RA 9155

7 GOVERNANCE OF THE EDUCATION SECTOR JESS ALFONSO A.

MACASAET
I. THE IMPORTANCE OF EDUCATION
It has been long self-evident to many educators and parents that
education, in addition to its immediate benefits, is also a form of
investment, building peoples' capacity to be more productive,
earn more, and enjoy a higher quality of life. The rise of human
capital theory in the 1960s, and its widespread acceptance now
after thorough debate, has provided conceptual underpinnings
and statistical evidence. Estimates by economists have shown
that education is one of the best investments, outstripping the
returns from many investments in physical capital. Related
analysis has demonstrated that the total stock of human capital
worldwide has a higher value by far, in terms of its contribution
to production, than the stock of physical capital. While human
capital ideas focus on links among education, productivity, and
economic growth, other disciplines have emphasized additional
reasons why education is important. These further reasons stress
the contribution of education to building social cohesion. They
note that education transmits values, beliefs, and traditions. It
shapes attitudes and aspirations, and the skills it develops include
crucial inter- and intra-personal capabilities. It empowers people.
It frees them to learn and think for themselves. It has benefits for
health and environment. The more rapidly the world changes and
the more complex it becomes, the more important are the skills
that a good quality education can provide. The trends driving
change today (such as, democratization, market economies,
globalization) have an implication on education. Countries such as
the Philippines need educated and skilled citizens who can
operate in a democratic society, workers who can meet changing
labor market needs and compete in global markets, learners
capable of benefiting from the technology revolution, and policies
capable of harnessing the evolving public/private interface. Thus,
education is important because it contributes to improving
peoples' lives and reducing poverty. It does so through several
tracks, including: • Helping people become more productive and
earn more (because education is considered an investment,
strengthening their skills and abilities – their human capital); •
Improving health and nutrition; • Enriching lives directly (through
the pleasure of intelligent thought and the sense of
empowerment it helps give); and, • Promoting social
development through strengthening social cohesion and giving
more people better opportunities (and thus greater equity
through opportunity). In addition, many of the world's states,
through international conventions and commitments, have
recognized education as a human right. Education thus
contributes, within the context of a sound macroeconomic and
political environment, to the entire society's growth and
development, which in turn raises incomes for all. This paper
looks at the state of Philippine education and assesses how
current governance systems relate to the persistent issues that
beset the sector. The discussion also includes problems regarding
education costs and financing in the sector, and concludes with a
set of suggested governance reform initiatives aimed at
improving public sector responsiveness to education needs at
various levels – basic education, technical-vocational education
and training, and higher education.
 II. STATE OF PHILIPPINE EDUCATION Structure Under the current
structure, education is offered through the formal and non-
formal systems. The new entry age for elementary education is
six years, made effective in School Year (SY) 1995-1996; for
secondary education, it is 12-15 years; and for higher education,
it is 16-19 years. The number of years of formal schooling in the
Philippines is one of the shortest in the world. The educational
ladder has a 6-4-4 structure: six (6) years of elementary (primary)
education, four (4) years of secondary education, and another
four (4) years of higher education for a degree program. Pre-
school education is optional; private organizations and some
public schools offer nursery and kindergarten classes. Some
private exclusive schools offer seven years of primary education
while others require pre-school or kindergarten education. Based
on curricular offerings, there are two types of secondary schools:
the general high school and vocational high school. General high
schools offer the four year general academic secondary
curriculum while vocational high schools offer the same
secondary curriculum with additional vocational courses. There
are also specialty schools such as regional science high schools
established in each of the country's regions, as well as one high
school for the arts. Science high schools offer an enriched
Science, Mathematics and English curriculum in addition to
requirements of the New Secondary Education Curriculum
(NSEC). On the other hand, the Philippine High School for the Arts
is attached to the Cultural Center of the Philippines. The tertiary
education level is comprised of degree and non-degree programs.
Postsecondary or technical-vocational courses are non-creditable
to degree programs and these cover one month to three years of
schooling. The higher education or degree programs normally
require at least four years of schooling except for some courses
such as Engineering, Medicine, and Law that require five years or
more. Non-formal education is an alternative educational delivery
system mainly catering to out-of-school youth and adults. It
focuses on the development of literacy and
employable/productive skills coupled with citizenship training.
Profile of the Education Sector The Medium Term Philippine
Development Plan (MTPDP) 2001-2004 mentions certain
indicators that frame its assessment of the education sector. As a
gauge of quality of life, the MTPDP noted that the human
development status of Filipinos has been improving over time.
Between 1995 and 1998, the Philippines was the only ASEAN
country where the human development index (HDI) rose. The
gains in gross enrolment ratio (to be mentioned later in this
subsection) accounted for the increase in HDI during the period.
However, the MTPDP qualified that the index conceals disparities
among socioeconomic groups, and gaps in access to education
services. The Asian financial crisis of 1997 and the El Niño
phenomenon worsened conditions of the poor. The number of
poor families with children from 6-16 years old enrolled in
elementary and secondary schools declined from 1998 to 1999.
Moreover, the MTPDP also mentioned that only a small
percentage of poor families were able to send their children to
tertiary school and receive scholarships from the government or
the private sector. Government spending on education increased
in 1999-2000, although its share in total expenditures slightly
declined. Nevertheless, allocation for education, culture, and
manpower development continued to account for the bulk of
total government spending. The following subsections discuss
other important indicators that cut across sub-sectors: basic
education, technical-vocational education and training (or middle
level skills development), and higher education. Students.
Participation rates remain high, with the country sending 96.4
percent of its six year-olds to primary school and 72.3 percent of
its twelve year-olds to secondary school during SY 2000-2001.
Historically, the Philippines has enjoyed high participation rates
as well, underscoring a strong social demand for education.
According to the Asian Development Bank's (ADB) "1998
Philippines Education Sector Study," net primary enrolment rates
were already close to 100 percent by the late 1980s. Enrolments
fell in the early 1990s, but have recovered nearly to universal
levels again by the end of the decade. In secondary education,
net rates have climbed throughout most of the 1980s and 1990s,
reaching 64 percent by 1997. Cycle completion rates are also
quite high, especially in secondary education, where 9 out of 10
students who enter Grade VII finish all four years. The current
secondary completion rate of 63 percent approaches the OECD
mean of 85 percent and exceeds that of most East Asian
neighbors, such as Thailand, 46 percent, or Malaysia, 41 percent
(ADB, 1999). In spite of these impressive quantitative
achievements, the educational system suffers from poor holding
power. Statistics show that the number of students decrease as
they move on to the next educational level. For example, the
national cohort survival rate (CSR) in SY 1996-1997 was only
67.96 percent for elementary school. This means that out of 100
students that entered Grade I five years ago, 32 of them did not
reach Grade VI (meanwhile, CSR for secondary school was at a
mere 73.45 percent). This translates to about 700,000 school-age
children who swell the ranks of the out-of-school youth, and are
themselves would-be illiterates. According to a 1981 EDPITAF-
NETRC study, one out of five children who drop out of elementary
school reverts to a literacy rate below Grade I and retrogression
to illiteracy is found in every grade level at which the dropouts
leave school. In the 1996 Third International Mathematics and
Science Survey (TIMSS), which measured the mathematics and
science achievement of basic education students, the Philippines
placed number 39 in a field of 41 countries with a score of 399.
The TIMSS international average is pegged at 500. Singapore
placed first with a score of 643. The country's low ranking was
not reversed in the 1999 TIMSSRepeat. Even in domestic tests,
students perform way below expectations of the examinations
section of the Department of Education (DepEd). In 1997, the
mean score of students who took the NEAT exam, an aptitude
test for elementary students, was 50.8. The average score for
students who took the NSAT, the equivalent exam for secondary
level students, was 45.6. In virtually every subject, students could
answer fewer than half of the questions in these tests. Moreover,
the national averages hide considerable variation across the
country's regions. In 1997 for example, the NSAT score ranged
from a low of 42 percent in Region XII to a high of 53 percent in
the National Capital Region (ADB, 1999). According to the
MTPDP, technical-vocational education and training (TVET) has
proven to be a viable and cost-effective alternative to higher
education, with significant increases in the number of enrollees
for various TVET programs. Most notable of these figures is the
62 percent increase in enrolment for dual training programs,
from 9,325 students in 1999 to 15,121 in year 2000. However,
passing rates are still low in the TVET sub-sector, with only 63.7
percent (57,628) of workers getting certification out of a total of
90,472 workers tested. As far as students in higher education are
concerned, for SY 1999-2000 there were more enrollees in
business and training courses (31.7 percent) compared with
engineering and mathematics (22.2 percent). There was an
improvement in the quality of higher education with the higher
average passing rates in national board examinations (43.33
percent in SY 1998-1999, 44.38 in SY 1999-2000), but these were
modest and still below targets (45 percent for SY 1998-1999 and
50 percent for SY 1999-2000). Teachers. One of the reasons for
the poor quality of Philippine education is the situation of
teachers in the educational system. According to data from the
Philippines' Education for All program (EFA), the percentage of
teachers with the required academic qualifications remained at
100 percent between 1990 and 1998 (the minimum entry
requirement to become a public elementary school teacher is a
bachelor's degree in an education). On the other hand, the
percentage of primary school teachers who are certified to teach
according to national standards increased from 93.6 percent in
1990 to 100 percent in 1998. The problem with teachers in the
basic education sector is not that there is a shortage in absolute
numbers. The problems really are the sub-optimal deployment of
teachers (e.g., large numbers of teachers currently assigned to
administrative, non-teaching jobs), and the inadequate
preparation of the teachers themselves. Many of those entering
the teaching profession as new graduates from the teacher
training institutes, as well as many already teaching, are simply
not up to the task of delivering to students either the full content
of the present curriculum or the skills they will really need when
they move to the next level of education or when they enter the
labor force (ADB, 1999). In the case of science and math
education, for example, the principal constraint at both the
secondary and tertiary levels remains the low number of qualified
teachers. This is particularly true for chemistry and physics. The
Department of Science and Technology (DOST) currently has too
few programs to help expand the number and improve on the
proficiency of qualified teachers and lecturers. At the secondary
level, trained teachers have low levels of content knowledge. In
1998, DOST inservice training programs were only able to reach 2
percent of the estimated 100,000 secondary science and
mathematics teachers in need of upgrading. In the country's
higher education system, general qualifications for teaching staff
are low (Johanson, 1999). The rules specify that new entrants
must have at least a bachelor's degree or a professional
qualification. However, many institutions waive this requirement
and expect the newly hired staff to raise their qualifications while
on the job. In 1996-1997, only 7 percent of faculty nationwide
held doctorate degrees and 26 percent had master's degrees. The
rest held less than a master's degree. Most of the qualified
teaching staff worked in the public sector. In state universities
and colleges, 11 percent of the staff had doctorates, and over a
third had master's degrees. The private sector was less endowed,
with only 3 percent having doctorates and 14 percent with
master's degrees. On the other hand, trainers in TVET have strong
educational qualifications, but lack skills qualifications and
industrial experience. Only about 30 percent of the trainers had
trade certification and only 9 percent had industrial experience
(Biervliet and Morfe, 1996). As far as the supply of teachers in
basic education is concerned, DepEd reported that for SY 1996-97
there was a total of 318,766 teachers that handled 10,959,632
elementary school pupils, and 102,884 teachers that taught
3,544,446 high school students. Average teacher-student ratio
was thus 1:34 for the elementary level and 1:33 for the secondary
level. Curriculum. Authorities have recommended a number of
changes in elementary and secondary curricula – greater
emphasis on communication competencies, on personal
discipline, citizenship and work values, and on science and
mathematics in preparation for the world of work. The poor
performance of Filipinos as gauged in the TIMSS prompted a
review of the education curriculum. This review led in 1996 to an
increase in the proportion of school time allotted to mathematics,
the sciences, and the English language, and an increase in the
number of school days in a school year from 185 to 220. While
very appropriate reforms, additional changes may be equally
necessary. For example, the elementary curriculum is
overcrowded (Grades 1-3 in particular) with at least as many as
seven subjects per day. The large number of subjects limits the
extent to which teachers and students can focus on those basic
skills critically important for good performance and success in the
later grades. According to the PESS, research on student learning
suggests that greater emphasis should be given to reading and
communication skills, and to understanding basic mathematical
concepts (ADB, 1999). Another example is science and
mathematics instruction in secondary education, where the focus
of instruction is on cognitive building blocks (such as technical
terms, formulas, and rules) rather than on the cognitive
structures built from these blocks. Instruction thus tends to be
mechanical, stressing formulaic approaches rather than problem
solving. Moreover, in much of the present science curriculum,
there is improper sequencing of instruction, such that scientific
concepts needed in a later grade are not taught in an earlier
grade. On the other hand, TVET structure is complicated. Basic
skills training, technician training, and engineering training are
often provided in the same institution, mainly in state universities
and colleges. Even worse, TVET tends to be mixed with general
education in the public formal system. Many TVET institutions
serve multiple purposes and TVET programs are in a distinct
minority of the programs offered. In other countries, this kind of
structure has been found to be least effective in the preparation
of technical and vocational skills (Johanson, 1999). Considerable
effort has gone into preparation of training materials by various
groups in the country, but these generally have not filtered down
to the shop floor. Moreover, training curricula tend to be rigid
and static. The regional training centers give training in seven
occupations that were identified in the early 1970s, regardless of
technological change and modified trainee market conditions. A
survey on training for manufacturing found that three fourths of
TVET institutions had not stopped or revised the curriculum
during the previous five years. Another 30 percent of these
institutions also viewed that course planning was the
responsibility of central government, while the survey also noted
that very few institutions perceived the local government as
