) show improved student performance in
SEDIP divisions from SY2003 to SY2004, followed by a decline in SY2005 in parallel with a
national decline. Since SY2003, SEDIP divisions have outperformed the national average score
by 5.4% overall. As the NAT was not administered nationally in SY2007, the Project arranged
for a special testing in each of the 15 SEDIP divisions as well as in 12 non-SEDIP divisions. The
SEDIP divisions outperformed non-SEDIP divisions by 4.2% on the total score. Both SEDIP and
non-SEDIP divisions showed “near mastery” in mathematics and English and “low mastery” in
science and Filipino, but the SEDIP divisions showed much stronger mastery of mathematics
and science (see Appendix 7).

63. For outcome 3 (strengthened capacity for decentralized education management), there
was clear improvement. Almost all schools (93%) adopted school improvement planning in their
regular operations. Before the Project, this practice was nonexistent in the project schools.
School heads confirmed that school improvement planning helped them to implement their
plans and attain their objectives. It also proved useful in resource generation and networking,
and it helped the schools to generate support from their stakeholders. The closer links between
the schools and their communities were clearly evident during ADB’s project supervision
missions. School improvement planning is the basis for successful school-based management.
Around 70% of school heads claimed their performance had improved as a result of the training
in school-based management. An evaluation of the staff development program found that
school heads understand their new roles in decentralization and can better influence school
improvements through their changed relations with teachers, parents, and their communities.
Teacher interviews also confirmed that the behavior of school heads had improved in terms of
regular consultations, the involvement of school personnel in decision making, and improved
management skills and style. Furthermore, working conditions in the schools had improved.

64. At division level, the Project strengthened the capacity for strategic planning, which was
evident in preparation of the district education development plans. The divisions were able to
conduct consultations with schools and stakeholders, gather the relevant data, apply planning
tools, develop a logical framework, cost the plan, and allocate resources. Field visits during the
Project were able to track the growing confidence and competence of division staff as they
gradually took on their responsibilities for division education management, which had not
existed at the Project’s beginning. A most important development was establishment of the
division INSET mechanism, which provided a pool of division-based trainers able to lead INSET
activities during the Project and into the future. The project developed trainers for INSET, HSIF,
SSA, and division education planning. The division trainers acted as training managers,
facilitators, resource persons, and training staff. Teachers surveyed for the PCR showed a high
level of satisfaction with the trainers’ performance in managing training and oral presentation
skills. Division trainers were also considered strong in facilitating workshops, formulating training
designs, and conducting training programs. The survey data also showed, however, that the
monitoring of training results by the division trainers and staff needs improvement.

65. Project Impact. The Project was associated with an increase in net enrollment rates for
public schools in the project divisions. The disparity between the average SEDIP net enrollment
ratio (NER) of 40.3% and the national average NER of 45% for 2002–2008 was reduced by
4.9%. That essentially meets the impact target of a 5% reduction. In line with national trends,
the completion rate declined in the SEDIP divisions, but less so than at the national level. In the
end, the SEDIP and national indicators were in fact reversed. While the SEDIP divisions had
had lower completion rates at the beginning of the Project, by the end they outperformed the
national rate. The disparity between the average completion rate for the SEDIP and national
rates for 2002–2007 was reduced by 1.4%, which is approaching the targeted 2% reduction.
 15

66. All indicators (NAT scores, dropout rate, completion rate, and net enrollment ratio) used
to measure project outcomes have been subject to the national trend. The decreases and
increases seen in national averages are mirrored in SEDIP division averages. The performance
of the Project has been greatly affected by socioeconomic factors related to national
developments such as an increasing level of poverty and persistent child labor. Section E
provides a more detailed discussion about the issues affecting the Project’s performance and
impact.

C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs

67. The Project is rated less efficient. There were substantial implementation delays up to
the midterm review, by which time there had been almost no progress. Contract awards and
disbursement by 30 June 2002 were 9% and 3%, respectively, against an elapsed loan period
of 44%. This lack of progress put the Project at risk. Implementation up to that point had been
top-down and overly centralized, undermining the objective of support to decentralization.
DepEd leadership had been strongly opposed to decentralization. This changed after the project
midterm, allowing a thorough overhaul of project management and a reexamination of the
project design and the design and monitoring framework.

68. As a result, the implementation strategy had to change from the original plan for two
sequential batches of provinces to simultaneous implementation in all provinces, which was not
desirable, but unavoidable. Piloting of the SEDIP interventions in Batch 1 pilot divisions,
therefore, ran parallel to Batch 2. Thus, the opportunity was missed to benefit from lessons
learned. Before the midterm review, a number of activities were to have been completed in the
pilot provinces. However, most activities were either not started or were of poor quality.

69. The new DepEd leadership was able to move the Project forward and realize its
objectives successfully. The Project progressed rapidly until completion and was ultimately able
to achieve all of the output targets. The need for project extensions arose not because of weak
project management but because the procurement of all books—which took up a large part of
the budget—was put on hold for 2 years while DepEd undertook a major review and revision of
all books in use after numerous complaints of errors.

D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability

70. The Project is most likely to be sustainable at both the division and national levels.
During the Project’s final year, activities were focused on mainstreaming the project programs
into the secondary education system. Objectives for mainstreaming were identified and
strategies developed for program institutionalization. Readiness assessments were conducted
in each province to identify gaps in mainstreaming readiness and the steps necessary to ensure
successful mainstreaming. Perception surveys to assess the success of selected school-level
programs were also carried out. Subsequently, several of the most successful project programs
were mainstreamed into the 2008 and 2009 education budget. The Project’s High School
Innovation Fund, for example, has been mainstreamed as a national program. The dropout
reduction program has been mainstreamed at secondary level. Teacher and school head
training in implementing the OHSS Program and Project EASE has become available nationally.
The development of SIPs by school heads continues to be supported by division-level
monitoring. A training program on school improvement planning will be available nationally. It is
to be supported by a specific budget allocation of P50,000 per school. Also, the divisions now
have an established in-service training mechanism to build capacity of teachers and school
heads on a regular basis, according to local needs.
16

71. DepEd management has begun to absorb the Project’s Decentralized Management
Development Program as a national program and continues to support decentralized
management actively. The development of SIPs by school heads now forms the basis of school-
based management, which is the foundation of DepEd’s current policy agenda. Also, the
divisions now have an established in-service training mechanism to build the capacity of
teachers and school heads on a regular basis according to local needs. The development of
division education development plans will also be mainstreamed.

E. Impact

72. The Project’s intended impact was improved, equitable access to quality secondary
education in the project provinces. The impact in reducing the gap between the project
provinces and the rest of the country was moderate, as described in para. 61. However, the
Project has made significant impact in terms of decentralizing education management and
supporting students at risk of dropping out.

73. The Project made considerable strides at the institutional level in strengthening
decentralized management as a way to improve the delivery of secondary education in the
project provinces. Education managers exhibit a change in perception about their roles as
managers and their work with schools. School heads embrace the concept of instructional
leader, and division-level managers are open to widening their work into the field for more direct
contact with school heads. The Project’s capacity building efforts have increased transparency,
accountability, predictability, and participation at each level of education management.
Stakeholder involvement at the community level has also increased. In some SEDIP divisions,
school heads are working with mayors, LGU officials, parents, and alumni in making school
improvements and ensuring students come to school and stay in school.

74. Among the Project’s interventions for improving the quality of secondary education, the
HSIF closely tied in with efforts made by the SSA program. As an unintended impact of the
Project, the reading remediation programs that a majority of SEDIP schools implemented under
HSIF supported first- and second-year students at risk of dropping out. At-risk students
supported by the SSA program participated in HSIF reading remediation programs and received
individualized attention from teachers that helped them gain the skills necessary to remain in
school. Receiving support from both SEDIP interventions at the same time provided students
with key skills and confidence in their ability to achieve in school.

75. As mentioned in Section B, the Project’s performance was affected by socioeconomic

factors leading to lower access and quality of secondary education at the overall national level.
According to the latest Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS)18 completed in 2004, at least
90% of both poor and nonpoor families with children 6 to 12 years of age have children enrolled
in elementary grades. However, only 6 out of 10 poor families with children 13 to 16 years of
age have children enrolled in secondary school. That compares with 8 out of 10 nonpoor
families. There was a drop in the percentage of families with children aged 13 to 16 who are
enrolled in high school among the lowest 30% income group between the 2002 and 2004 APIS.
In addition, 23% of poor families are likely to have working children between the ages of 5 and
17 years old compared with only 8% of nonpoor families. An increase in child labor was seen in

18
The 2004 APIS is the fourth in a series of nationwide poverty indicator surveys undertaken by the National
Statistics Office. The APIS is designed to provide access and impact indicators that can be used as inputs to the
development of an integrated poverty indicator and monitoring system for the assessment of the government
programs on poverty alleviation. A total of 42,789 sample households were interviewed during July 2004.
 17

the lowest 30% income stratum from 2002 to 2004.

