REQUEST FORM FOR KOICA GRANT PROGHRAM
A. PROPOSAL OUTLINE
1. Partner (Host Country:
2. Project Title:
Republic of the Philippines
Expanding the Role of the Special Education Fund
(SEF) in Public Education
3. Project Duration:
2009-2010
4. Total ODA Budget:
KOICA shall provide a grant of US$1.0 Million to
be programmed fully in school year 2009-2010
5. Implementing Organization
1.
2.
Name of the Organization:
Department of Education.
Nature or type of the Organization
1. Government
2. Education/Training
3.
Nature or type of the Organization
Main Functions/Activities of DepED
Mandate of DepEd: The Department of Education is the principal
government agency responsible for education and manpower
development. The Department is mandated to protect and promote the
right of all citizens to quality basic education and shall take appropriate
steps to make such education accessible to all. Thus, the Department
shall establish, maintain and support a complete, adequate and integrated
system of Basic Education (formal, non-formal and informal) relevant to
the needs of the people and society.
Powers and Functions of DepEd: To attain its mandate and
objectives, the DepEd has the authority, accountability and responsibility
for the following:
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
Formulating national educational policies;
Formulating national basic education plan;
Promulgating national educational standards;
Monitoring and assessing national learning outcomes and,
Undertaking national educational researches and studies;
All levels of the bureaucracy will be involved in the implementation of the
proposed project, particularly the National Academy of the Philippines,
Staff Development Division of the Human Resource Development Service,
Bureaus of Elementary and Secondary Education; and regional, division
1
and district offices and schools in the project areas. The overall functions
of these units are as follows:
National Educators Academy of the Philippines (NEAP)
a)
b)
c)
d)
Provides continuing strategic human resource development
programs for school managers and leaders within the
context of emerging legitimate demands on scarce human
and material resources;
Promotes synergetic partnerships and linkages with centers
of excellence locally and internationally, from both
government and non-government sectors;
Develops programs that address career planning and
pathing for potential educational managers and leaders, and
Promotes intellectual inquiry into non-traditional and
innovative alternatives and strategies in educational
management
Human Resource Development Service
a)
b)
c)
Develops and administers a personnel program which
includes selection and placement; classification and pay,
career and employment development, performance rating,
employee relations and welfare services
Acts on matters concerning attendance, leaves of absence,
appointments promotions and other personnel transactions;
Conducts training programs in the DECS.
Bureaus of Elementary and Secondary Education
a)
b)
c)
Conduct studies and formulates, develop and evaluate
programs
and
educational
standards
for
elementary/secondary education
Undertake studies necessary for the preparation of prototype
curricular designs, instructional materials and teacher
training programs for elementary/secondary education
Formulate guidelines to improve elementary/secondary
schools physical plans and equipment, and general
management.
Regional Offices
a)
b)
c)
d)
Define regional educational policy framework which reflects
the values, needs and expectations of the communities they
serve;
Develop regional basic education plan;
Develop regional educational standards with a view towards
benchmarking for international competitiveness;
Monitor, evaluate and assess regional learning outcomes;
2
e)
f)
Undertake research projects and develop and manage
regionwide projects which may be funded through official
development assistance and/or funding agencies;
Formulate in coordination with the Regional Development
Council, the budget, utilization of resources, based on
identified priorities in the implementation of regional
development plan;
Division Offices.
a)
b)
c)
d)
Develop and implement division education development
plans;
Plan and manage the effective and efficient performance of
all personnel, physical and fiscal resources of the division,
including professional and staff development;
Promote awareness of and adherence by all schools and
learning centers to accreditation standards prescribed by the
Secretary of Education; and
Supervise the operations of all public and private
elementary, secondary and integrated schools, and learning
centers
District Offices.
a) Provide professional and instructional advice and support to the
school heads and teachers of schools and learning centers in
the district or cluster;
b) Provide curricula supervision; and
c) Perform other functions as may be assigned by the Secretary,
Regional Directors and Schools Division Superintendent
School
a)
b)
c)
d)
e)
f)
g)
h)
i)
j)
Set the mission, vision, goals and objectives of the school;
Create an environment within the school that is conducive to
teaching and learning;
Implement, monitor and assess the school curriculum;
Develop the school education program and school
improvement plan;
Offer educational programs, projects and services which
provide equitable opportunities for all learners in the
community;
Introduce new and innovative modes of instruction to
achieve higher learning outcomes;
Administer and manage all personnel, physical and fiscal
resources;
Provide opportunities for staff development;
Establish school community network; and
Accepts donations, gifts, bequest and grants in accordance
with existing laws and policy of the department for the
purpose of upgrading teachers competencies
3
d.