playing a key role in this respect (Biervliet and Morfe, 1999).
Concerning the higher education curriculum, recent moves
toward deregulation have meant that higher education
institutions have some flexibility in determining the content of
prescribed courses, provided that the minimum standards are
met. However, documents that serve as guidelines for curriculum
development remain overly detailed. Few of these documents
attempt to describe the cognitive and occupational skills and
values expected of graduates once they complete their studies,
nor do they mention other relevant issues such as assessment
procedures, bridging programs and curriculum evaluation. The
courses outlined tend to be too broad, covering a host of
unrelated topics. The overload in most curricula means that
subjects and topics receive only superficial coverage in the
classroom. Facilities. The lack of adequate school buildings and
facilities aggravates the problem in the Philippine educational
system. In 2000, the ratio of textbooks to students was 1:6 in
public elementary schools and 1:8 in public secondary schools, far
from the DepEd ideal of 1:1. To reach the target, P6.6 billion
would have been required in 1999. The actual budget was P480
million. In 1999, therefore, DepEd's budget was only sufficient for
a textbook/student ratio of 1:4. Furthermore, a shortage of
school buildings exists, as well as the need for replacement or
repair of many of them. In 2001, there were 4,569 barangays still
without elementary schools, while only three municipalities do
not have high schools (down from 36 municipalities in SY 1996-
1997). Administrators of TVET institutions remark that current
useable equipment is not adequate to suit the needs of their
students. Also, one third of these institutions reported providing
capital expenditure for equipment, but the average amount
allocated for such (approximately P390 per student) was far
below the level required to update and replenish technical
training equipment to industry standards (Johanson, 1999). In
higher education institutions, libraries are the most important
resource for instruction and learning. According to Johanson
(1999), surveys show low absolute volumes of acquisitions and
low utilization rates of books (from zero to five borrowings a
year). He also noted that the majority of 28 colleges and
universities in the surveys had a median number of book titles
from 2,500-5,000. Only four institutions reported a total number
of books exceeding 20,000. This is due to the low budget
allocations for library development, usually 5 percent or less of
the institutions' annual budget. Funding. Fund sources for
education include the exit tax on college graduates, travel tax,
fees for vehicle registration, allocation from the Philippine
Amusement and Gaming Corporation (PAGCOR), and loans from
government financial institutions such as the Social Security
System (SSS), Government Service Insurance System (GSIS),
Development Bank of the Philippines (DBP) and a consortium of
banks, as well as donations, grants, and savings from operations.
In accordance with the 1987 Constitution, the education sector
captures the largest share of the national government budget.
The education sector's share has increased consistently from the
period 1985 to 1997, from 11.4 percent to 17.4 percent. Local
government units (LGUs) also spend for education through the
Special Education Fund (SEF). SEF receipts come from a 1-percent
tax on real property located in the LGU. SEF collections are shared
equally by the province and its respective municipalities. Under
the 1991 Local Government Code, proceeds of the SEF are
allocated for the operation and maintenance of public schools;
the construction and repair of school buildings; facilities and
equipment; educational research; purchase of books and
periodicals; and sports development; with the actual spending
priorities being determined by the Local School Boards. Local
government contributions to total government education
expenditure have averaged at 7.5 percent since 1992. A History of
Inadequacy In 1989, the Congressional Commission on Education
(EDCOM) was set up to review and assess Philippine education.
The subsequent EDCOM Report of 1991 gave a set of
recommendations for reform in the sector, yet it also noted the
lack of resources needed to implement these reforms. In the
report, the congressional body mentioned that "over the next five
to ten years, government cannot expect to raise the kind of
money needed to finance adequately all levels of education."
Generally, the Philippine education sector has remained beset
with problems that have persisted through several
administrations and its equal number of reform programs. "Our
problems are as old as Monroe," a newspaper quoted Reynaldo
Peña, former Director of the defunct Bureau of Higher Education
under the former DECS. He was referring to Paul Monroe, the
United States official who conducted the first review of the
Philippine educational system during the American occupation
period. During that survey in 1925, education officials looked at
schools in Manila and 25 other provinces, which accounted for a
total of 32,000 students and 1,077 teachers. The review focused
on the question of which language to use in instruction, as well as
the appropriate number of teaching staff and facilities required
by the system as a whole. As early as the turn of the century,
education officials have already been grappling with the problem
of resources. "The problem with the Philippines is we've been
under-investing in education through the years, if not through the
decades," according to Peña. This means that the backlog grows
for every year that the government fails to invest the appropriate
amount for education. Although the 1987 Constitution provides
that government should allocate a large portion of its funds to
education, experts say the actual amount government has been
allocating has simply been insufficient. III. THE GOVERNMENT’S
COMMITMENT TO EDUCATION President Macapagal-Arroyo's
Agenda for the Education Sector According to President Gloria
Macapagal-Arroyo, she anchors her reform program for
education on providing equity, access and quality. For the
remainder of her three-year watch, she intends to minimize the
cost of going to school. She hopes to increase the number of
textbooks per student, and upgrade the teaching of math and
science in basic education. She also aims to have better paid –
and thus better motivated – teachers, as well as increase the
teaching force. The MTPDP for 2001- 2004 adds to these targets
and identifies strategies accordingly. For basic education,
government looks toward improving education delivery by
working on their backlog of facilities and instructional materials,
and institutionalizing alternative learning systems (ALS) to make
basic education pro-poor. Gains in education quality are to be
made in systematizing continuous curricular evaluations with the
help of the sector's stakeholders – students, teachers, parents,
textbook publishers, civil society, and relevant government
agencies. Competency testing via the NEAT, NSAT and Licensure
Exams for teachers will be unified so that students and teachers
are not overburdened by frequent tests. Family-focused
intervention programs such as compensatory teaching, home-
based learning, school feeding, and health care will be intensified
in order to improve retention and reduce dropout rates.
Government shall look after teacher welfare by continuously
upgrading competence, providing incentives for a two-track
career path for teachers, and training them for entrepreneurship.
Salary structures and tax exemptions will be rationalized in order
to attract quality professionals to teach. Reforms also will be
introduced in textbook procurement and the delivery of salaries
and educational facilities to reduce administrative costs and
corruption. For middle-level skills development (MLSD), the
government will look at improving the delivery of TVET by making
it technology-driven. The dual training system will also be the
preferred TVET mode to promote industry participation in
training. The competency assessment and standards certification
system of the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority (TESDA) will also be strengthened. These upgrades are
intended to improve TVET quality in the Philippines for global
competitiveness. Other strategies include marketing MLSD as a
viable career option to increase enrolment, as well as pursuing
joint TVET programs with other government agencies. Private
sector fund raising to support the planned TESDA Development
Fund will also be prioritized. For higher education, the
government's Commission on Higher Education (CHED) will
continue to regulate the sub-sector by enforcing guidelines on
the creation, conversion and upgrading of state universities and
colleges (SUCs), and improving accreditation and monitoring
systems to ensure quality. Centers of Excellence and Centers of
Development in priority clusters and disciplines will be further
developed, and the higher education information systems
(HEMIS) will be continued and strengthened to facilitate
government's efforts in skills-employment matching. CHED will
put in place a system of student loans, vouchers, scholarships,
and other forms of student assistance to pursue the policy of
direct channeling of public resources to students rather than
institutions in a framework of normative financing. Alternative
higher learning delivery systems such as distance learning
programs in open universities will also be promoted in order to
broaden the reach of higher education. DepEd Secretary Roco's
Reform Agenda and Accomplishments Apart from these
directives at the national level, the Department also proceeds
from the vision of its current Secretary. When Senator Raul Roco
was appointed to the post in mid-February of 2001, he adopted
the vision "Bawa't Graduate, Bayani at Marangal" for the
Department. "We envision graduates of the school system who
are heroes in their own right," notes Roco, who considers
teachers and students as the agency's two constituencies. "The
teacher is central to molding our graduate heroes. She teaches
them the skills so that they can be productive in life. She shows
by example the values our children must learn in school – hard
work, study and the dignity that a noble profession is supposed to
give." Based on this vision, six core objectives were identified for
the Department thus: • To produce graduates of the public
school system who have the skills and values to contribute
productively and honorably to society; • To fight poverty by
building the capacity of teachers and students; • To integrate the
participation of civil society in educational planning and
implementation; • To improve moral standards in government
through transparency, leadership by example and by ensuring the
public's access to education officials; • To establish internal
efficiencies in the DepEd so that public funds reach its intended
beneficiaries – the teachers and students – with the least
administrative cost and corruption; and, • To transform the
DepEd into a department for teachers and students by
encouraging a public service-oriented culture. Since assuming
office, Secretary Roco has initiated reforms in the areas of
teacher and student welfare, curriculum, equity and good
governance. The Department has been able to increase the net
take home pay of teachers despite budget constraints by not
withholding taxes in the months when teachers are typically cash-
strapped; by restructuring loans; by making available credit
sources with low interest rates; by correcting unauthorized
deductions; by giving the clothing allowance in cash; and by
acting against illegal contributions. Teachers also have been freed
of many non-teaching duties so they can concentrate on
instruction and preparation for their classes. More than 70,000
teachers and non-teaching personnel received training in relevant
short-term courses, while an additional 619 teachers and non-
teaching personnel were given scholarships to pursue graduate
programs mostly in Science and Math. To benefit students, the
Department has banned compulsory collection of fees. It has re-
energized the World Bank-funded Third Elementary Education
Project (TEEP) to compensate for the four-year delay in project
implementation. The restructuring will enable the Department to
catch up with program's original goals of improving student
participation and learning achievement, reducing dropout rates in
the 22 poorest provinces and strengthening institutional capacity
to deliver education. At the end of last year, 857 classrooms were
finished and an additional 1,407 were rehabilitated under the
TEEP, a vast improvement from the 274 and 427 classrooms built
and rehabilitated respectively in the two years before project
restructuring. Some 280,000 students also benefited from
government's Education Service Contracting Scheme, up by
17,000 from year 2000 figures. Improvements in curriculum
involved focusing on five learning areas: English, Filipino, Math,
Science and Makabayan (Sining, Kultura, Musika, Physical
Education, Produktibong Pamumuhay, Edukasyong Pantahanan
at Pangkabuhayan, Heograpiya, Kasaysayan, Sibika, Araling
Panlipunan, Technology and Home Economics, Health, Character
Education). Social Studies and Values Education are to be
integrated across the curriculum. In addition, by SY 2002-2003,
the Department hopes to shift high school math away from the
spiraling approach to the layered curriculum approach to improve
continuity between levels and facilitate teaching. The basic
features of this restructured Basic Education Curriculum (BEC)
include a greater emphasis on helping every learner (particularly
those in Grades 1 to 3) become a successful reader. The BEC also
focuses on interactive learning approaches as well as integrative
teaching approaches where appropriate. The revised curriculum
promotes values formation in all subject areas and the
development of self-reliant and patriotic citizens. The
Department has also provided computers to 1,107 public high
schools under its DepEd Computerization Program and the
Department of Trade and Industry-DepEd Personal Computers for
Public Schools Project. It also organized 1,428 preschool classes
and an additional 1,000 classes under the Early Childhood Service
Contracting Scheme for the benefit of 25,000 pupils. Focus on
Governance-Related Reforms The MTPDP 2001-2004 also lays out
strategies for governance reform in the education sector. For
basic education, government will realign the functions of the
Education Department at the national and sub-national levels in
an effort to 'deconcentrate' basic education management. It will
broaden the roles of LGUs, civil society, the community and the
private sector in the delivery and management of basic education
services. Government will also look at decentralizing MLSD tasks
to LGUs, which will also involve building local government
capabilities to conduct community-based education and training.
For his part, Secretary Roco's initiatives in good governance
include a 35-percent reduction in the cost of textbooks and
classroom desks by applying the 'sunshine principle' or
transparency in bidding procedures, increased civil society
participation in formulating education policies, and a reorganized
Office of the Secretary for service-friendliness. IV. GOVERNANCE
IN THE EDUCATION SECTOR Governance of the education sector
has remained largely centralized since the American occupation
of the early 1900s. The Education Department long had sole
responsibility for the formulation, planning, implementation, and
coordination of all levels of formal and non-formal education in
the Philippines. It supervised all education institutions, both
public and private. EDCOM's recommendations on structural
reform paved the way for the creation of the Commission on
Higher Education in 1994 to oversee tertiary degree programs. In
the same year, the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority or TESDA was created to supervise technical and
vocational non-degree programs. The trifocalization of education
management allowed the DepEd to narrow its focus and direct its
attention toward basic (elementary and secondary) and non-
formal education exclusively. This also enabled the Department
to pursue its mission of establishing and maintaining "a system of
free public education in the elementary and high school levels" as
provided for by the 1987 Constitution. Governance in Basic
Education Republic Act (RA) 9155, also known as the Governance
of Basic Education Act of 2001, provides the overall framework
for principal empowerment by strengthening principal and
leadership goals, and local school based management within the
context of transparency and local accountability. The objective of
basic education is to provide the school age population and the
youth with skills, knowledge, and values to become caring, self-
reliant, productive, and patriotic citizens. The Department of
Education's principal goals are thus to raise the academic
standards of basic education, and enhance administrative
efficiency in the delivery of educational services. Given these
goals, DepEd organized itself into two major structural
components. The Central Office maintains the overall
administration of basic education at the national level. The Field
Offices are responsible for the regional and local coordination
and administration of the Department's mandate. In providing
the quality of services it has been given responsibility for, the
Department is organized and operates with four Undersecretaries