76. The lower secondary school enrollment among children of poor families and the increase
in child labor among the poor remain persistent problems not only in the SEDIP divisions but
nationally, as indicated by the negative trends seen for each of the indicators used to measure
project outcomes. Mindanao is a region where this is a growing problem. In 2000, the poverty
level in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was 57%, in Central Mindanao 48%, in
Northern Mindanao 33%, and in Southern Mindanao 31%.19 The high levels of poverty have
remained unchanged for years now, and parents lament that even if basic education were free,
they could not afford the related costs for transport, school projects, and other requirements.
Out-of-school youth attribute their parents’ lack of support for education to extreme poverty and
illiteracy. Some parents force their children to drop out of school so they can help them earn a
living. Illiterate parents, moreover, cannot guide their children with schoolwork, and they tend to
place less importance on education.20

77. Compounding the problem are teachers’ lack of knowledge and awareness of the culture
and beliefs of Muslims, which discourages Muslim students from staying in school.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A. Overall Assessment

78. Based on the preceding assessment of the Project as highly relevant, effective, less
efficient, and likely sustainable, the Project overall is rated successful (see Appendix 11). The
Project supported the decentralization of education management for the secondary education
system and strengthened capacity at the national, regional, division, and school levels to
manage and deliver secondary education to the poorest provinces in the country. It was
instrumental in establishing school-based interventions to support students at risk of dropping
out from secondary school. The Project strengthened partnerships between school heads and
key stakeholders at the community level. Although the Project did not meet all the key
performance indicators, it put in place key interventions specific to the needs of poorer students
(such as SSA and HSIF at the school level) while empowering school heads to plan school
improvement that is relevant to the students they serve. Despite implementation delays in the
early years of the Project, most of the Project’s objectives were achieved.

79. At the output and outcome levels, the Project was successful. Nevertheless, the very
high rates of poverty (many project schools in Mindanao report 70–80% of their pupils are very
poor), combined with severe under-resourcing of teachers and schools nationwide, undermined
project success at the impact level.

B. Lessons Learned

80. Holistic approach to education development reaches beneficiaries. The Project

highlighted the importance of employing a holistic approach to education development. Project
interventions aiming to improve teaching and learning focused on teacher capacity building,
availability of learning resources, improvements in physical environment, and remediation

19
SEAMEO INNOTECH. 2007. Access to and Demand for Secondary Education in the Philippines, Draft Final
Report. Manila (July).
20
SEAMEO INNOTECH. 2007. Policy Research on Access to Basic Education for Muslim Learners. Draft Final
Report. Manila (May).
18

through the HSIF program. These interventions show some short-term progress. Teachers now
think of themselves as guides in the classroom who facilitate learning experiences rather than
passive disseminators of information. Nonetheless, teacher-related progress, learning materials,
and improved physical environments led to limited progress regarding student achievement. It is
concluded that interventions aimed directly at improving student achievement need to be more
holistic. The Project’s HSIF program aimed to provide assistance to improved student learning
based on local needs, and, though it supported the objectives of SSA, it was not part of a
strategy that clearly defined at-risk students and their specific needs. Project experience with
DORP suggests that quality of interventions specifically for at-risk students can be best
improved through a more holistic and strategic plan.

81. Demand-driven approach to project implementation serves local needs. The

Project was designed to give priority to schools that previously received no interventions for
improvement. In many instances, the allocations proved appropriate and met local needs. This
type of resource allocation promoted partnerships between school and community stakeholders
(e.g., LGUs and parent associations).

82. Systemic approach to devolving education management empowers key decision

makers. The Project highlighted the importance of taking a systemic, holistic approach to
education planning and management that promotes decentralization. The Project demonstrated
that partnership between and among school heads and division-level management is feasible
under a devolved system. Likewise, partnerships between division-level and regional
management were also made possible. The Project underscored the critical role of division and
regional offices in continuously providing technical assistance and guidance to school heads.

83. Coterminous implementation with other projects can prove a burden for
implementers. SEDIP and the World Bank-funded TEEP were designed as a package to cover
elementary and secondary education in the same divisions, and thereby to achieve synergies in
implementation and amplifying the project impacts. This did happen to a large extent, but
implementation difficulties arose because the divisions lacked the human, physical, and
financial resources to deal with two large projects at once. As TEEP started a year before
SEDIP, this negative impact was felt most by SEDIP. The initial capacity and financial
assessments were carried out separately for each project and did not adequately predict the
combined demands of both projects upon the divisions.

C. Recommendations

1. Project Related

84. Improve strategy for supporting secondary school enrollment. DepEd should
consider the differing needs and specific situations of (i) enrolled secondary students at risk of
dropping out, (ii) out-of-school youth aged 12–16, and (iii) nontraditional students of varying
ages who want to enroll for alternative secondary schooling. The project interventions aiming to
increase secondary school enrollment focused mainly on secondary schooling alternatives
through the DORP, implemented at school level. The relevance of some SSAs (i.e., EASE
modules) was questioned in terms of student profiles. The strategy used did not thoroughly
consider students’ specific needs and the reasons preventing them from enrolling. Further study
of these differing needs and situations would enable stronger strategic support.

85. Redefine performance indicators to measure efficacy of teachers and school

heads. Teachers and school heads exhibited changes in understanding how their roles impact
 19

the teaching and learning process and in their attitudes toward their work. Both were
empowered by the capacity building they received and the school-level activities they engaged
in requiring greater decision making. However, the project design called for measuring student
achievement to gauge teacher and school head progress in improving teaching and learning.
This performance indicator was not a fair measure in this regard, and therefore it is
recommended that future project designs consider measuring the level of efficacy of teachers
and school heads in doing their work at the school level. Efficacy would be a better measure of
teacher and school head capability and confidence upon training.

86. Further strengthen capacities for decentralized education management. The efforts
to mainstream project activities should be continued with particular emphasis on further work to
strengthen the capacity of school heads and other education managers at the division and
regional levels, particularly in planning and monitoring and evaluation. The division capacity for
monitoring the results of division-level training by the division trainers and division staff also
needs further strengthening.

2. General

87. Strengthen project implementation. The Project performed well by exceeding the
planned targets. However, future project performance may be enhanced by (i) ensuring that
competent project managers are present at the national and local levels for the entire duration
of the project, and (ii) ADB closely monitoring and supervising project activities.

88. Prioritize monitoring and evaluation. In designing projects, the capacity of the
executing agency should be carefully assessed at appraisal, and any gaps affecting project
implementation should be filled by taking appropriate steps toward capacity building. This would
contribute to more efficient project start-ups, which would in turn enhance project results. In this
regard, monitoring and evaluation should be given higher priority in project implementation.
20 Appendix 1
PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AGAINST DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK
Design Summary Targets
Project Goal: Reduce disparity in net
Improve equitable access enrollment ratio (NER) by 5%
to quality secondary and completion rates by 2%
education in the School between national and SRA
Reform Agenda (SRA) provinces
provinces
Outcomes
1. Improved Teaching Increased achievement rate
and Learning Process
Positive perception by
stakeholders that teaching and
learning process has improved
2. Increased Increased participation rate
Participation and
Completion Rates Reduced dropout rate
3. Improved Capacity of Educational planning from
Division Education school to region is participatory,
Officials integrated, and synchronized
with budget cycle.
Schools, divisions, and regions
regularly review and revise
strategic improvement plans.
Schools, divisions, and regions
are able to mobilize resources
for gaps in their financing plans.
Outputs and Outcomes
Disparity between average NER for
SEDIP divisions (40.3%) and nationally
(45.0%) from 2002–2008 was 4.9%.
Disparity between the average
completion rate for SEDIP divisions and
nationally from 2002–2007 was 1.4%.
Since SY2003, SEDIP divisions have
outperformed the national average by an
average disparity of 5.4% on the National
Achievement Test.
Students from SEDIP schools perceived
their teachers to have very good
classroom management skills but that
they need to improve their performance in
starting a new topic, using teaching
methods, exchanging ideas, interacting
with class, and providing students with
necessary learning support.
The level of practice among SEDIP
teachers was highest on resolving
attendance problems and class
disagreements.
The Project did not lead to an increase in
NERs among SEDIP division public
schools.
The Project led to a 1% decrease in
dropout rate from SY1997 (6.8%) to
SY2002 (5.8%) and remained steady
through SY2006 (5.8%).