for Programs, Regional Operations, Finance and Administration,
and Legal Affairs. It also has four Assistant Secretaries for
Programs, Planning and Development, Budget and Financial
Affairs, and Legal Affairs. In the decade prior to having the legal
basis for decentralization, the Education Department had
gradually decentralized some of its functions to the regional and,
to a lesser extent, divisional levels. Community control over basic
education has grown as parents and local authorities have
assumed an increasingly important financial role. However, even
though the Philippines has a more decentralized system than
most other countries in the region, the policy of de-concentration
has done little to increase autonomy and control at the school
level (Asian Development Bank, 1999). With RA 9155, DepEd is
pursuing decentralization further at the basic education sub-
sector under a policy of shared governance, principal
empowerment, and schoolbased management. According to
George Garma, DepEd Regional Director for the Cordillera
Administrative Region (CAR), "Governance of basic education
begins at the national level. It is in the field offices at the regions,
divisions, schools and learning centers where this is translated
into programs, projects and services developed, adapted and
offered to fit local needs." One of the mechanisms that DepEd is
currently employing in the practice of shared governance is
allowing other stakeholders in the sector to participate in
decision making at the central level via management committee
(MANCOM) meetings. "In the management committee meeting
we hold every month," explains Ramon Bacani, Under-Secretary
for Operations, "aside from the regional directors and the bureau
directors from central office, we invite the heads of the
superintendents association, the district supervisors association,
principals associations." Local school officials who attend the
MANCOM welcome this representation because "the voices of
the stakeholders are now heard and acted on," says Joy
Fernandez, who sits in meetings in behalf of the Philippine
Association of Secondary School Administrators (PASSA). Among
the points raised during the MANCOM meetings are issues and
concerns at the regional level. However, it is not enough for the
regional directors to bring up their problems to the central office.
"Two weeks before the meeting, I write the regional directors to
ask them what they'd like to take up," says Under-Secretary
Bacani. "Not only do they raise the issues but the Secretary
requires them to also propose solutions. Central office cannot
think of all the solutions to these problems. And since they're the
ones affected, they can also identify what needs to be done." To
disseminate what was discussed during the MANCOM, a regional
executive conference is likewise conducted in the region,
attended by the school division superintendents, assistant school
division superintendents, chiefs and assistant chiefs, unit heads of
the regional office, selected principals and parents-teachers
community association (PTCA) presidents. Issues involving the
school divisions and regional divisions/units are also discussed
during the conference. A number of functions have also been
decentralized to the field units, from small procedures such as
choosing school uniforms to crucial processes such as hiring
school teachers. According to Under-Secretary Bacani,
"Previously it was a central office decision, what should be the
uniform for all the teachers throughout the country. But
Secretary Roco thought, 'why should I be worried about how you
look? You should be the ones who should be more concerned
about how you look.' That decision is left with the principals in
consultation with the teachers. They can just agree among
themselves what the proper school attire should be instead of
having a uniform. The situations in our schools vary from campus
to campus. Some in the urban areas, some in the really remote
areas where teachers may have to do a lot of travelling by public
transport or even have to walk, or in some cases, ride on
horseback or a banca. So with the decision being at the school
level, they can decide on what is their appropriate attire." "In the
past, the hiring of teachers was basically an operation of the
division office," Under-Secretary Bacani explains further. "The
schools just get the teachers hired by the division offices and who
get assigned to their schools. They have very little participation in
identifying who gets to teach in their schools. This time, the
recruitment starts at the school level. Applications are filed there,
principals as heads of the school selection committee interview
the applicants and then they submit their recommendations to
the superintendents." "These are concrete steps in making sure
that the school principals really get to exercise some real decision
making," adds Under-Secretary Bacani. An Interim Step:
Managing Basic Education through Divisional and Municipal
School Boards. It is worthwhile to note that there are existing
provisions for governance at the local level with the creation of
local school boards (LSBs). The 1991 Local Government Code
requires a school board to be established in every province and in
every city or non-urban municipality. The Code stipulates the
membership and functions of the school boards. According to the
Code, each divisional and district school board will: • Review the
operational and maintenance needs of public schools in the area;
• Determine, according to criteria set out in the code and
monitored by the DepEd, the use of the Special Education Fund
(SEF), derived from a special levy on real property in each
province and each municipality and meant as a supplement to
the centrally allocated funds from the national budget; •
Authorize the school board treasurer to disburse funds from the
SEF according to the SEF budget; • Recommend changes in the
names of public schools in the area; and, • Serve as an advisory
committee to DepEd on other local educational matters. The
Code requires DepEd to consult the LSB on the appointment of
division superintendents, district supervisors, school principals,
and other school officials. The LSB's allocation of the SEF should
give priority to: construction, repair and maintenance of school
buildings and other facilities of public elementary and secondary
schools; establishment and maintenance of extension classes,
where necessary; and, sports activities. Education Governance at
the School Level through School-based Management. School
based management (SBM) involves the devolution of important
decision making authority to principals/school heads, teachers,
parents and students. The assumption behind school level
decision making is that reducing bureaucratic will encourage
principals, teachers, and parents to exert greater initiative in
meeting the needs of students and the community. In 1996, the
Education Department commissioned the preparation of a
decentralization plan for the bureaucracy funded by the Canadian
International Development Agency (CIDA). The plan mentioned
the advantages of school based management thus: • SBM
empowers schools and brings senior administrators closer to
those who really care for students. The current multi-layered,
hierarchical organization ignores personalities and cultures. It
tries to fit schools with diverse characteristics and consequent
resource needs into a simplistic and rigid set of rules, procedures,
and resource allocation norms. Teachers and parents become
passive and frustrated due to long delays and lack of appreciation
for the specific needs of their schools. School empowerment
through SBM is therefore essential for school improvement and
effectiveness. • SBM outlines the responsibility for planning and
management of school improvement plans on schools
themselves. In a real sense it implies that it is the schools who
determine their personnel requirements, the kind of teachers
they need, the types of relevant learning material, and the kind of
resources necessary to implement a successful school program. •
SBM makes schools accountable to the stakeholders. Parents and
members of the local community are partners in school
management. They are an integral part of the decision making
process. In discussing the school based management framework,
the study noted the functional areas of SBM that cover the
operating areas of schools. These are: • School policies. School
mission statements and goals, a clear perspective on school
outcomes, commitment for inclusive education for all children in
the community, guidelines for teachers and parents, and
curriculum access for all children, must be decided in a
community context. • Curriculum, instruction and assessment.
Curriculum adjustments for the specific needs of multi-level,
multi-age, multi-grade students, and school readiness teaching
contexts are required. Guidelines are required for active learning
and child-centered pedagogy, formative evaluation procedures,
and student promotion policies. The selection of textbooks and
supplementary reading materials (taking into consideration
school context), guidelines for the use of language used in the
classroom by students, and transition to the official media of
instruction, must be initiated. • Teaching programs. Active
learning and learner focused teaching, classroom teaching
resources, the use of common resources in different classrooms,
classroom organization and teacher involvement in allocating
classes, must be initiated. Classroom supervision, strategies to
increase the learning time of all children, and strategies to meet
individual student needs are an integral part of SBM. • Staff
development. Working out common training needs, the unique
needs of teachers and other staff members, the identification of
potential activities for deputized staff, are also an important part
of the SBM process. - Periodic review and a consultation process.
This is an ongoing requirement within a school by teachers,
parents and members of the community. - School and community
relationships. Resource mobilization and management, school
improvement, areas in which schools can extend help to a
community to ensure a mutuality of contribution, are all
necessary. - Resource mobilization and management. Includes
resources that are to be mobilized from the division, the local
school board or municipality, and from the community. Allocation
of resources should ensure that supplies such as textbooks and
supplementary reading materials are received. The study also
endorsed that SBM results in local community ownership of the
school that, in turn, becomes a strength to achieve the school's
planned mission. Stakeholder participation in school
management is also helpful in the mobilization of local resources
to complement public resources. When implemented, SBM builds
a climate that makes teachers and schools feel that they are
trusted in the community by the line management authority.
Gaps in Basic Education Governance. There is so much to do in
education," bewails DepEd Under-Secretary for Programs Fe
Hidalgo. "With school based management, there are certain
powers that would now be relinquished to the principal. There is
always this lack of trust on the principal's managerial abilities. In
reaction to a centralized set-up, principals also have suspicions on
certain decisions made up the hierarchy." This tension has always
existed between central and local interests in, and goals for, the
education sector. On the one hand, the central government,
which mobilizes financial resources for the sector, wants to
monitor the use of these resources to ensure that centrally
mandated standards are satisfied in all parts of the system and
that equal access is maintained for all members of society. On the
other hand, local communities want a voice in the determination
of educational outcomes and the running of educational
programs so as to ensure that their priorities and needs are
reflected. Though the idea of increasing autonomy and control at
the school level is sound, certain structural constraints may
impose on the implementation of SBM. The Education
Department itself observed that the current system of budgeting
and management discouraged innovation at this level, that few
schools generated their own funds or had access to discretionary
resources, and that few school heads exercised a genuine
instructional leadership or financial management roles. Despite
good arguments for extending autonomy to the level of the
individual school, or at least to the level of the municipality, one
rigid aspect of policy has managed to curtail this initiative: the
system of decision and control over allocations for basic
education from the central government budget. In putting
together the annual budget for basic education, Congress
requires that proposed expenditure items be specified very
precisely. Once specified and embodied in the General
Appropriations Act (GAA), there is little or no room for DepEd or
for local education authorities to change or redirect expenditures
within the budget. For primary education, Congress provides
DepEd with a budget for every division. For secondary education,
a separate budget line is enacted for every school. Such detailed
specification of the budget is justified by Congress as necessary in
order to limit opportunities for misappropriation, but it reflects as
well the clear intent of individual members of the legislature to
scrutinize the allocations to municipalities and schools within
their own constituencies. An undesirable effect of this practice is
that it restricts flexibility to respond to the changing
requirements of individual schools. Together with a system of
single-year budgeting that prohibits the carryover of unused
funds from one year to the next, this often results in the
underutilization of the education allocation in the national
budget. The 1998 budget, for example, provided for the
recruitment by DepEd of 7,000 new teachers for basic education,
but the Department of Budget and Management's release of the
funds for this was very slow (the fault was partly with the
Education Department, which was unable to produce the
necessary supporting documentation). The unused allocation
cannot be reallocated for other purposes, and the likely result is
the loss of at least some of these resources to the education
sector (ADB, 1999). "What concerns (school administrators) is
fiscal management responsibility because in general, the
elementary school principals don't really get any cash resources
from the division office," remarks Under-Secretary Bacani. "They
just get all the assistance in kind in terms of supplies and others.
So we're working on a system by which they will also be getting
some maintenance expenses that they will really manage in
accordance with their needs. That would more or less complete
the substantive authorities of principals, covering from the
financial, to hiring, even to deciding on teachers' as well as pupils'
uniforms." Financing Basic Education. According to an ADB-
commissioned study on education costs and financing in the
Philippines, basic education accounted for more than three-
quarters of total central government education financing over the
period 1988 to 1999. However, the nationalization of barangay
high schools as well as the Constitutional mandate for secondary
education dating from 1988 resulted in a contraction of the
elementary education budget share (from 61 to 51 percent) and
an expansion of the secondary education share (from 20 to 31
percent) over the two years 1988 to 1990. However, elementary
education soon regained its priority position with its expenditure
share rising from 52.8 percent in 1991 to 60.8 percent in 1997
(Maglen and Manasan, 1999). Personnel expenses is the biggest
single expenditure item in any education budget, but it has grown
to take an inordinately large share of the DepEd budget in recent
years: personnel services in the DepEd budget increased from 74
percent in 1990 to 88 percent in 1999. The dramatic rise in
personnel expenditure is largely attributable to the increases in
public school teachers salaries implemented in the late 1980s and
1990s. Between 1985 and 1997, remuneration of government
teachers went up 4.5 times. Given that over this period there was
no corresponding cutback in the rate of teacher recruitment, or
any attempt to rationalize their employment, the growth in
teacher salaries was absorbed at the expense of MOOE.
Consequently, the share of MOOE in the DepEd budget
contracted from 16.5 percent in 1990 to 9 percent in 1999.
Capital outlays have also suffered as a result of steep increases in
teacher salaries, thus highlighting the vulnerability of capital
works programming. Effective capital development cannot occur
when capital budgeting is on an annual basis. With reference to
financing access to basic education (specifically secondary
education), government has introduced two schemes under the
Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private
Education (GASTPE) program. The Education Service Contracting
(ESC) scheme was designed to enable students to enroll in private
schools in places where there were no public schools or where
there was excess enrolment in the existing public school. The
Tuition Fee Subsidy (TFS) scheme is designed to help families
cover the tuition fees charged by private secondary schools. In
1998, the ESC provided a subsidy of P1,700 per grantee and the
TFS paid a maximum of P290 per grantee. In 1997-1998, there
were 219,048 students supported by ESC and 209,936 supported
by TFS. This represented, respectively, 16 percent and 15 percent