Design Summary Targets
Review and development of
relevant policies appropriate to
each level of governance
consistent with decentralized
management
Outputs
1. Improved School Effectiveness and Learning Outcomes
1.1 School heads’ 650 school heads trained on
capacity to provide learning management and
instructional support to instructional support to teachers
teachers enhanced
650 school heads trained in
student assessment
650 school heads developed and
have implemented learning
management programs
1.2 Teachers’ subject 9,700 teachers trained on
knowledge and general and content-specific
teaching skills skills, including:
improved • modern teaching
methods,
• classroom management,
• care and use of learning
support materials,
• student-centered
assessment,
remediation, and test
development
Appendix 1 21
Outputs and Outcomes
More than 800 secondary school heads,
versus an original target of 650, were
provided with training on student
assessment (857), and on the learning
management program and instructional
support to teachers (836). Consequently,
a total of 738 school heads were able to
develop and implement a program.
61% of the school heads are applying
instructional supervision and continue to
prepare and use their instructional
supervision plans developed for teachers’
supervision.
More than 11,000 secondary school
teachers, versus an original target of
9,700, were trained in four major areas:
modern teaching methods (11,067),
classroom management (11,078), care
and use of learning support materials
(10,803), and student-centered
assessment (11,048).
84% of the teachers are applying skills
learned from the SEDIP training
programs in their classes.
In comparing teachers’ perceived
applicability of the SEDIP training
programs, the training in classroom
management was deemed the most
useful. 90% of teachers surveyed for the
results monitoring and evaluation (RME)
Initial Gains Study cited it as the most
useful. This is followed by 89% of
teachers citing training on the
demonstration of proper care and use of
learning support materials as the most
useful. The application of modern
teaching methods was considered useful
by 83% of teachers, and 75% considered
the student-centered assessment as the
most useful.
22 Appendix 1

Design Summary Targets Outputs and Outcomes

8,000 teacher-participants More than 8,804 selected teachers

trained in areas determined by participated in the TNA-based training.
training needs assessment
(TNA)

1,300 non-major teachers in For non-majors in science and

science and math completing mathematics, a total of 1,377 teachers
regional science and teaching completed the certificate course on the
center certificate courses said subjects.

100% of teachers who are non-

majors demonstrating improved
knowledge or skills in the subject
areas they received during
training

1.3 Availability of 4,112,810 textbooks in math, Textbook provision exceeded the target
learning resources science, English, Filipino, and of 4.1 million, with 5.9 million textbooks
improved social studies delivered to 850 delivered to 850 schools.
schools

125,217 teachers’ manuals Similarly, a total of 146,300 teachers’

delivered to 850 schools manuals against the 125,217 target was
provided to the same 850 schools.

296,603 basic library collections A total of 302,215 basic library

delivered to schools collections, exceeding the target of
296,603 copies, was delivered to 850
schools.

Number of supplementary To ensure proper care of textbooks and

materials delivered to schools reduce losses due to wear and tear and
negligence, a total of 792,324 pieces of
1:1 teacher to teacher guide book bags were provided to all high
ratio. school students in the 27 SRA divisions.

Also, the Project was able to reproduce

and distribute 359,674 EASE modules in
Makabayan for schools without
secondary school alternatives (SSAs)

Percentage of students utilizing 37% of the SEDIP schools have 1:1

textbooks student to textbook ratio.

1.5 High School 325 schools with HSIF projects 351 schools from the 15 divisions were
Innovation Fund (HSIF) able to avail themselves of the HSIF for
piloted their school projects. The HSIF grant
amounted to P71,444,547.67. A total of
792 projects were completed, most of
which were on reading remediation
(comprising 59% of all projects). Others

Design Summary Targets
2. Improved Access to Education in Underserved Areas
2.1 Secondary 20 packages developed for
schooling alternatives EASE modules
provided
3,600 EASE packages delivered
to 180 schools
900 teachers trained to
implement SSA modules and to
identify students at risk of
dropping out of school
180 schools with retention
programs
3. Capacity of Schools, Divisions, Regions, and Central Office to Support Decentralized
Management Strengthened
3.1 Competence of 650 school heads trained on
school heads in school strategic planning
improvement planning
and school-based 650 school heads developing
management school improvement plans (SIPs) School improvement plans (854) were
developed synchronized with Department of developed and consequently reviewed
Education budget cycle
650 school heads developed
SIPs
650 school annual improvement
plans reviewed and updated
650 school heads trained on
school-based management
Management and operational
practice at school level
consistent with school-based
management
3.2 Planning and 112 division personnel trained on
management capacity strategic planning
at division level
strengthened to 15 divisions develop DEDPs,
become self-managing and annual plans
15 annual plans regularly
Appendix 1 23
Outputs and Outcomes
were on science (15%); combined
English, science, and math (11%); and
math (8%). These projects reached a
total of 61,736 student beneficiaries.
The Project established programs for
increasing student retention in 240
schools, versus a target of 180. The
three major interventions in this program
were (i) effective alternative secondary
education (EASE), (ii) open high school
system (OHSS), and (iii) school initiated
interventions. The Project trained 1,200
teachers on SSA.
All 20 packages were developed for the
EASE modules. More than the target
number of EASE modules (7,680 vs.
3,600 target) were delivered to the 240
schools covered by the Project.
More than 800 school heads were trained
on strategic planning (829) and school-
based management (829).
and updated.
Division personnel (156 versus 112
target) were trained on strategic planning.
The 15 SEDIP divisions were able to
develop their respective division
education development plans (DEDPs),
which are now being implemented. These
were reviewed and accepted by the
24 Appendix 1
Design Summary Targets
reviewed and updated
Established mechanism in
tracking SIP implementation
Established division-based
INSET mechanism
740 trainers trained for 15
divisions
Division INSET processes (TNA,
monitoring and evaluation, and
follow-up INSET) established in
15 divisions
450 division personnel trained on
roles and responsibilities of
various levels of decentralized
system
3.3 Competence of Regional office personnel trained
regional offices on roles and responsibilities of
developed in policy and various levels of decentralized
standard setting, as system
well as in monitoring
and evaluating 45 regional office personnel
performance trained on RME
9 regional offices implementing
RME
27 regional office personnel
trained overseas on secondary
subsector M&E
9 regional offices established
mechanism for tracking DEDP
implementation
3.4 Competence of 3 central office personnel trained
central office personnel on roles and responsibilities of
developed to conduct various levels of decentralized
and manage policy system
Outputs and Outcomes
respective Regional DEDP Review
Teams. Each division also established a
mechanism for monitoring and evaluating
SIP implementation.
The division in-service training (INSET)
mechanism was established in the 15
divisions. Division INSET trainers
reached a total of 790, versus a target of
740.
Versus a target of 450, only 277 division
personnel were trained on roles and
responsibilities of various levels of the
decentralized system. The established
target was too high because it exceed the
actual number of division personnel.
Selected regional and central offices
personnel were trained on RME, with 9
regional offices implementing RME.
Regional education supervisors assisted
the National Project Management Office
in conducting three RME studies—
Perception Study, Leading Indicators, and
Initial Gains—in the 15 divisions.
Selected personnel from the regions, the
divisions, and from the central office were
trained overseas on subsector M&E.
The mechanism for tracking DEDP
implementation in the 9 regional offices
was also established. The DEDP M&E is
a regional quality control mechanism that
keeps track of the educational
performance indicators (results level); the
quality of outputs provided by the
divisions; and implementation progress in
terms of time, cost and resources. It uses
four approaches: (i) appraisal, (ii) start-up
review, (iii) progress monitoring, and (iv)
outcome monitoring.
3 central office personnel received
training in decentralized management
and 3 central office personnel received
training on secondary subsector M&E.
 Appendix 1 25

Design Summary Targets Outputs and Outcomes

research, as well as to Developed capacity of 20 BSE
monitor and evaluate personnel to manage subsector
performance. policy research
2 policy studies conducted and
managed by BSE: Curriculum
Instruction and Structural
School-Based Management
3 central office personnel trained
overseas on secondary
subsector M&E
20 education specialists from the Bureau
of Secondary Education were trained on
policy research, after which they
conducted and managed two policy
studies: (i) A Review on the
Implementation of the Basic Education
Curriculum, and (ii) Organizational
Structure and Staffing Models for School-
Based Management.