of total private secondary school enrolments. Neither scheme has
been effective, however, since they cover only a small portion of
the costs of tuition, not to mention the direct social costs of
education. The ESC subsidy of P1,700 covers around 70 percent of
the ceiling fee level provided under the scheme and about 40
percent of the estimated average tuition in private secondary
schools. The TFS grant of P290, on the other hand, is a mere 12
percent of the ceiling fee level and about 7 percent of the
estimated average tuition in private secondary schools in that
year. The low levels of support, combined with lengthy delays in
the processing and release of payments, discourage needy
families from participating in these schemes. Governance in TVET
One of the results of the 1991 EDCOM assessment was the need
to rationalize technical and vocational education. The
congressional body recommended the integration of public and
private TVET programs as well as bringing together the
government's various TVET activities under one organization.
TESDA, or the Technical Education and Skills Development
Authority, established when RA 7796 was signed into law in 1994.
TESDA was created to mobilize the full participation of industry,
labor, local government units, and technical-vocational
institutions in the country's skilled manpower development
programs. It absorbed the functions of three government
agencies: the National Manpower and Youth Council (NMYC) of
the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE), the Bureau of
Technical and Vocational Education (BTVE) of the Department of
Education, Culture and Sports, and the Apprenticeship Program
of the Bureau of Local Employment (BLE), also of the DOLE. Under
the law, TESDA is mandated to: integrate, coordinate, and
monitor skills development programs; restructure efforts to
promote and develop middle-level manpower; approve skills
standards and tests; develop an accreditation system for
institutions involved in middle-level manpower development;
fund programs and projects for technical education and skills
development; and assist trainer's training programs. Over time,
TESDA also is expected to: devolve training functions to local
governments; reform the apprenticeship program; involve
industry and employers in skills training; formulate a skills
development plan; develop and administer training incentives;
organize skills competitions; and manage skills development
funds. To fulfill its mandate, TESDA was structured with a
coordinating body, the TESDA Board, which is responsible for the
formulation, continuation, coordination and integration of
technical education and skills development policies, plans and
programs. The TESDA Secretariat, established to assist the TESDA
Board, is tasked with recommendation and formulation of
planning processes, as well as provision of inputs for policy-and
decision-making, and resource allocation. A 1999 assessment of
TVET in the Philippines noted TESDA's unique role in providing
coordination and substantive leadership in the sub-sector. The
agency is trying to weed out low quality providers among private
institutions. It has introduced a system of registration and
accreditation designed to achieve minimum levels of quality.
Under the UTPRAS (or, the Unified TESDA Program Registration
and Accreditation System), both public and private institutions
must seek advance approval for all courses and pass a minimum
threshold for authorization. This system, when sensibly
administered, promises to stimulate substantial changes and
improvements in private education. It will eliminate some of the
'fly-by-night' operations and will cause others to merge or
undertake improvement programs (Johanson, 1999). TESDA has
also converted to a system of competency-based training, which
places the emphasis on determination by employers of the
competencies required for particular occupations, training
modules focused on achieving those outputs, and certification of
results through final testing. Competency-based training is the
basis for the new registration and accreditation program. This
system promises to make TVET more effective by focusing on the
essentials and eliminating unnecessary content from training.
TESDA is also providing positive incentives for quality
improvement in training through its awards for training
excellence. These provide considerable leverage on the system
without much cost. Gaps in Governing TVET. Despite these
achievements, TESDA still faces several constraints in the conduct
of its mandate. The TESDA law does not contain any provision for
direct administration of training institutions. Rather, TESDA is
supposed to facilitate and supervise the overall system of middle
level skills development (MLSD) through indirect means such as
standards setting, accreditation, research and development,
training of trainers, development of teaching materials, provision
of information, and advocacy. Contrary to the original
conception, TESDA has been forced to operate training
institutions. As of 1999, it directly operated much of public non-
formal training through its 14 regional training centers and 45
provincial training centers. In that year as well, TESDA also
received an unsolicited technicalvocational high schools from the
former DECS at the prompting of some congressional authorities.
TESDA has since managed to transfer back some 150 of these
schools, keeping only those with a hint of post-secondary training
programs. The vocational schools and centers take up almost two
thirds of TESDA's budget. Training provision takes up about 39
percent of the programs included in the agency's five-year action
plan. Operation of training centers gets in the way of TESDA's
performance of its broader functions in two respects. First, the
operation of the schools consumes considerable staff time and
attention that could be better applied to TESDA's core functions.
Second, it is inconsistent for TESDA to both operate training
institutions and register/accredit training institutions. The process
of regulation has to be separated from training provision. The
issue of devolution is thus fundamental to TESDA's ability to
govern successfully, specifically devolving its responsibilities for
the actual delivery of technical education and skills development
to the LGUs and other stakeholders, including its responsibility
for the operation of regional and provincial training centers and
technical-vocational schools. However, a 1998 study completed
by the Development Academy of the Philippines (DAP) identified
major gaps that are fundamental to the effective delivery of TVET
programs and projects. The study pointed out that there appears
to be a lack of coherent vision or framework for devolution that is
necessary to guide TESDA's work over the medium to long term.
Among its stakeholders, there also is little or no common
understanding of the devolution process. There also seems to be
no clear model for governing the devolved functions and
institutions. Consequently, this has affected the capability for
delivering TESD at the local level. Though studies have shown that
TVET institutions operate better under private ownership and
management, some attempts at privatizing TESDA institutions
have not met with interest from the private sector. For the time
being though, TESDA is opting for greater cost recovery through
income mobilization, at least by its nonformal training centers.
The law provides that TESDA should implement and finance a
specific plan to develop the capability of local government units
to assume the responsibility for effectively providing community-
based technical education and skills development opportunities.
Although there are examples within the TESDA network of
significant involvement of LGUs in technical-vocational education
and training, there is currently "no specific plan to develop this
capability" (DAP, 1998). TESDA thus needs to focus on its core
functions with devolution as a key policy priority. Another gap in
TVET governance is the span of authority of TESDA for middle
level skills supervision. The agency is charged with providing
professional oversight on all middle level skills development, both
formal and informal, and including skilled, semi-skilled, and
technician levels. TESDA performs oversight on private formal
and non-formal education mainly through its registration and
accreditation system. However, TESDA has no mechanism
whatsoever to provide input and guidance into the various kinds
of training provided within state universities and colleges (SUCs).
This is a significant omission because the training part of SUCs
absorbs over half the national public spending on TVET.
Moreover, SUCs provided an astounding 86 percent of craft
training, as well as a significant share of the technician training.
Graduates from training programs in SUCs receive certificates and
diplomas issued by these institutions. SUCs are not subject to
external testing for quality of skills acquisition. This gap in
TESDA's mandate impinges negatively on two mandates. The first,
is on its ability to influence and upgrade middle-level training, in
particular to extend competency-based training throughout the
system. The second is on the quality of outputs from SUCs that
could tend to be of lower quality in terms of skills than they
would otherwise be under TESDA's technical supervision.
Financing TVET. The TVET sub-sector not only suffers from under
financing, but more so from inadequate and unstable public
sector financing. Throughout the period 1988 to 1999, central
government expenditure for TVET (as a percentage of total
spending for education) ranged from 1.13 percent to 4.10
percent, with 1999 figures pegged at 1.99 percent. As mentioned
earlier, SUCs with TVET programs take up half the allocation, not
leaving TESDA much to cover personnel expenses, MOOE, and
capital outlay. A substantial part of TVET expenditure thus
originates from foreign donor agencies in the form of official
development assistance (ODA). A year-on-year estimate of ODA
for TVET suggests that it amounts to 62 percent, or nearly two
thirds of total ODA for education and training. Further spending
for training is also undertaken by a large number of NGOs,
community groups, and LGUs (Prosser, 1998). On the other hand,
options for students in TVET are also available via GASTPE.
However, the bulk of these funds go to private high school and
university students possibly because they are more familiar with
the program's benefits and criteria. Within GASTPE there are
three types of funding modes – grants, loans, and vouchers – that
can support TVET students, yet are not being availed of. These
are tuition fee supplements (TFS), the "Study Now, Pay Later"
student loan scheme, and the Private Education Student Financial
Program (PESFA). This is a voucher system for students enrolling
in specified tertiary programs identified as important for national
development. The scope of the Education Service Contracting
(ESC) scheme also can be expanded to cover TVET students in the
private sector. The TESD Act also makes a provision for a TESDA
Development Fund that allows a once-only government
endowment as a lump sum with the income to be used for public
and private TVET. This one-time grant was first set at P5 billion,
but due to the 1997 Asian financial crisis, Congress reduced the
grant amount to P1 billion. TESDA officials, however, say that the
development fund still remains without financing. Governance in
Higher Education The Higher Education Act of 1994, which
prompted the creation of the Commission on Higher Education
(CHED), was EDCOM's recommendation for reform at the higher
education sub-sector. CHED reports directly to the Office of the
President and covers both public and private higher education
institutions (HEIs) as well as degree-granting programs in all post-
secondary institutions. CHED's has five Commissioners that direct
the organization and an extensive secretariat to carry out policies
and implement its programs. The Commission's function can be
grouped under four main headings: • To develop plans, policies,
priorities and programs on higher education and research; • To
set and enforce minimum standards for programs and
institutions; • To recommend the allocation of resources to
institutions and programs; and, • To monitor the performance of
the system of higher education. A policy-led innovation in higher
education governance was initiated through the enactment of RA
8292. The Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997
standardized the governing boards of chartered SUCs in an
attempt to achieve a more coordinated and integrated system as
well as to improve the effectiveness of internal governance. It
placed the CHED Chairman as the head of all the boards, and
specified the membership to include congressional
representatives; regional technical representation; faculty,
student and alumni representation, and two distinguished
citizens. The Board selects the president upon the
recommendation of a search committee. RA 8292 further gave
the governing boards power to receive and appropriate all
income – including retention of all income generated from tuition
fees and other charges and auxiliary services, fix tuition fees after
consultations, appoint all staff of the institutions; fix salaries of
employees; approve curricular and instructional programs; and
absorb non-chartered institutions; and establish research and
extension centers. Though termed 'limited financial autonomy,'
its most important effect was to extend institutional autonomy.
Gaps in Higher Education Governance: The Issue of SUCs. At
present, the public higher education system consists of a large
and growing number of SUCs that vary greatly in terms of their
course offerings and overall quality. At the high end of the quality
spectrum, there are departments within SUCs in the country that
rival their global counterparts. At the other end, however, are
some recently converted secondary schools and technical
institutes now designated as tertiary institutions that do not
qualify as such based on objective criteria as faculty
qualifications, level of course offerings, library and laboratory
facilities, and employment outcomes of graduates (Johanson,
1999). Public higher education institutions fall into two main
categories – SUCs and CSIs (or, CHED-supervised institutions). As
of 1999, out of some 270 public higher education institutions
(HEIs) in the Philippines, 107 are SUCs and the rest are CSIs. In
addition, there are local public HEIs over which CHED exercises
not even nominal oversight. CHED has a degree of budgetary
control over the CSIs but, in practice, none over the SUCs. While
CHED is empowered to approve the decision by Congress to
create each new SUC, this power is exercised in practice with little
or no attention to the merits of the individual proposal, since the
decision is largely driven by political interests that CHED is
supposed to defer to. In recent years, Congress has created SUCs
with little thought as to what would be required to equip the
institution to function as an authentic college or university. More
often than not, what was a secondary school or a technical
institute is upgraded by a legislative act and, hence, designated as
a tertiary institution with little, if any, change in the institution's
staffing profile or course offerings. These decisions carry with
them major budgetary consequences, such as salary increases for
teachers who will now be paid as lecturers. Every Congressional
decision to create another SUC appears to be quite popular with
the staff members who benefit directly. It is also popular with
parents and students, who gain access to a local, degree-granting
institution that charges very low fees, or no fees even. It is usually
welcomed by the community as a whole, which once lacked but
now enjoys the prestige and the advantages of having its own
tertiary institution, heavily subsidized by the central government.
The steady creation of new SUCs has inflated the budget for
higher education at the expense of basic education. During the
eight-year period from 1986 to 1994, the share of central
government's education budget going to tertiary education (SUCs
and CSIs) rose from 17.8 percent to 20.8 percent (Johanson,
1999), notwithstanding the Constitutional mandate that basic
education should receive "the highest budgetary priority." The
proliferation of SUCs, with no effective counter force to uphold
higher education standards, has had the effect of diluting the
average quality of the system and undermining the perception of
Philippine colleges and universities internationally. Financing
Higher Education. Though CHED endorses all of the budgets
prepared by the boards of the SUCs, this process seems to have
little or no impact on the behavior of individual SUCs or the policy
direction of the system as a whole. In 1999, each of the SUCs back
then received a separate budget line in the General
Appropriations Act (GAA) to a total of P13.5 billion, or 13.3
percent of the national expenditure program for education. For
this large slice of the education budget, the quality of education
service is highly skewed. At the top end, a few of the leading SUCs
meet most of the international criteria by which higher education
institutions are judged. However, the rest of the field performs
poorly. They are generally more costly to operate than their
private counterparts, but are of poorer worth. Moreover, they
frequently duplicate the programs offered by private institutions.
Many retain their secondary school and vocational college
programs, and most achieve SUC status without undertaking the
necessary staff development and upgrading, or without
developing the required education infrastructure such as
laboratories and libraries. A 1999 ADB background paper on
education costs and financing in the Philippines mentioned that a
rough indication of the extra cost burden of SUCs on the public
budget may be obtained by comparing the budget allocation for
these SUCs with what it would have cost to operate them if they
had the same unit costs as private higher education institutions.
ADB's analysis suggests that savings roughly equivalent to 50
percent of the aggregate budget of SUCs would have resulted if
the operating costs of SUCs were reduced to approximate those
of private institutions. This is coupled with the fact that the fees
charged by SUCs (except for the University of the Philippines) are
minimal and not income-contingent, even though the majority of
the students come from the higher income groups. Consequently,
cost recovery in public HEIs is considerably lower than in private
HEIs. One measure of regulating the tertiary education sub-sector
can be CHED's responsibility over the Higher Education
Development Fund (HEDF). The Higher Education Act of 1994
allowed for the establishment of the HEDF under CHED for
strengthening higher education. The HEDF is financed from the
income of an initial P500 million in seed capital, 40 percent of the
proceeds from the travel tax, 30 percent of the charges for the
Professional Registration Fee, and 1 percent of the lotto
operation of the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office. The Act
also called for the establishment of Technical Panels to help in
setting standards for programs and in evaluating minimum
standards for establishment of new institutions. The HEDF is a
supplementary funding source that is over and above the regular
GAA allocations to the SUCs and could be used as an incentive for
rewarding efficiency and quality enhancing measures on the part
of individual HEIs (both public and private). V.
RECOMMENDATIONS FOR GOVERNANCE REFORM Basic
Education On Strengthening Local School Boards. In order to
enhance local autonomy and local control over basic education
(an ultimate objective of the decentralization movement)
changes will be needed in current budgeting and management
arrangements. One thing needed is a body at the local level that
can effectively represent community interests. It needs to have
authority to influence how budgets are allocated across schools
in the community and, within schools, across expenditure items –
including the hiring, firing, and deployment of teachers. In order
to do this, a formal transfer of functions and additional financial
resources from the center to such a body at the local level is
necessary. Since the Department of Education has yet to develop
a comprehensive program for school-based management, it
would do well for DepEd to begin by maximizing the role of local
school boards (LSBs) in the decentralization effort. LSBs already
exist at both divisional and municipal levels, established in the
early 1990s as a means of coordinating central and local
government involvement in basic education. As mentioned earlier
in the chapter, the composition, functions, and authority of LSBs
at this time are spelled out in the 1991 Local Government Code.
The divisional LSB is co-chaired by the Governor and the
Provincial Education Superintendent, who represents the
interests of DepEd. Similarly, the district SB is co-chaired by the
Mayor and the District Education Supervisor. The elected
members of the SBs include representatives of parents and
teachers. Each SB appoints a treasurer (usually a regional official
of DepEd) who is responsible for the disbursement of all locally
raised funds. These consist principally of a Special Education Fund
(SEF), a resource earmarked for basic education and financed
from a levy on real estate in every division and every
municipality. The SEF is primarily devoted to construction, repair,
and maintenance of school buildings and facilities, extension
classes, and sporting activities. The budget for the use of the SEF
is decided by the LSB according to guidelines laid down in the LGC
and monitored by DepEd. The LSB, on the other hand, has little or
no power to influence the allocation of the national budget or to
redirect expenditure items within the budget once enacted by
Congress. In order to increase the internal efficiency of the basic
education sector, more power could and should be devolved to
these school boards, especially in regard to the redirection of the
DepEd budget and the deployment of teachers. Such a move
would reflect more closely the circumstances and the aspirations
of the particular community and particular schools. In the future,
this devolution should continue down to school level boards (in
addition to divisional and municipal level boards). On School-
Based Management. With the mandate for decentralizing basic
education already enshrined in law, government recognizes that
effective governance of education cannot be implemented
without stakeholder participation in a decentralized management
system if it intends to meet the obligation of quality education for
all. Before putting into place its SBM program, however, DepEd
needs to revisit certain positions in its hierarchy and redefine
these in the eventual SBM set-up. In this regard, the role of
district supervisors needs to be assessed. School district
supervisors are currently required to provide facilities to schools,
receive information from schools and provide it to the division,
supervise pre-elementary and elementary schools, coordinate
inputs from other agencies, and act as chairperson of the
municipal school board. In its 1996 study, CIDA noted that in
many cases, functions of more than 50 percent of these district
supervisors are being performed by supervising principals or by
head teachers. The study also mentioned that wherever there are
district supervisors, they do not have more than 30 percent of
their time available for school visits and supervision. This is
largely due to the unavailability of travel funds for on-site
supervision. In areas where there is strong internal supervision
with principals and head teachers, the intervention of a district
supervisor may not be needed. However, the areas that do
require the position of the district supervisor due to distance
from the school division or geographical remoteness and difficult
terrain should be identified and justified for maintaining the
position. The challenge is to put a 'human face' to this
restructuring, since some district supervisors will not take their
new roles lightly. School divisions should also be redefined in the
move toward SBM. A school division is the basic managerial unit
for planning and implementing central policies and programs, and
providing supervisory support for school effectiveness. It
recommends and transmits approval of budgets, recommends
teacher and principal appointments, prepares and transmits
information and reports to the regional office, and conducts in-
service training of staff, field supervisors and teachers. Despite
the critical role of the school division in education sector planning
and delivery, it does not have sufficient decision-making
authority: it only receives directions from the regional office and
DepEd for implementation, and collects information from the
districts to transmit to the regional and central offices.
Supervisory support to districts is restricted again due to limited
travel funds. There is also little room for making local adaptations
in policy and plans for implementation according to local, specific
situations. Areas that need devolution of decision-making to the
school division can include the following: • Development of
education plans for the division, including school wide allocation
of resources according to local needs (based on transparent
criteria) within allocations from DepEd, the regional development
councils (RDCs) and the provincial school board. • Monitoring
implementation of division education plans according to agreed
performance indicators. • Procurement of equipment, materials
and supplies for the division office, and authorization to schools
to select and procure textbooks and school supplies •
Encouraging schools to undertake innovative projects based on
relevance to school division needs. • Determining staff
requirements, appointment and deployment. Finally, DepEd
regional offices also need to exercise new functions. As a line
office, the regional office mainly implements DepEd's educational
policy and programs, mobilizes resources from the RDC to
complement DepEd allocations, monitors program
implementation in the region, and conducts testing programs and
inservice training. With financial authority and DepEd fund
allocations to be delegated to school divisions, regional offices
can perform other functions such as the following: • Advise
DepEd to be aware of specific education needs of the region and
formulate policies accordingly (e.g. recognition of education
needs of tribal children or children with physical disabilities). •
Mobilize funds from the RDCs and NGOs and allocate to the
divisions. • Establish a technical resource group to work on
learning materials development specific to the region. • Monitor
and evaluate programs in the divisions TVET On TESDA's Role in
Operating Training Institutions. TESDA spends much of its time
and resources on direct provision of training, a task that was not
intended in the original law. This diverts the agency from its core
functions. The operation of training institutions is also inherently
inconsistent with its regulatory functions. TESDA should continue
its work on developing an immediate plan for extricating itself
from the business of operating training institutions. In July 2000
the ADB approved a loan and grant program that is designed to
enhance the equity in skills acquisition among the poor. It also
will support activities to strengthen the role and capacity of
TESDA to devolve its training functions to LGUs and other
stakeholders, provide additional equipment, instructional
materials and facilities, and strengthen the capacity of private
providers of TESD. A prerequisite to the loan disbursement is for
TESDA to develop devolution and institutional development plans
for its training centers that need to be in place and accepted by
the local recipient agency. Such a devolution plan should include
a range of solutions, such as: • Building up the capacity of local
government units to assume responsibility for management and
financing of the institutions. • Encouraging public financing with
private management: NGO management of publicly financed
training, e.g., turn over some training institutions to
nongovernment management on a bidding basis. • Encouraging
private financing with private management. Schemes would
include leasing institutions to private management, outright
privatization, and funding of training not through direct funding
of institutions but by financing training through vouchers, or
contracting for training and payments based on performance. The
following issues should be considered in choosing to devolve the
training function: • Developing a framework within which
devolution could occur in a phased in and responsible manner. •
Identifying different models for governance to meet local
circumstances. • Developing tools to assess the state of
preparedness of LGUs to take on more responsibility. •
Strengthening TESDA's Provincial Directors to plan, negotiate and
oversee successful devolution. • Strengthening LGUs where the
potential for devolution exists. • Strengthening training center
administrators to operate a decentralized institution. •
Identifying early models of success for replication. • How to
manage any equity implications. PESFA or other vouchers would
need to be provided to poorer students when tuition charges are
introduced and raised. • TESDA would also have to make a case
for retaining part of the budgets saved e.g. deposited into the
TESDA Development Fund for worthy national purposes. These
could include greater research on middle level skills
development, information dissemination, teacher training,
development and distribution of teaching materials, and possibly
raising quality through franchising agreements with top-tier
private institutions. • Staff resources freed up by the divestiture
should be redirected to other priority areas such as development
of information systems, standards and certification. On TESDA's
Supervisory Authority. TESDA cannot reach a large part of the
training programs it is supposed to supervise, namely non-degree
technical programs provided by SUCs. This compromises the
integrity of its programs and permits a widely variable standard
for skills training programs. A joint CHED/TESDA study should be
made on the kind of mechanism that can be most appropriate for
technical supervision of SUC TVET programs in view of SUC
autonomy. TESDA also should be authorized to certify programs
in the SUCs. A joint TESDA/CHED commission might be
considered for periodic review of training programs with SUCs. A
more drastic solution is to have SUCs transfer all their non-degree
technical training programs to TESDA or the private sector.
Government should cease the financing of such programs within
SUCs. Higher Education On Rationalizing the Higher Education
System. The Philippines has only a few top quality institutions,
insufficient for the country to be able to meet the challenges of
competitiveness and globalization in the first decades of the new
millennium. It cannot hope to raise all institutions to the level of
the present elite institutions, but it must do so for a second tier of
HEIs. One of the problems with the proliferation of SUCs is that it
dilutes the funds and prevents the delivery of quality programs.
Given that SUCs should redefine their roles to focus on graduate
studies and research, proper levels of funding are required for
this to succeed. Public resources should thus be concentrated in a
few institutions to achieve the desired levels of quality. Apart
from allowing the concentration of resources in a manageable
numbers of HEIs, the rationalization and streamlining of higher
education would (a) achieve economies of scale, and the creation
of a critical mass of academics and of scholarly activities (which
are vital to the productivity of HEIs); (b) put a stop to the
haphazard growth of SUCs; and (c) be regionally equitable. This
report endorses an earlier ADB-World Bank recommendation on
establishing a review panel of local and international higher
education specialists to consider the claims to university status of
the present group of SUCs. Out of this process, there would
emerge a small group of state universities (SUs), way smaller than
the 100- odd SUCs operating at present. Some 12 to 15 SUCs
might be judged either as already meeting the criteria of full
university status, or as having the potential to reach this level
within a reasonable timeframe if they were to take remedial
actions that the review panels deems necessary. During the
review process, every effort would be made to identify promising
SUCs in all parts of the Philippines to ensure an equitable
distribution across the country and avoid a clustering of leading
SUCs in the National Capital Region and a few other favored
regions. All SUs would be expected to increase their reliance on
income from fees and other independent revenue sources. Each
SU would negotiate with CHED a program for an introduction and
eventual escalation of fees in an effort to achieve an acceptable
level of cost recovery within a certain time period. Over the
longer term, income from fees would gradually replace the
financial support provided to SUs from the national budget. In the
interim, these SUs would be the only public sector institution
eligible for support from the GAA budget allocations to higher
education, and also from the HEDF administered by CHED.
Existing SUCs and CSIs would thus need to merge with SUs unless
they want to raise revenues themselves. Those with significant
secondary education or TVET components could rejoin the DepEd
or TESDA systems and continue to receive public subsidies as
other institutions at this level. In line with the proposed
rationalization initiative, this report also supports the
recommendation to have a moratorium on the creation of new
state universities and colleges as well as the expansion of existing
 SUCs. On Governance at CHED. Though CHED was intended to be
a body for development assistance, strategic planning and
coordination of higher education, it has become a regulatory
agency instead. CHED has moved forward significantly to lessen
its regulatory role by giving more autonomy to HEIs that have
performed well, and also by allowing public HEIs to govern
themselves based on their own congressional charters. However,
CHED should still consider reforms at the following levels: • Make
strategic planning the top priority of CHED, to include strategic
analysis of tradeoffs. • Give itself authority over budget review of
public HEIs, and base budget allocations on performance criteria.
• Improve the impact and performance of the HEDF by
concentrating its allocations on a few high priority programs
rather than spreading its efforts over many small grants. •
Prioritize the completion and implementation of an information
system directed at providing the general public much-needed
information about costs, quality and performance of all HEIs,
including those in the private sector. It also should generate
better information about the overall status and performance of
the higher education system as a basis for policy development.