3.5 Education EMIS installed and used in 15 The EMIS was installed and utilized
management schools (leader school of each initially in the 15 division offices and 15
information system division) leader schools across the divisions.
(EMIS) established in Gradually, the system is being introduced
schools, divisions, EMIS installed in 15 division in and adopted by the rest of the schools
regions, and central offices, 9 regional offices, and in the 15 divisions.
office central office

15 division offices analyzed and

consolidated information and
reported back to schools,
regions, and central office

EASE = effective alternative secondary education, EMIS = education management information system, HSIF = High
School Innovation Fund, M&E = monitoring and evaluation, NER = net enrollment ratio, OHSS = open high school
system, RME = results monitoring and evaluation, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement
Project, SIP = school improvement plan, SRA = School Reform Agenda, SSA = secondary school alternatives, TNA =
training needs assessment.
Source: Asian Development Bank.
 ACTUAL PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING PLAN
($ '000)

26
Total Cost ADB OECF Government
Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total Foreign Local Total

Appendix 2
Cost Categories Exchange Currency Exchange Currency Exchange Currency Exchange Currency
a
A. Base Costs
1. Staff Development
a. In-Country Training 0 14,238 14,238 0 5,156 5,156 0 0 0 0 9,082 9,082
b. Overseas Training 395 0 395 395 0 395 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal (A1) 395 14,238 14,633 395 5,156 5,551 0 0 0 0 9,082 9,082

2. Textbook and Materials 9,870 2,998 12,868 9,870 2,356 12,226 0 0 0 0 642 642
3. Consulting Services
a. International 10,442 4,248 14,690 1,431 0 1,431 9,011 4,248 13,259 0 0 0
b. National 0 3,428 3,428 0 3,428 3,428 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal (A2) 10,442 7,676 18,118 1,431 3,428 4,859 9,011 4,248 13,259 0 0 0

4. Civil Works 0 56,435 56,435 0 163 163 0 28,136 28,136 0 28,136 28,136
5. Furniture and Equipment
a. Furniture 0 3,335 3,335 0 0 0 0 2,001 2,001 0 1,334 1,334
b. Equipment 15,998 482 16,480 808 0 808 15,190 422 15,612 0 60 60
Subtotal (A3) 15,998 3,817 19,815 808 0 808 15,190 2,423 17,613 0 1,394 1,394

6. High School Innovation Fund 0 1,921 1,921 0 1,921 1,921 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. School Mapping and Studies 515 559 1,074 515 559 1,074 0 0 0 0 0 0

8. Project Implementation 0 4,846 4,846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,846 4,846

9. Incremental Recurrent Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

b
10. Taxes and Duties 0 1,722 1,722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,722 1,722
Subtotal (A) 37,220 94,212 131,432 13,019 13,583 26,602 24,201 34,807 59,008 0 45,822 45,822
B. Contingencies
c
1. Physical Contingency 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
d
2. Price Escalation 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
Subtotal (B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0
e
C. Interest and Other Charges 5,516 0 5,516 5,516 0 5,516 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 42,736 94,212 136,948 18,535 13,583 32,118 24,201 34,807 59,008 0 45,822 45,822

ADB = Asian Development Bank, OECF = Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan.
a
Base costs are at 1998 prices.
b
Taxes and duties are 5% of local costs.
c
Physical contingencies for ADB-financed civil works are calculaled at 10%; for OECF-financed civil works costs, calculations are made at 10% of base cost and price escalation.
d
For other ADB-financed items, price escalation is calculated at 2.7% and 7.0% for foreign exchange and local currency costs. For OECF-financed items, price escalation is calculated at 2% of total costs.
e
Interest during construction is estimated at 6.91% for ADB and 2.2% for OECF loans.
Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.
 YEARLY DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN PROCEEDS
($)

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

01 Civil Works 26,683 4,467 14,030 14,506 4,931 28,311 70,346 163,274
02 Equipment 63,959 6,605 54,991 420,258 47,252 121,700 84,951 8,332 808,048
03 Textbook and Materials 3,119 823,194 1,133,993 57,338 1,022,795 159,423 4,259,466 4,766,969 12,226,297
04 School Mapping and Studies 1,669 95,072 279,269 428,096 44,418 62,690 53,208 109,719 1,074,141
05A In-Country Training 97,454 128,360 244,031 543,545 1,380,822 1,003,060 928,239 830,506 5,156,020
05B Overseas Training 18,131 0 1,398 0 187,037 151,435 37,407 0 395,411
06 High School Innovation Fund 1,528 13,402 75,566 752,578 412,157 568,487 96,711 1,920,429
07 Consulting Services 442,000 157,076 542,763 201,399 436,386 771,398 912,622 814,991 580,315 4,858,950
08 Interest and Commitment Charges 25,009 111,915 280,572 448,172 582,180 606,114 727,711 930,197 1,221,004 583,126 5,516,000

Total 25,009 553,915 648,663 2,050,161 2,524,693 2,581,809 4,938,942 3,753,284 7,996,064 7,046,024 32,118,570

Percentage to Total 0.08 1.72 2.02 6.38 7.86 8.04 15.38 11.69 24.90 21.94 100.00

Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Appendix 3
27
 28 Appendix 4

ACTUAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Activity
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
Project Management
Select/assign/appoint NPMO staff

Select/assign/appoint regional/ district staff

Issue DepEd order on project management

Prepare project implementation guidelines

Implement project – batch 1

Implement project – batch 2

Prepare quarterly report

Prepare annual report

Prepare/submit financial report

Secure/submit audited financial report

Prepare budget proposal for next year

Prepare project completion report

Monitoring and Evaluation

General monitoring

Annual review

Overall batch 1 evaluation – midterm

Final evaluation

Consulting Services
Prepare detailed invitation documents

Secure bank approval

Prepare long/shortlist

Send invitation for proposal

Evaluate proposal

Negotiate contract

Engage consultants

Field team leader

Field in-service training coordinator

Field other specialist

DSEDPa
Revisiting/refining DSEDP – batch 1

Prepare DSEDP - batch 2

Textbooks and Materials

Orientation on procurement procedures

Selection of books by schools

Consolidation at division

Ordering by region

Delivery of textbooks to schools

Policy Studies
Curriculum review

School staffing review

 Appendix 4 29

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008
Activity
1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2
Staff Development
Consolidate in-service training and capacity building
strategies

Finalize training designs

Prepare terms of reference for training providers

Prepare long/ shortlist

Send invitation for proposal

Evaluate proposal

Negotiate contract

Engage training providers

Course/material design and development

In-country training implementation – batch 1

In-country training monitoring and evaluation

Refine training design

In-country training implementation – batch 2

Overseas training

In-country follow-up

Physical Facilities Development

Refurbishing of IMCS

Plan for school mapping

Engage school mapping implementers

School mapping – batch 1

School mapping – batch 2

Finalize school building plans – batch 1

Finalize school building plans – batch 2

LGU memoranda of understanding – batch 1

LGU memoranda of understanding – batch 2

Implement civil works – batch 1

Implement civil works – batch 2

Furniture and Equipment

Consolidate requirements

Prepare specifications

Tendering – batch 1

Evaluate proposal

Contract

Implementation of procurement

Tendering – batch 2

Evaluate proposal

Contract

Implementation of procurement

DepEd = Department of Education, DSEDP = Division Secondary Education Development Plan, IMCS = Instructional Materials Council Secretariat, NPMO = national project management office
a
The Division Education Development Plan (DEDP), formerly known as the Division Secondary Education Development Plan or DSEDP, was the main Project intervention in assisting the Division to effectively and
efficiently manage basic education services.
Source: Asian Development Bank.
 30 Appendix 5

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN COVENANTS

Covenant Reference in Status of Compliance

Loan
Agreement
Sector
1. Sustained provision of textbooks Schedule 6, A total of 4,286, 499 (104%) textbooks,
The Borrower shall, during the course of Project para. 11 125,217 (100%) copies of teacher’s
implementation, develop measures to ensure manuals, and 67,351 (23%) copies of
sustained provision of textbooks and teachers' supplementary materials were delivered
manuals to the public secondary high schools in to 850 schools.
Project provinces after the completion of the Project.