DEPED ORDER

MAY 19, 2010 DO 65, S. 2010 – GENERAL GUIDELINES ON

THE OPENING OF CLASSES, INCLUDING COLLECTION OF
SCHOOL CONTRIBUTIONS, ENROLMENT, STUDENT
UNIFORMS AND RELEASE OF MOOE
May 19, 2010
DO 65, s. 2010
General Guidelines on the Opening of Classes, Including
Collection of School Contributions, Enrolment, Student Uniforms
and Release of MOOE

1. Pursuant to the Constitutional mandate on the provision of free

public education at the elementary and secondary levels and to
achieve the country’s targets in the Education for All (EFA) Plan
2015 and the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) with
respect to universal primary school participation, there is an
urgent need to remove financial and non-financial obstacles to the
smooth enrolment process and continued schooling of
schoolchildren.

2. Accordingly the following policies shall be strictly observed:

1. Collection of School Contributions

1. No fees shall be collected from schoolchildren enrolling in
preschool up to Grade 4 during the enrolment period and at
any time during the school year. This prohibition shall cover
the authorized but voluntary contributions such as Boy
Scouts of the Philippines (BSP), Girl Scouts of the
Philippines (GSP), Red Cross, Anti-Tuberculosis (TB) Fund
and Parents-Teachers Association (PTA), among others;
2. For grade and year levels beyond Grade 4, no collection of
any type should be undertaken during the enrolment period
and the first month of classes. Starting on the second month
of every school year, contributions may be collected, but
only on a voluntary basis. Please see table below for the
corresponding amount and reference of the following
authorized contributions:
Amount Referen
DM No
PhP50.00 per learner
s. 2009
 DM No
PhP50.00 per learner
s. 2009
DO No.
PhP5.00 per learner
s. 2001
To be determined by DO No.
Board of Directors s. 2009
PhP60.00 for elementary
students DO No.
PhP90.00 for secondary s. 2008
students
Based on existing school DO No.
policies s. 2009

a. PTAs may start their collection only after presenting a report on

the utilization of the previous school year’s collections to their
members and to the school administration. The amount of
contributions to the PTA shall be agreed upon in a general
assembly of the PTA (DepED Order No. 54, s. 2009);

b. The school publication fee shall be set at the school level but it
shall not be more than Sixty Pesos (PhP60.00) per elementary
school pupil and Ninety Pesos (PhP90.00) per secondary school
student (DepED Order No. 19, s. 2008). The publication of a
school newspaper, while not mandatory, is strongly encouraged in
line with the campus journalism program both at elementary and
secondary levels; and

c. The membership fees for student organizations shall be set by

the organization subject to existing school policies on student
organizations.

I. Enrolment

1. Pupils/Students who are promoted to the next grade or year

level are considered automatically enrolled for the coming
 school year in the same school. Only pupils entering first
grade, students entering first year high school, and
transferees from another public school or from a private
school need to enroll during the enrolment period. Returning
pupils/students shall report to school only for sectioning
purposes or any other pre-opening preparations as
determined by the school administrators;
2. Children who will be six year old by the opening of classes
(June 15, 2010) for School Year 2010-2011 and every
opening of classes for subsequent school years are eligible
for enrolment in Grade 1. The birth certificate of the child
shall be the documentary basis for admission. However,
under no circumstance shall a child be denied admission
due to the absence of birth certificate. In case this is not
available a joint affidavit attesting to the birth of the child
executed by two disinterested persons may be submitted,
subject to submission of his/her birth certificate thereafter;
3. Children who are younger than six years old by six months
at most may be admitted to Grade 1 provided their readiness
for school has been assessed positively by the school where
they are applying for admission through the School
Readiness Assessment Tool in relation to DepED Order No.
25, s. 2007 on School Readiness Assessment for All Grade
One Entrants;
4. Pupils/Students who wish to transfer to a public school from
another public school or from a private school should bring
the Form 138 (Report Card) to the school where they intend
to transfer. If this document is not available, the child can be
admitted on condition that the Report Card shall be
submitted not later than the end of the First Grading Period;
5. Class sizes shall have a range from a minimum of 15
pupils/students to a maximum of 60 pupils/students per
class. Whenever possible, classes from Grades 1 to 4,
should not exceed 40 pupils per class in order to keep the
 teaching-learning process more manageable during these
foundation years of schooling;
6. In addition, the most competent and/or most experienced
teachers should be assigned to these grade levels,
particularly in Grade 1; and
7. The specific provision of DepEd Order No. 32, s. 2003 giving
priority preference for admission to those new entrants who
are residents of the locality where the school is located,
subject to the reasonable threshold ratio of pupils/students
per teacher as stated above is retained.

II. Student Uniform and ID Cards

1. The wearing of a school uniform shall not be required in

public schools. Students with existing uniforms may continue
using these uniforms, if they so desire, in order to avoid
incurring additional costs for new attire; and
2. Identification (ID) Cards shall be provided to students at no
cost on their part. The school administration shall fund these
from its Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
(MOOE).

III. Release of MOOE in Cash Advance to School

1. Schools Division/City Superintendents are directed to

release MOOE funds to schools without fiscal autonomy in
the form of cash advance and in adequate amounts
proportional to the enrolment size to ensure that operating
funds are available at the start of and throughout the school
year.

IV. Other Guidelines

1. The provisions with regard to the “Adoption of Double Shift

Policy” to address classroom shortages, as provided for in
 DepED Order No. 62, s. 2004, subject to the above cited
average and maximum class size, shall be maintained; and
2. The “Revised Guidelines Governing PTAs” insofar as
consistent with the Guidelines on Collection of School
Contributions are hereby reactivated.

V. Monitoring of Implementation

1. Schools Division/City Superintendent and School

Principals/School Heads are directed to implement this
Order. The Regional Director shall monitor the
implementation of it; and
2. Every School Head must send to the Division Office a letter
of compliance with this Order. In turn, the Schools
Division/City Superintendents are required to submit to the
Office of the Regional Director, who in turn shall submit to
the Undersecretary for Regional Operations a consolidated
report of said compliance.

3. Any violation of this Order and DepED Order No. 19, s. 2008 by
any school official/employee shall be strictly dealt with
administratively, pursuant to DepED Order No. 49, s. 2006,
otherwise known as the “Revised Rules of Procedure of the
Department of Education in Administrative Cases”.

4. All previous issuances which are inconsistent with the

provisions of DepED Order No. 19, s. 2008 and this Order are
hereby repealed or modified accordingly.

5. These guidelines shall remain in force and in effect during the

succeeding school years until revised or repealed.

6. Immediate dissemination of and compliance with this Order is

directed.
Sgd.
Mona D. Valisno
Secretary
DO No. 65, s. 2010

RECENT DEPED ORDERS

 September 20, 2019 DO 027, s. 2019 – Guidelines on the

Yearly Collection of Data/Information Requirements and
Validation Processes
 September 19, 2019 DO 026, s. 2019 – Guidelines on the
Grant of World Teachers’ Day Incentive Benefit
 September 13, 2019 DO 025, s. 2019 – Guidelines on the
Release, Use, Reporting, Monitoring and Evaluation of
Capacity Building Funds for Child Protection for Fiscal Year
2019, Managed by the Regional Offices

RECENT DEPED MEMORANDA

 October 7, 2019 DM 132, s. 2019 – Observance of the

National Mental Health Week and the World Mental Health
Day
 September 30, 2019 DM 131, s. 2019 – 2019 World Rabies
Day Celebration
 September 26, 2019 DM 130, s. 2019 – Conduct of
Research Activities Related to the Review of Philippine K to
12 Basic Education Cu

Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Volume 7, Number 2,

2015.
44
ISSN: 2277
-
0038
Copyright © 2015 Cenresin Publications (www.cenresinpub.org)
THE IMPACT OF FINANCE ON THE ACADEMIC PERFORMANCE
OF SECONDARY
SCHOOL STUDENTS IN AKWANGA LOCAL GOVERNMENT
OF NASSARAWA
STATE, NIGERIA
1 2
E. I. Dang and E. J. Bulus
Department of Social Science Education, Faculty of Education
University of Jos.
Government Secondary School Ubbe, Nassarawa Eggon LGA,
Nassarawa State.
Email: dange@unijos.edu.ng; josephbulus10@yahoo.com
Abstract:
The Nigerian National Policy on Education (2014), recognised education
as an
expensive social service that requires adequate financial provision
from all tiers of
government for its successful implementation. The role education
play in economic
development cannot be overemphasized, hence the need for all hands to
be on deck for
proper development of the educational system. Finance has been
identified as one of the
major challenge to educational achievement and development for both
individuals and
the society at large. This research is conducted to determine the impact
of finance on
student’s academic performance/achievement in secondary schools. The
research design
adopted for this study is a survey research design. Three hypotheses are
stated, to guide
the researchers in reaching the needed conclusion for the study. SS II
students in Akwanga
LGA, of Nassarawa State, Nigeria made up the population for the study.
The instruments
adopted for the collection of data are structured questionnaires which
were administered
to elicit responses from the respondent, with respect to their financial
disposition and an
achievement test, to determine the students’ academic performance. Chi-

square ( ) was
used in testing the hypotheses. The study put forward some
recommendations, among
which are; for government to make provision for adequate
infrastructures and facilities
needed for smooth operations of the school system, be it boarding house,
public and or
private so as to create balance among the students, there is need for
the provision of
scholarship especially for student from low socio-economic background,
learners are also
encouraged to engage in collaborative studies among their peer so as to
enable them tap
from the experience of each other not minding their background.
Key Words: Impact; Finance; Academic Performance; Students;
Secondary School;
Reference to this paper should be made as follows: E. I. Dang and E. J.
Bulus (2015), The Impact of Finance
on the Academic Performance of Secondary School Students in
Akwanga Local Government of Nassarawa
State, Nigeria. J. of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Vol. 7, Number
2, Pp. 44 – 54.

INTRODUCTION
The relative importance of the amount of social resources and the
diversity of social
resources to students learning cannot be empirically judged. This implies
the role finance
play in students’ academic performance as far as education is
concerned. The National
Policy on Education (NPE) (2004) section 13 sub sections 120, assert
that:
E. I. Dang and E. J. Bulus
45
“Education is an expensive social service and requires adequate
financial
provision from all tiers of government for successful implementation
of
the educational programmes”
The government of Nigeria realized the crucial role of education on the
life and growth
of human resources, and hence the need for adequate financial
commitment from all the
three tiers of government for effective implementation of educational
programmes in
Nigeria. The importance of parent’s financial background, the teachers
commitment level
and peer group influence in student’s academic achievement cannot be
ignored. And as
such, the odds are stacked high against learners from a deprived
socio-economic
background to curb with the demand for facilities necessary to facilitate
their academic
pursuit. A student whose parents are illiterate and earn low income, who
has no access to
the electronic media for information, no educated sibling or peers to
learn from, faces an
uphill task in his educational pursuit. That task is even more difficult if
the learner lives in
an obscure rural area where he is cut off from modern civilization.
Cannot be compared
with a students from an academically enriched background, whose
parents are learned and
financially stable, who can readily provide whatever the student needs to
enhance his/her
learning process will be better off. It is unfair that learners from
different background
should face the same competition for admission into both post
secondary and post
primary institutions.
According to Sander (2012), he was able to note that Many Americans
are caught up in
the economic downturn, and college students are often worried
about money, this
financial worry may affect their academic performance, due to divided
attention. When
they are concern about the availability of learning materials, as well as
their daily upkeep
in school. Dubey (1984), asserted that “child’s academic
achievement suppose to be
determined by the child”, incidentally, the child’s performance today in
schools depend
on how much attention he earns from his parent, the nature of school, the
environment
and peer group influence among others. For now, it is too common to
find out that
children who belong to the family of high socio-economic background
would do better
in academic achievement. Satisfying the child’s basic needs such
as books, (text and
notes), cloths, transportation, feeding among others would give such
child the confidence
to perform better, comparing with a child from the family of low
socioeconomic
background who would find it hard to cope without such basic
necessities may result in
poor performance even though not in all cases.
The responsibility of training a child always lies in the hand of
the parents. This is
congruent with the common assertion by sociologist, that education
can be an
instrument of cultural change which is being taught from home. It is not
out of place to
imagine that parental socio-economic background can have possible
effects on the
academic achievement of children in school. Nonetheless, children
physical environment
affect their education or disposition to it. Parental status is one of such
variables, just like
Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Volume 7, Number 2,
2015.
46
when a woman’s nutritional status improves, so does the nutrition of her
young children
(Lisa et al., 2003).
Rothstein asserted as follows:
“Parents of different occupation classes often have different styles of
child
rearing, different ways of disciplining their children and different
ways
reacting to their children need. These differences do not express
themselves
consistently as expected in the case of every family; rather they
influence
the average tendencies of families for different occupational
classes”.(Rothstein, 2014).
Hill et al., (2004) also argued that the financial status of parents do not
only affect the
academic performance of the child, but also makes it impossible for the
child to compete
with his counterpart from high financial status under the same academic
environment.
Furthermore, Smith, Fagan and Ulvund (2002) asserted that
significant predictor of
intellectual performance of a child at age of 8 years, included parental
socio-economic
status. Other researchers had posited that parental financial status
could affect school
children as to bring about flexibility to adjustment to the different
school schedules
(Guerin et al., 2001). In another finding, Oni (2007) and Omoegun
(2007) had averred
that there is significant difference between the rates of deviant behaviour
among students
from high and low socio-economic status.
Adelma, (1999), categorically stated that “Unfortunately, low income
students are more
likely to posses high risk characteristics than even undergraduates”. In
his findings, two-
third of low-income beginning students came from families in
which neither of the
parents attended college, compared with one-third of middle and upper
income students.
Conversely, 50 percent of middle and upper income students have at
least one of the
parents who earned a bachelor’s degree or higher, compared with less
than 20 percent of
low income students. And this implies that children who enrol in schools
are more likely
to drop out of school, because the first generation college students
from low socio-
economic status family, face many disadvantages, like: they have far
less experience and
information on the social and academic culture of higher education, and
they may not be
able to rely on their parents for assistance in these matters.
Base on the National Policy on Education, 2004, “The government’s
ultimate goal is to
make education free at all levels”, as such the financing of
education is a joint
responsibility of the federal, state and local government as well as
private sectors. In this
regards, government welcomes and encourages the participation of
local communities,
individual philanthropist and non-governmental organization. This point
out the unique
role played by finance, in educating an individual, notwithstanding the
environmental
factors and individual intelligence quotient which influences and
determine the level of
academic performance of an individual.
E. I. Dang and E. J. Bulus
47
The financing of education is a popular opinion, it is the true domain of
the economist,
first, educators decide what is to be done and the economist works out
how much money
is to be raised. From this point of view, the structure and the character of
the educational
system rest on. It does not matter whether education is financed
centrally or locally,
publicly or privately, solely out of taxes or taxes supplemented by
user charges. The
particular way in which education is financed largely determines who
will be educated and
in what fashion.
Furthermore, financial questions come not after, but before the critical
planning decision.
It is precisely in the areas of finance that so many of the nobler aims of
education are
defeated (Blaug, 1976).
Pandit (1970) defined cost of education as
“The monetary value of resources used up in the production of human
capital during a given period of time”.
Longe, (1982) added that the concept of cost is in relation to the
three investment
decision-making bodies on education, the institutional, household
and the society.
Hence, the sum which give rise to total cost of education. The private
cost comprises the
money household or any private institutions investment in
education as well as the
students opportunity cost of being in school. Takur et al (1950)
noted that, school
financing policies of a nation, are a reflection of the value choices of
the people. This
implies the order of priorities in which individuals, as well as the nation
established in the
allocation of their limited available resources and their political
philosophy, tells how far
the education system will go. It is also believed that adequate
investment in educating
younger generation is essential in economic growth of a nation.
Expenditure on
education is an investment in the long run, which will indeed yield better
returns in the
future.
The cost of education should not be restricted to either parents (who
have children) or
the government alone but a share responsibility between the
government, private sector
and organization. UNESCO (1984) in Lomak (2002) also
established this fact that
financing of secondary education should be the responsibility of both
public and private
sectors. Hence, the study aimed at finding out the impact of
finance on students’
academic performance in economics in some selected secondary
schools in Akwanga
L.G.A, Nassarawa State.
PURPOSE OF THE STUDY
The general purpose of this study is to investigate the extent to which
finance has impact
in secondary school students’ performance in economics. Specifically
the study intends to:
 Find out the impact of finance on the academic achievement of
secondary school
students in economics.
Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Volume 7, Number 2,
2015.
48