2. Removal of compensation requirement Schedule 6, Complied with through the issuance of

The Borrower shall cause DECS to remove the para 12 DECS Order No. 23, s. 2001 dated 31
requirement for teachers to compensate for damages May 2001 (Loss of Textbooks by
and loss of the instructional materials in order to Students).
ensure unrestricted utilization of such equipment and
materials.

3. Resource allocation formula Schedule 6, The TA report includes the allocation

The Borrower shall continue to review, with the para. 13 formula which was accepted and being
assistance of outputs under the Bank-financed used by DepEd.
Technical Assistance for Decentralization of Basic
Education Management and the policy study to be
conducted under the Project, and revise the secondary
education financial and human resource allocation
formula as appropriate to permit more equitable
resource allocation to support and sustain the process
of improving the quality of teaching and learning in
disadvantaged and smaller rural schools.

4. School mapping and OSY survey Schedule 6, OSY survey and identifying OSY
The Borrower shall ensure that division offices of paras. 14 and location were carried out as part of
DECS and the LGUs jointly undertake a school 15 SME.
mapping exercise and OSY survey in the target
provinces during the first year of Project
implementation to determine the requirements for and
the most rational location of new schools. OSY
surveys shall also be carried out for the remaining
eight Project provinces during the third year of Project
implementation.

Upon completion of the school mapping and OSY School mapping completed. The
survey, division offices and the LGUs shall jointly beneficiary LGU takes the responsibility
develop a school facilities development program and in construction, management and
an implementation plan for each Project province, and supervision of school buildings and the
also determine, through memoranda of understanding, cost sharing arrangements (25%- LGU,
the beneficiary LGU's responsibilities with regard to the 25% - GOP, 50% - JBIC). The NPMO,
construction, management and supervision of school on the other hand, provides the
buildings and the cost sharing arrangements. technical assistance.

5. Indigenization of curriculum and school staff Schedule 6, The two policy studies – i.e., the first
The Borrower shall cause DECS to analyze and utilize para. 16 policy study on the implementation of
the outputs of the policy research to be conducted the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum,
under the Project to further develop policies, including localization of the curriculum,

LOAN COVENANTS
implementation strategies and guidelines on
indigenization of curriculum and school staff.
6. High school Innovation Fund
The Borrower, shall, within 3 months after the Effective
Date, establish HSIF Review Committees in each
division office of DECS in the Project provinces to
ensure that (i) proposals for allocation of funds from
HSIF are objectively assessed; (ii) educational
objectives are maximized; (iii) priority is given to
smaller and less performing schools; and (iv) standard
proposal formats are prepared.
7. The existing ExeCom shall provide the policy
guidance, including coordination of the Project
activities with other ongoing projects in basic
education.
8. Borrower shall ensure that a computerized EMIS is
developed, tested and installed in the Pilot Provinces
during the first year of Project implementation and is
continually refined throughout the Project
implementation period. The Borrower shall also ensure
that EMIS is installed in the remaining Project
Provinces by the third year of Project implementation.
9. Monitoring and Evaluation
Monitoring and evaluation functions shall be carried
out at each level of Project implementation structure.
10. The Borrower shall, within six months after the
Effective Date, update the baseline information of key
secondary education indicators in the Pilot Provinces
for effective monitoring and evaluation of the Project.
Appendix 5 31
and the second policy study on the
Organizational Structure and Staffing
Models for SBM, are already completed.
Schedule 6, HSIF Review Committee established in
para. 17 July 2000. A series of training-workshop
on project management for HSIF was
undertaken by OTI, Philippines, Inc. who
conducted the pilot run for 18 schools. A
total of 351 (108%) HSIF projects
completed.
Schedule 6, ADB approved on 17 January 2006
para. 2 minor change in implementation
arrangement, i.e. to replace the PMAC
with ExeCom.
Schedule 6, Project MIS installed in all divisions in
para. 6 Batches 1 and 2 provinces. There had
been trainings conducted. On top of this,
the project developed the ability of the
divisions to submit project reports n line
via the FTP (File Transfer Protocol).
This system can be used later by
Department’s BEIS. In addition, the
project had developed the SMIS to help
out the school in its information system.
The system is web-based and is
designed as a multi-user and network-
ready system to handle student,
personnel tracking, asset inventory
management, and school planning and
monitoring.
Schedule 6, The NPMO, Regional and Division
para. 7 offices have been capacitated in
conducting monitoring and evaluation.
The regions were already involved in the
conduct of Results Monitoring and
Evaluation focusing on Perception
Survey, Leading Indicators and Initial
Gains Studies. The divisions were
involved in Progress Monitoring and
Evaluation. The SEDIP’s Staff
Development Program Evaluation Study
was conducted and completed by a
service provider.
Schedule 6, Baseline data of 2000 are being used.
para. 8
 32 Appendix 5

Financial
1. Counterpart funds - The Borrower shall make Section Sufficient counterpart funds are
available, promptly as needed, the funds required for 4.01(b) available.
the carrying out of the Project and for the operation
and maintenance of the Project facilities.

2. Without limiting the generality of Section 4.02, the
Borrower shall, for its share of the cost, make
adequate annual appropriations for the construction of
the school buildings from its regular School Building
Program.
Schedule 6, The total equity generated for the school
para. 10 building program amounted to P743.08
million (101%) against targeted equity
requirement of P737.74 million. Batch 1
LGUs generated P356.27 million (99%)
against equity requirement of P 360.37
million, while Batch 2 LGUs generated
P386.81 million (103%) against equity
requirement of P337.37 million.

Others
1. Established, Staffed, and Operating PMU/PIU Schedule 6, BSE has now the primary responsibility
DECS shall have overall responsibility for the para. 1 for the project.
management and supervision of the Project. The BSE
of DECS shall have the primary responsibility for the
implementation of the Project.

The Borrower shall establish the NPMO within BSE to Schedule 6, NPMO was established.
coordinate all of the Project activities. NPMO shall be para. 3
headed by a Project Manager and assisted by an
Assistant Project Manager, chiefs of programs and an
adequate number of technical and administrative
support staff. Additionally, NPMO shall be staffed with
at least six education program officers seconded from
BSE and an adequate number of contractual staff to
be recruited by DECS, as agreed between the
Borrower and the Bank.

The Project shall be implemented by the division Schedule 6, Complied with.

offices of DECS in the Project Provinces at the para. 4
provincial level. The division offices shall be
responsible for: (i) development and refinement of the
Division Secondary Education Development Plans; (ii)
annual division performance analysis and planning,
including computerized entry, consolidation and
analysis of school EMIS data, and dissemination of
consolidated data to schools and regional offices; (iii)
securing LGU’s participation in conducting the school
building development plan and carrying out the civil
works; (iv) procurement of school furniture, small
equipment and minor supplies; (v) consolidation of
textbook orders from schools; (vi) ensuring that all
secondary schools in the Project Provinces undertake
annual school performance review and prepare annual
school improvement plans in coordination with the
Parent- Teacher Community Associations; and (vii)
implementation of division and school-based in-service
training for principals and teachers; (viii) appraisal and
approval of applications for, and monitoring of the High
School Innovation Fund (HSIF); (ix) monitoring and
 Appendix 5 33
LOAN COVENANTS

evaluation of Project implementation and impact at

school and division levels; and (x) financial
management and administration of the Project funds
channeled to the division offices. Construction and
rehabilitation of school facilities shall be implemented
by the relevant LGUs in close coordination with the
schools and the division offices.

The superintendents of the division offices shall be Schedule 6, Complied with.

responsible for the management of overall Project para. 5
implementation in each division. DECS shall assign a
full-time Project coordinator to oversee the day-to-day
operation of the Project. A Project implementation
advisor shall be recruited, on a contract basis, for each
division to assist the division superintendent and the
Project coordinator. In addition to the existing staff of
division offices who shall support the Project
implementation, DECS shall assign additional
contractual staff, including one planning officer, one
accountant, two clerks, one civil works officer, and one
procurement officer for each division office.

2. Fielding of Consultants Consulting services commenced in Jan

The services of consultants shall be utilized in the 2001.
carrying out of the Project particularly with regard to:
(a) decentralized education management; (b) in-
service training coordination; (c) monitoring and
evaluation; (d) education and textbook management
information system; and (e) secondary education
development plan implementation at the division level.

3. Midterm review shall be undertaken by the Borrower Midterm review fielded on May–
and the Bank upon completion of the third year of September 2002.
project implementation.

4. The Borrower shall furnish to the Bank quarterly Complied with.

progress reports on the carrying out of the Project and
on the operation and management of the Project
facilities.
BEIS = Basic Education information System, BSE = Bureau of Secondary Education, DECS = Department and Education
Culture and Sports, DepEd = Department of Education, EMIS = education management information system, ExeCom =
Executive Committee, GOP = Government of the Philippines, HSIF = High School Innovation Fund, JBIC = Japan bank for
International Cooperation, LGU = local government unit, MIS = management information system, NPMO = National Project
Management Office, OSY = out of school youth, PIU = Project Implementation Unit, PMAC = Project Management Advisory
Committee, PMU = Project Management Unit, SBM = school based management, SEDIP = Secondary Education, SME =
small and medium sized enterprises, SMIS = School Management Information System, TA = technical assistance.
Source: Asian Development Bank.
34 Appendix 6
 Appendix 6 35
LOAN COVENANTS
 TRENDS IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES

36
Table A7.1: National and SEDIP Division National Secondary Assessment Test Scores, SY1997–2000

Appendix 7
1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 Average
National 48.7 46.1 54.3 53.4 50.6
SEDIP 46.9 44.3 53.8 53.2 49.6
Disparity (1.8) (1.8) (0.6) (0.2) (1.1)
Disparity
Southern Leyte 48.3 47.5 60.6 61.4 54.4 3.8
Biliran 49.0 45.7 61.5 63.2 54.9 4.2
Leyte 48.7 45.6 62.5 66.4 55.8 5.2
Agusan del Sur 41.5 43.1 57.7 63.3 51.4 0.8
Romblon 50.2 42.5 53.5 55.8 50.5 (0.1)
Ifugao 55.7 52.5 56.6 52.1 54.2 3.6
Benguet 57.4 51.0 56.4 54.4 54.8 4.2
Surigao del Sur 46.1 39.3 50.6 52.6 47.2 (3.5)
Zamboanga del Sur/
52.3 49.6 55.1 48.7 51.4 0.8
Zamboanga Sibugay
Negros Oriental 41.0 52.5 47.1 44.8 46.3 (4.3)
Guimaras 45.4 42.1 50.2 50.0 46.9 (3.7)
Masbate 48.4 47.2 50.6 46.2 48.1 (2.5)
Antique 43.7 42.7 50.4 50.3 46.8 (3.9)
North Cotabato 40.6 38.4 46.3 44.3 42.4 (8.2)
( ) = negative. SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.
Table A7.2: National and SEDIP Division National Secondary Assessment Test Scores, SY2003–2005

SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 Average

National 44.4 46.8 44.3 45.2
SEDIP 49.3 53.3 49.2 50.6
Disparity 4.9 6.5 4.9 5.4
Disparity
Southern Leyte 49.5 62.1 65.6 59.1 13.9
Biliran 53.8 56.9 57.7 56.1 11.0
Leyte 52.6 53.4 56.3 54.1 8.9
Agusan del Sur 60.5 55.7 52.5 56.2 11.1
Romblon 51.6 55.8 56.0 54.5 9.3
Ifugao 50.2 48.6 46.3 48.4 3.2
Benguet 46.2 48.7 47.7 47.5 2.4
Surigao del Sur 47.2 55.5 48.6 50.4 5.3
Zamboanga del Sur 40.8 48.6 40.8 43.4 (1.7)
Zamboanga Sibugay 49.2 43.0 50.6 47.6 2.4
Negros Oriental 48.5 44.2 47.4 46.7 1.5
Guimaras 43.2 48.3 43.7 45.1 (0.1)
Masbate 49.1 38.3 37.6 41.6 (3.5)
Antique 39.0 43.8 44.2 42.3 (2.8)
North Cotabato 40.8 43.2 43.3 42.4 (2.7)
( ) = negative. SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.

Appendix 7
37
 Table A7.3: National Achievement Test for SEDIP and Non-SEDIP Divisions, SY2007

38
SEDIP Divisions Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total Test
Romblon 66.3 59.3 52.6 47.5 61.5 57.4

Appendix 7
Masbate 43.9 44.0 33.4 40.9 43.9 41.2
Antique 53.1 53.2 44.9 45.0 58.5 50.9
Guimaras 73.5 61.9 51.9 50.2 65.5 60.6
Negros Oriental 53.8 52.0 39.4 42.8 49.9 47.6
Biliran 66.3 60.9 50.1 46.1 62.6 57.2
Leyte 65.2 58.9 49.7 48.8 63.1 57.1
Southern Leyte 78.1 65.4 56.6 51.0 67.8 63.8
Zamboanga del Sur 61.9 56.0 46.7 43.9 53.6 52.4
Zamboanga Sibugay 56.4 54.2 44.6 42.6 50.4 49.6
North Cotabato 59.4 54.4 42.9 42.2 53.0 50.4
Benguet 64.0 61.1 46.6 47.1 59.2 55.6
Ifugao 66.1 61.5 48.8 47.0 59.5 56.6
Agusan del Sur 61.4 57.1 49.2 49.9 58.7 55.3
Surigao del Sur 66.1 60.3 53.4 47.3 61.5 57.7
Average 60.9 56.3 46.5 45.8 57.1 53.3
Non-SEDIP Divisions Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total Test
Marinduque 60.3 56.3 45.0 47.4 56.4 53.1
Aklan 47.4 45.4 38.1 42.9 52.6 45.3
Iloilo 52.5 50.2 39.1 44.5 52.2 47.7
Dumaguete City 70.4 71.3 69.9 52.0 55.9 63.9
Ormoc City 60.2 57.5 45.7 45.0 57.4 53.2
Tacloban City 50.6 53.6 39.9 43.2 51.6 47.8
Pagadian City 56.0 56.6 45.3 49.9 54.2 52.4
Zamboanga City 47.5 48.9 38.0 39.3 43.8 43.5
Baguio City 53.3 56.9 37.6 45.9 54.7 49.7
Mt. Province 57.6 55.5 39.2 43.5 54.7 50.1
Agusan del Norte 75.4 64.3 56.5 47.7 62.7 61.3
Surigao del Norte 67.6 60.1 51.3 49.2 58.8 57.4
Average 54.3 52.5 41.4 44.5 52.7 49.1

Item Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total

Project 60.9 56.3 46.5 45.8 57.1 53.3
Non-Project 54.3 52.5 41.4 44.5 52.7 49.1
Disparity 6.6 3.8 5.1 1.3 4.4 4.2
SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.
 Table A7.4: National Achievement Test - Fourth Year, School Year SY2007
Araling
Number of Math English Science Filipino Total Test
Panlipunan
Examinees
Division Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD
SEDIP Divisions
Romblon 3,296 66.3 21.3 59.3 14.7 52.6 17.3 47.5 10.1 61.5 16.6 57.4 12.3
Masbate 5,417 43.9 17.6 44.0 14.1 33.4 12.3 40.9 10.3 43.9 15.1 41.2 10.7
Antique 6,095 53.1 21.4 53.2 16.6 44.9 17.0 45.0 10.3 58.5 17.5 50.9 12.7
Guimaras 1,527 73.5 17.6 61.9 11.1 51.9 15.4 50.2 8.5 65.5 12.1 60.6 9.6
Negros Oriental 6,651 53.8 20.2 52.0 13.9 39.4 16.1 42.8 10.6 49.9 15.9 47.6 11.9
Biliran 1,677 66.3 20.0 60.9 14.0 50.1 16.4 46.1 9.0 62.6 14.9 57.2 11.3
Leyte 14,403 65.2 21.4 58.9 14.5 49.7 16.6 48.8 10.6 63.1 14.7 57.1 11.6
Southern Leyte 3,456 78.1 16.8 65.4 11.0 56.6 13.0 51.0 9.0 67.8 12.5 63.8 8.3
Zamboanga del Sur 7,709 61.9 20.2 56.0 15.1 46.7 15.6 43.9 10.1 53.6 14.5 52.4 10.9
Zamboanga Sibugay 4,418 56.4 19.0 54.2 14.1 44.6 14.7 42.6 10.9 50.4 14.7 49.6 10.4
North Cotabato 8,802 59.4 21.8 54.4 15.1 42.9 15.2 42.2 11.1 53.0 16.4 50.4 12.2
Benguet 3,372 64.0 19.5 61.1 12.3 46.6 15.6 47.1 9.3 59.2 13.0 55.6 10.2
Ifugao 1,942 66.1 18.8 61.5 13.2 48.8 15.0 47.0 9.8 59.5 14.4 56.6 10.8
Agusan del Sur 6,021 61.4 22.9 57.1 16.1 49.2 19.6 49.9 10.3 58.7 18.8 55.3 13.9
Surigao del Sur 4,834 66.1 20.2 60.3 13.7 53.4 15.8 47.3 9.5 61.5 14.3 57.7 11.0
Subtotal 79,620 60.9 21.8 56.3 15.2 46.5 16.9 45.8 10.7 57.1 16.6 53.3 12.6
Non-SEDIP Divisions
Marinduque 2,902 60.3 19.8 56.3 14.4 45.0 15.6 47.4 9.8 56.4 14.1 53.1 11.3
Aklan 6,147 47.4 20.5 45.4 16.2 38.1 15.6 42.9 11.3 52.6 16.5 45.3 11.9
Iloilo 22,419 52.5 21.9 50.2 15.7 39.1 15.7 44.5 10.6 52.2 15.8 47.7 12.8
Dumaguete City 865 70.4 23.7 71.3 9.6 69.9 11.2 52.0 11.5 55.9 19.2 63.9 10.8
Ormoc City 2,125 60.2 20.8 57.5 14.1 45.7 15.6 45.0 11.9 57.4 15.3 53.2 11.5
Tacloban City 2,740 50.6 22.2 53.6 14.5 39.9 15.5 43.2 10.8 51.6 18.7 47.8 11.8
Pagadian City 1,658 56.0 20.8 56.6 14.0 45.3 13.6 49.9 13.5 54.2 14.2 52.4 10.8
Zamboanga City 7,193 47.5 22.6 48.9 14.9 38.0 16.4 39.3 11.2 43.8 17.0 43.5 13.5