 Find out whether parental socioeconomic status determined

the students’
academic achievement.
 Examine the extent to which learning environment is linked to
students’ academic
performance in economics.
HYPOTHESES
The following hypotheses have been formulated to guide the
researchers in this study,
they are as follows:
1. H : There is no significant difference in the academic
achievement of students
from low socio-economic background and those from high socio
economic
background.
2. H : There is no significant difference in the choice of school
between students with
low financial status and those with high financial status.
3. H : There is no significant difference in the availability of
educational materials for
students with academic enriched background and those with poor
academic
background.
LITERATURE REVIEW
Haverman and Wolf (1995) found that children achievement
depends on the social
investment in them, in terms of parental investment in children; and
the choices that
children make, given the investments in, and opportunities available
to them. But in
Bangladesh this kind of choice is limited to a section of urban
students. According to
Acemoglu and Pischke (2001) family income explains difference in the
enrolment rates
of children, in a four-year college. These effects are different
between rich and poor
family. Woessmann (2004) concludes in his study that family
background has strong
and similar effects on both European and American students. He also
estimates the model
using a QR approach where he concludes that there is weak evidence of
variation in the
family background influence. Pedrosa, Dachs, Maia, Andrade and
Carvalho (2006), were
able to find out that students coming from disadvantaged backgrounds,
(educational and
socioeconomic), have a higher relative performance than their
counterparts. This can be
considered as a phenomenon which the authors named “educational
resilience”.
Furthermore, another thing that worth noting is that, The
individual’s educational
achievement has a basic foundation on the early stage of his/her
growth and
development, the pre-educational stage involve infancy and childhood,
and their health
and hygiene and the constituent of their nutrition determines greatly the
rate of growth
and mental development in them. This is because each child is
endowed with different
genetic potential being modified by their environment. This makes any
child unique in
his/her makeup which is a concept of individual difference.
(Mallum, Huggai and
Ajaegbu, 2014). Ballantine (1983) demonstrated that socioeconomic
and educational
background of the parent goes a long way in determining child’s
academic achievement.
This is a reality, because the parent educational background and level of
income places the
child in a better position in terms of academics and other extra-curricular
achievement
E. I. Dang and E. J. Bulus
49
thus, the saying “the better the socio economic background, the higher
the expectation
both physically and mentally (academically)”.
Expenditure on education does not only directly improve people’s lives
and well being,
but also contributes indirectly as a stock that contributes to increase in
national income.
Education equips people with literary and numeracy and directly
improves their
productively (Ukwu, 2002). This assertion reinforces the fundamentality
of education to
the quest for national development in any country. The Nigerian
educational policy, even
with its lofty visions, would remain mere documentations unless the
education sector in
Nigeria is well funded and professionally managed. Udoh and Akpa
(2004) noted that,
financing education is as popular as it is a true domain of economist.
They further explain
that educators decide what is to be done and then, the economist work
out how much
the cost would be and how to source for money for the
implementation of such
educational program.
Woolfolk (2004) supports by arguing that because low socioeconomic
status students
may wear old clothes, speak in dialect or be less familiar with books and
school activities,
teachers and other students may assume that those students are not bright
and teachers
may avoid calling them to answer questions in the classroom to
protect them from
embarrassment of giving wrong responses. This makes these students
less attentive and do
not concentrate on what is being taught, and in the end, they come to
believe that they
are not very good at schoolwork. This situation makes them
perform poorly in the
subjects and sometimes drop out from school because they are affected
psychologically.
METHODS
Research Design
The research design adopted for this study is survey research design; this
is because of the
nature of the data to be used for the study. In this study a sample is
drawn from the
population and analysis is made with respect to the sample, but the result
is generalized to
the entire population of the study.
Participants
Four schools were selected for this study, they consist of two public
and two private
schools. They public schools comprise of one Boarding and One Day
School, the private
schools also comprise of one Boarding and One Day School. All
these schools are in
Akwanga Local Government Area of Nassarawa State. These schools
are:
 Government Science Secondary School Andaha.
 Shepherd International College Akwanga.
 Government Secondary School Akwanga .
 St. Peter’s Secondary School Akwanga.
Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Volume 7, Number 2,
2015.
50
The sample consists of one hundred and twenty (120) students drawn
from all the four
schools. Thirty (30) students were selected from each school with fifteen
from SSS II and
another fifteen from SSS III, these students were randomly selected.
Instruments
 The main instrument used for this study included a
researched design
questionnaire titled “Students’ Socio-economic Status Questionnaire”
(SSSQ) and
Students academic achievement test in Economics.

 The questionnaire consists of two sections (A & B). Items

contained in section A
include: Class, Sex, Age, parents occupation and school type.
Section B has 10
items that gives the researchers information on the financial status and
the socio-
economic background of the students.

 The students’ academic achievement test in economics

consists of items that
include: Basic economic theories and principles, the theory of Demand
and Supply,
national income and theory of the firm.
Procedure
The researchers on arrival in each of the selected schools introduce
themselves to the
principals and the teachers after which they brief the school authority on
the purpose of
their visit. Teachers in these schools take the researchers to the
classes needed for the
study and the researchers take a random sample of students that will
participate in the
study. The questionnaires are shared to the students after which the test
is administered to
the same student with each student questionnaire matched with his/her
test script.
Method of Data Analysis

Chi-Square (X ) was used to test the hypothesis, to determine if
there is a significant
difference in the academic achievement of students from low
socio-economic
background and those from high socio economic background. To also
determine whether
there is any significant difference in the choice of school between
students with low
financial status and those with high financial status. Furthermore, the
hypothesis is to
determine if there is no significant difference in the availability of
educational materials
for students with academic enriched background and those with
poor academic
background. The theoretical chi-square is to be determined at 0.05 level
of significance.
RESULT
: There is no significant difference in the academic achievement
of students from low
socio-economic background and those from high socio economic
background.
E. I. Dang and E. J. Bulus
51
Table 1: Students responses on academic performance
School type Pass Fail Total
Public 15 45 60
Private 30 25 55
Total 45 60 115
d.f = 1 [(r – 1) (c – 1) = (2 -1) (2 – 1)] = 1
2
 = 12.88
Table value, t 0.05 = 3.84
∴ 12.88 > 3.84

The calculated value of chi-square from the data in table 1 revealed a

value of 12.88. the
theoretical value of chi-square obtained at 0.05 level of significance
using the degree of
 2
freedom obtained above of 1, the x theoretical value is 3.84. Based on
the decision rule,
since the calculate value is greater than the theoretical value we fail to
accept the null
hypothesis and by accepting that alternative hypothesis that; “there
is a significant
difference in the academic performance of student due to financial status
of high socio-
economic background and that of their counterpart of low financial
background”. The
percentage of failure indicates that, there is a significant difference
in student’s
performances base on their financial status, which is 60 against 45.
: There is no significant difference in the choice of school
between students with low
financial status and those with high financial status.
Table 2: Student’s responses on choice of school
School type Positive response Negative response Total
Public 56 4 60
Private 43 10 53
Total 99 14 113
d.f = (r – 1) (c – 1) = (2 -1) (2 – 1) = 1
 

= 3.84
Table value,  .
 = 3.84

∴ 3.84 = 3.84
Analysis from the data from table 2 above, revealed that, the calculated
2
value (x = 3.84)
equals table value (X .

= 3.84). We therefore reject null hypothesis and upheld
alternative hypothesis. The alternative hypothesis reveals that there
is a significant
difference in the choice of school and the learning environment
among the financial
status of individual in the society. From the responses in table 4.2, a
public school has 56
against 4. This shows that, there may be structure on ground for
learning programme
while that of private school shows 43 against 10. Nevertheless,
individual have preference
for private to public, as well as public to private as the case may be
relating to the financial
need of such school.
Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Volume 7, Number 2,
2015.
52
Therefore, an environment where a student find him/her self,
whether good or bad
influences his/her learning behaviour.
: There is no significant difference in the availability of
educational materials for
students with academic enriched background and those with poor
academic background.
Table 3: Student’s Responses on Materials Availability
School type Positive Response Negative Response Total
Public 25 35 60
Private 32 21 53
Total 57 56 113
d.f = (r – 1) (c – 1) = (2 -1) (2 – 1)
 

= 3.95
Table value,  .

= 3.84
∴ 3.95 > 3.84

In respect to the analysis above, the alternative hypothesis is

upheld, while the null
2
hypothesis rejected. This is so because, the calculated value (x
= 3.95)
is greater than the
tabulated value (X
.

= 3.84). The alternative hypothesis reveals that: There

is a
significant difference in the availability of learning and instructional
materials to those
students of enrich socio-economic background than their counterpart in
deprived and
poor socio-economic background. From table 4.3 above, the positive
responses of private
school are 32 against 21, which implies that majority of the private
schools enforced the
use of learning materials as a prerequisite for entry into school. On the
other hand, public
schools show less concerned about the use of learning materials in
school by both
teachers and students. These learning materials or instruction include
ICT facilities, well
equipped library, personal text books, workbooks, and other learning
instruments and
apparatus.
DISCUSSION
This study reveals the difference in the performance of students in
senior secondary
school (both public and private) as a result of the differences in
the socioeconomic
background of their parents or guidance. The findings in this respect can
be link with the
performance of these students in major examinations, specifically
standard examination
that are coordinated by external examination bodies like West
African Examination
Council (WAEC), National Examination Council (NECO), Joint
Admission and
Matriculation Board (JAMB) and National Business and Technical
(NABTEB), when
students are required to sit for the same examination across all the
schools.
The choice of school, learning environment is determine by the financial
status of such
individual’s parents. Many students have no choice on the type of school
they desire to
enrol, since their parent cannot afford such school demand. The research
work reveals that
both parent of upper and lower class status have equal concern for their
children most
E. I. Dang and E. J. Bulus
53
especially in area of home training, extra lesson, upbringing among
others; but financial
accessibility becomes the major challenge especially for students
from poor
socioeconomic background. Students are motivated to learn when all
learning gadgets are
readily available. Inadequate and lack of learning and instructional
materials which
involves the finances in running the schools either public, private
boarding or day-school
stand out as a challenge in meeting up the academic achievement or
performance of the
students, thereby, discouraging effective learning and teaching.
RECOMMENDATIONS
Based on the findings and observations made from the study, the
following
recommendations are made by the researchers:
 Government should in their part make provision for adequate
infrastructures,
facilities needed for smooth operations of school system, be it
boarding house,
public and or private establishment. The government can as well
augment
individual effort in providing scholarship to deserving student.
 There is need for non-governmental organization to assist by
encouraging
individual who are outstanding in academics but are financially
constraint,
especially those of poor financial/ socioeconomic background with
scholarship
awards, learning materials/gadgets to enhance their performance.
The
philanthropist can as well key into service to the humanity.
 Learners should be encouraged to carry out team or group work or
studies. In this
case, students of low academic and socioeconomic background could
benefit from
the wealth of knowledge and gadget of enriched individuals.
 Policy planner should prioritize the financing of education
programs, as not all
individuals can meet the demand of educating their children.
 Individuals, parents are advice to maintain a sizeable family,
where all members of
the family could be well catered for in term of health services,
education, and
general upbringing, especially socioeconomic deprived families.
 Teachers who are policy implementers must be up to task,
meeting up with
modern educational challenges, employing the use of appropriate
teaching gadgets
and materials, encourage the spirit of team work to bridge the gap
that exist
between student of different financial, academic and environmental
background.
REFERENCE
Adelman, C. (1999). The answers are in tool box. Research work of the
Department of
Education, Research and Improvement. Washington D.C: U S.
Blang, M. (1976) Conflicting approaches to education planning.
Mmeo, Ibadan:
University of Ibadan.
Dubey, D. L. et al (1984). An introduction to sociology of Nigeria
education. London:
Macmillan Publishers.
 th
Federal Ministry of Education (2004) National policy on education. 4
ed. Abuja
Journal of Social Sciences and Public Policy, Volume 7, Number 2,
2015.
54
Haverman, R., & Wolf B. (1995). The determinants of children
attainments: A review of
methods and findings. Journal of Economic Literature.
Hill, N.E; Castelino, O.R.; Lansford. J.E.; Nowlin, E.; Dodge, P.; Bates,
K.A. and Pettit, G.S
(2004). Parents academic involvement as related to school
behaviour,
achievement and aspirations: Demographic variations across
adolescence. Child
development: Himalaya Publishers. Retrieved from
http://dx.doi.org/10.1086/447384
Longe, R.S.(1982). Factor influencing current cost of secondary
education in Oyo State of
Nigeria. Paris HEP:UNESCO.
Omoegun, M. (2007). Effect of parental socio – economic status on
parental care and
social adjustment in the UBE programme in Lagos State:
Implication for
counseling. International Journal of Educational Research.
Oni A.A (2007). Socio – economic status as predictor of deviant
behaviours among
Nigeria Secondary School Students. International Journal of Educational
Research.
Pandit, H. H. (1979). Economic approaches to investment decision-
making in education.
Indian Educational Review.
Rothestein, R. (2004). Class and schools using social economic and
educational reforms
to close the white and black achievement gap. Economic Policy
Institute, U.S.A
Sanda A and Garba T (2007) Rural Household poverty School
Attendance and
Educational attainment. Evidence from Sokoto state Nigeria- The
African
symposium. An on line journal of educational Research Network
Smith, L. Fagan, J.F and UIvund, S.E (2002). The relation of
cognition memory in
infancy and parental socio – economic staus to later I intellectual
competence.
Smith, L.C Ramakrishnan, U Ndaiye A. Haddad, L. Martorell, R.
(2003). The importance
of women status for child nutrition in developing countries. International
Policy
Research institute
Woolfolk, A. (2004). Educational Psychology (9th Edition.). New
York: Pearson
Education Inc. Zealand Journal of Teachers’ Work.