Appendix 7
Baguio City 3,781 53.3 19.3 56.9 12.7 37.6 13.4 45.9 9.6 54.7 15.0 49.7 11.0
Agusan Del Norte 2,250 75.4 18.7 64.3 12.7 56.5 15.8 47.7 8.9 62.7 16.1 61.3 10.1
Surigao Del Norte 3,299 67.6 21.8 60.1 14.4 51.3 16.2 49.2 11.3 58.8 17.8 57.4 13.0
Subtotal 55,379 54.2 22.5 52.4 15.8 41.5 16.6 44.5 11.2 52.7 16.7 49.0 13.2
Total 140,003 58.3 22.3 54.8 15.6 44.5 16.9 45.3 10.9 55.3 16.8 51.6 13.0

39
SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project., SD = standard deviation.
Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.
 DROPOUT RATES FOR PROJECT DIVISIONS, SY20023–SY2006

40
Table A8.1: Change in Dropout Rate

Appendix 8
National Dropout Rate (First Year High School)

SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000

11.1 12.1 12.4 11

Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin
School Year 1998 through 2001 (Dropout from year 1 of
secondary school).

Table A8.2: National and SEDIP Division Dropout Rate (First Year High School)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 Sy2005 SY2006 Average

National 11.1 13.9 15.5 15.2 18.0 15.8 14.9
SEDIP 13.7 15.5 15.8 19.1 15.4 15.9
Disparity (0.2) 0.0 0.6 1.1 (0.4) 1.0
Disparity
Romblon 8.0 12.4 13.2 16.9 11.9 12.5 (2.4)
Biliran 9.8 11.8 14.9 13.9 13.5 12.8 (2.1)
Guimaras 12.0 12.3 13.6 19.5 13.0 14.1 (0.8)
Antique 14.7 14.3 13.5 19.0 15.4 15.4 0.5
Agusan del Sur 18.8 19.9 16.9 17.6 14.3 17.5 2.6
Southern Leyte 9.0 10.2 12.0 14.3 13.9 11.9 (3.0)
Leyte 12.3 16.7 12.0 17.7 14.2 14.6 (0.3)
North Cotabato 17.6 19.7 23.5 27.0 19.4 21.4 6.5
Surigao del Sur 10.9 14.1 13.8 20.9 14.6 14.9 (0.1)
Zamboanga Sibugay 14.7 15.4 19.0 21.2 17.8 17.6 2.7
Zamboanga del Sur 10.0 15.2 20.0 17.2 16.9 15.9 0.9
Masbate 20.4 19.5 17.6 21.6 19.6 19.7 4.8
Negros Oriental 19.3 15.2 13.8 16.2 14.9 15.9 1.0
Ifugao 15.2 21.2 21.3 27.3 17.6 20.5 5.6
Benguet 12.8 14.6 12.1 16.3 13.7 13.9 (1.0)
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Sources: Basic Education Information System , Department of Education; for 1998–1999 National Dropout Rate: Department of Education Culture and Sports
Statistical Bulletin School Year 1997–1998; Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.
 Table A8.3: National and SEDIP Division Simple Dropout

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average

National 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.6
SEDIP 6.8a 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.2
Disparity -0.8 (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.9) (0.4)
Disparity
Romblon 4.3 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 (2.2)
Biliran 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.6 0.0
Guimaras 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.6 (1.0)
Antique 5.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.5 5.5 (1.1)
Agusan del Sur 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.8 5.9 6.1 (0.4)
Southern Leyte 6.2 4.6 6.3 6.2 4.2 5.5 (1.1)
Leyte 5.1 4.9 5.4 6.3 5.7 5.5 (1.1)
North Cotabato 8.0 8.7 9.6 9.5 8.8 8.9 2.4
Surigao del Sur 6.6 7.1 6.0 6.8 6.5 6.6 0.0
Zamboanga Sibugay 5.1 6.0 5.7 6.6 4.8 5.6 (0.9)
Zamboanga del Sur 4.7 5.2 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.9 (1.7)
Masbate 6.6 6.6 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.4 (0.2)
Negros Oriental 7.9 8.6 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.6 1.0
Ifugao 5.3 5.8 6.9 5.5 5.7 5.8 (0.7)
Benguet 4.7 5.2 5.9 6.5 5.7 5.6 (1.0)
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
a
SEDIP Simple Dropout for 1997–1998 is per project Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors.
Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

Table A8.4: Change in Dropout Rate

National Dropout Rate (First Year High School)

Appendix 8
SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000

11.1 12.1 12.4 11

Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin
School Year 1998–1999 through 2001–2002 (Dropout from

41
year 1 of secondary school).
 Table A8.5: National and SEDIP Division Drop Out Rate (First Year High School)

42
SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average
National 11.1 13.9 15.5 15.2 18.0 15.8 14.9

Appendix 8
SEDIP 13.7 15.5 15.8 19.1 15.4 15.9
Disparity (0.2) 0.0 0.6 1.1 (0.4) 1.0
Disparity
Romblon 8.0 12.4 13.2 16.9 11.9 12.5 (2.4)
Biliran 9.8 11.8 14.9 13.9 13.5 12.8 (2.1)
Guimaras 12.0 12.3 13.6 19.5 13.0 14.1 (0.8)
Antique 14.7 14.3 13.5 19.0 15.4 15.4 0.5
Agusan del Sur 18.8 19.9 16.9 17.6 14.3 17.5 2.6
Southern Leyte 9.0 10.2 12.0 14.3 13.9 11.9 (3.0)
Leyte 12.3 16.7 12.0 17.7 14.2 14.6 (0.3)
North Cotabato 17.6 19.7 23.5 27.0 19.4 21.4 6.5
Surigao del Sur 10.9 14.1 13.8 20.9 14.6 14.9 (0.1)
Zamboanga Sibugay 14.7 15.4 19.0 21.2 17.8 17.6 2.7
Zamboanga del Sur 10.0 15.2 20.0 17.2 16.9 15.9 0.9
Masbate 20.4 19.5 17.6 21.6 19.6 19.7 4.8
Negros Oriental 19.3 15.2 13.8 16.2 14.9 15.9 1.0
Ifugao 15.2 21.2 21.3 27.3 17.6 20.5 5.6
Benguet 12.8 14.6 12.1 16.3 13.7 13.9 (1.0)
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Sources: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education; for 1998–1999 National Dropout Rate: Department of Education Culture and Sports
Statistical Bulletin School Year 1997–1998; Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.
 Table A8.6: National and SEDIP Division Simple Dropout

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average

National 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.6
SEDIP 6.8a 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.2
Disparity (0.8) (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.9) (0.4)
Disparity
Romblon 4.3 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 (2.2)
Biliran 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.6 0.0
Guimaras 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.6 (1.0)
Antique 5.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.5 5.5 (1.1)
Agusan del Sur 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.8 5.9 6.1 (0.4)
Southern Leyte 6.2 4.6 6.3 6.2 4.2 5.5 (1.1)
Leyte 5.1 4.9 5.4 6.3 5.7 5.5 (1.1)
North Cotabato 8.0 8.7 9.6 9.5 8.8 8.9 2.4
Surigao del Sur 6.6 7.1 6.0 6.8 6.5 6.6 0.0
Zamboanga Sibugay 5.1 6.0 5.7 6.6 4.8 5.6 (0.9)
Zamboanga del Sur 4.7 5.2 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.9 (1.7)
Masbate 6.6 6.6 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.4 (0.2)
Negros Oriental 7.9 8.6 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.6 1.0
Ifugao 5.3 5.8 6.9 5.5 5.7 5.8 (0.7)
Benguet 4.7 5.2 5.9 6.5 5.7 5.6 (1.0)
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
a
SEDIP Simple Dropout for 1997–1998 is per project Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors.
Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

Appendix 8
43
 NET ENROLLMENT RATIOS: 2002/03–2007/08
Table A9.1: Change in Net Enrollment Ratio (Participation Rate)

44
National Net Enrollment Ratio - Public and Private Schools

Appendix 9
SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000 SY2001

64 65.2 65.4 72.3 73.4

Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin School Year
1997–1998 through 2001–2002. Office of Planning Service, Department of
Education.

Table A9.2: SEDIP Divisions Net Enrollment Ratio Against National Net Enrollment Ration (Public plus Private Schools)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY 2005 SY 2006 Average

National 63.9a 59.0 60.2 60.0 58.5 58.6 60.0
SEDIP 47.3a 49.3 50.3 50.3 48.7 48.1 49.0
Disparity (16.6) (9.7) (9.9) (9.7) (9.8) (10.5) (11.0)
Disparity
Romblon 58.8 61.2 59.7 59.7 57.0 59.3 (0.8)
Biliran 53.6 54.9 54.6 54.5 55.9 54.7 (5.3)
Guimaras 61.0 60.6 59.2 54.5 54.4 57.9 (2.1)
Antique 58.7 59.8 56.8 54.9 49.3 55.9 (4.1)
Agusan del Sur 43.1 43.1 43.5 45.1 48.9 44.7 (15.3)
Southern Leyte 56.4 59.2 58.1 57.1 54.8 57.1 (2.9)
Leyte 48.1 48.5 48.4 47.0 46.5 47.7 (12.3)
North Cotabato 48.1 48.1 53.6 49.2 44.1 48.6 (11.4)
Surigao del Sur 47.6 45.7 45.8 46.0 44.3 45.9 (14.2)
Zamboanga Sibugay 43.1 44.0 45.1 41.9 42.1 43.2 (16.8)
Zamboanga del Sur 41.9 44.0 43.4 40.7 42.7 42.5 (17.5)
Masbate 40.7 42.3 43.1 40.3 41.9 41.7 (18.4)
Negros Oriental 38.3 39.1 39.3 37.1 37.8 38.3 (21.7)
Ifugao 46.3 50.1 52.1 51.3 49.2 49.8 (10.2)
Benguet 53.3 53.5 52.1 51.7 52.0 52.5 (7.5)
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
a
National and SEDIP Net Enrollment Ratio for 1997–1998 are per project Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors (1998),
Appendix 3. SEDIP Net Enrollment Ratio for 1997–1998 is for 14 project provinces. (Provinces do not include Zamboanga Sibugay which became separate
Division from Zamboanga del Sur in 2002.)
Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.
 Table A9.3: Change in Net Enrollment Ratio for Public Schools

National Net Enrollment Ratio - Public Schools Only

SY 1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000 SY2001

43.4 47.3 48 50.7 50.2

Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin School Year
1997–1998 through 2001–2002. Office of Planning Service, Department of
Education.

Table A9.4: SEDIP Divisions Net Enrollment Ratio Against National Net Enrollment Ratio (Public Schools Only)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 SY2007 Average

National 43.4 45.6 47.0 43.5 44.5 45.4 45.3 45.0
SEDIP 41.0 42.5 37.5 40.7 40.0 40.1 40.3
Disparity (4.6) (4.5) (6.0) (3.8) (5.4) (5.2) (4.9)
Disparity
Romblon 52.7 54.5 46.1 53.7 50.9 52.3 51.7 6.7
Biliran 51.5 52.8 44.5 52.4 51.9 52.4 50.9 6.0
Guimaras 54.7 53.9 43.9 48.1 46.1 46.0 48.8 3.8
Antique 47.7 48.6 41.9 45.0 41.5 41.3 44.3 (0.6)
Agusan del Sur 37.4 40.0 36.2 41.0 44.1 46.2 40.8 (4.1)
Southern Leyte 39.3 42.9 40.4 41.6 39.6 38.5 40.4 (4.6)
Leyte 41.2 41.9 39.3 40.9 40.1 40.7 40.7 (4.3)
North Cotabato 43.2 43.1 35.8 40.6 39.7 40.2 40.4 (4.5)
Surigao del Sur 39.7 40.0 36.1 39.0 37.1 35.5 37.9 (7.1)
Zamboanga Sibugay 38.6 39.5 33.4 37.0 36.2 36.5 36.9 (8.1)
Zamboanga del Sur 33.6 37.9 34.7 36.0 37.1 36.1 35.9 (9.1)

Appendix 9
Masbate 34.1 36.7 31.1 35.1 36.1 38.0 35.2 (9.8)
Negros Oriental 34.7 35.8 31.1 33.7 33.9 34.0 33.9 (11.1)
Ifugao 31.5 33.9 34.4 34.0 32.9 32.0 33.1 (11.8)
Benguet 34.7 36.0 33.4 33.1 32.5 32.0 33.6 (11.3)
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

45
 COMPLETION RATES FOR SEDIP DIVISIONS, 2002/03–2006/07

46
Table A10.1: Change in Completion Rate

Appendix 10
National Completion Rate
SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000 SY2001
66 66.1 66.3 69 69.6
Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin School Year
1997–1998 through 2001–2002. Office of Planning Service, Department of
Education.

Table A10.2: National and SEDIP Division Completion Rate

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average

National 66.0 58.6 56.1 56.5 50.0 55.5 55.3
SEDIP 61.8 61.4 57.3 56.3 49.6 59.0 56.7
Disparity (4.2) 2.8 1.2 (0.2) (0.4) 3.5 1.4
Disparity
Romblon 75.4 64.0 61.1 54.1 68.3 64.6 9.2
Biliran 69.6 66.0 57.6 61.9 63.7 63.8 8.4
Guimaras 64.7 64.2 61.1 47.1 65.7 60.6 5.2
Antique 58.6 60.0 62.1 49.1 58.3 57.6 2.3
Agusan del Sur 49.3 49.4 55.3 53.1 62.3 53.9 (1.5)
Southern Leyte 73.1 68.6 63.1 59.3 61.2 65.1 9.7
Leyte 64.2 52.6 63.9 52.2 61.3 58.8 3.5
North Cotabato 51.5 47.9 39.6 34.1 48.7 44.4 (11.0)
Surigao del Sur 68.0 56.9 61.2 45.3 59.2 58.1 2.8
Zamboanga Sibugay 58.2 57.2 50.0 45.6 54.4 53.1 (2.3)
Zamboanga del Sur 69.6 58.0 48.5 53.8 54.9 57.0 1.6
Masbate 48.4 49.0 48.4 44.2 50.8 48.2 (7.2)
Negros Oriental 47.8 57.5 60.8 53.0 60.3 55.9 0.5
Ifugao 58.4 47.0 45.0 35.1 53.0 47.7 (7.6)
Benguet 64.8 61.0 66.4 55.8 63.1 62.2 6.9
( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project.
Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education; National and SEDIP (for 14 project provinces) 1997–1998 Completion Rate, Report and
Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors.
 Appendix 11 47

OVERALL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE

Criterion Weight (%) Assessment Rating Value Weighted Rating

Relevance 20 Highly Relevant 3 0.6
Effectiveness 30 Effective 2 0.6
Efficiency 30 Less Efficient 1 0.3
Sustainability 20 Most Likely 3 0.6

Overall Rating Successful 2.1

Highly successful: Overall weighted average is greater than 2.7.

Successful: Overall weighted average is between 1.6 and less than 2.7.
Partly Successful: Overall weighted average is between 0.8 and less than 1.6.
Unsuccessful: Overall weighted average is less than 0.8.

Source: Operations Evaluation Department. Asian Development Bank 2006. Guidelines for Preparing
Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. Manila.