Manager of this Project:
1. Name and Position:
Psyche Vetta G. Olayvar
Deputy Executive Director, EDPITAF
2. Phone/fax Number/Email Address: 633-7256/cheolayvar@yahoo.com
6. Sector of the Project:
Education
B. PROJECT DESCRIPTION
1. Historical Background of the Project:
Present conditions in the sector:
In a slow-growing economy with limited budgetary resources, how does a
country such as the Philippines keep pace with the growing demand for quality
education? In recent years, expanding the national budget for public education
has barely kept pace with population leaving the sector with real negative growth
over the past half-decade.
While the Department of Education receives the single largest budgetary
share of any government department or sector as mandated by the Constitution,
the country’s investment in education as a share of GNP remains far behind its
closest neighbors in Southeast Asia. Worse is, almost 90% of which goes to
personal services. This relatively low investment in education spending is
reflected in the poor education performance in terms of Education for All
indicators and international tests in science and mathematics.
Does National Government, however, have to be the sole provider and
financier for public education? In truth, how can National Government finance
and support an increasingly overburdened education infrastructure?
One source of funding available to public education is the Special
Education Fund (SEF) provided under the Local Government Code. Based on
local real estate assessment, the SEF provides each local government unit
(LGU) with a source of funding for local education. But are LGUs maximizing the
collection of SEF as provided under existing law? And are local school boards
(LSBs) wisely and efficiently utilizing the SEF in ways that enhance the delivery
of public education in their localities?
Special Education Funs (SEF)1
a. The Special Education Fund (SEF) is a special tax on local real estate
provided under the Local Government Code. The law provides that
landowners be assessed one percent (1%) of the value of real properties
(i.e. land, buildings, machinery and improvements) to be set aside to fund
1
Much of the data and information provided by a study on the Special Education Fund undertaken by the Public
Finance Institute of the Philippines in 2002 under a grant provided by the Ford Foundation.
4
local education and to be administered by local school boards (LSB).
b. In 2002, the Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) of the
Department of Finance (DOF) reported that _____ LGUs2 collected a total
of P9.0 Billion in SEF, of which P7.8 Billion went directly to LSBs.3
c. Against a departmental budget of P110.0 Billion in 2004, the combined
LSB portfolio of P7.8 Billion represents an additionality of 7.1% in total
spending for general education purposes.4 Because local real estate tax
collection has been the fastest growing revenue source for LGUs since
1992 (+22% over the period), the SEF has likewise grown in size (though
still largely under-collected.)
d. Given the size of LGUs, however, the SEF funds vary from a low of
P20,000 per year to as much as P1.0 Billion for the city of Makati, the
financial center of the country. The variability of the size of the SEF is a
function of the economic wealth and activity of the LGU as well as the tax
collection efficiency of the town, city or province. A sample of LGUs done
by Synergia Foundation reveal a wide range in tax collection efficiency.
LGU
Collection Efficiency
Polomolok, South Cotabato
90 %
Tagbilaran, Bohol
90 %
Bayombong, Nueva Vizcaya
70 %
Pili, Camarines Sur
50 %
Naga City
50 %
General Santos City
50 %
Angeles City
50 %
Sasmuan, Pampanga
19 %
e. There are other reasons as well for the variable tax collection efficiency
and the varying amounts raised:

2
Real property
undervalued.5
taxes,
in
general,
continue
to
be
grossly
In this case, LGUs that assess local real estate taxes are limited to provinces, cities and municipalities.
3
The propensity to tax varies from LGU to LGU. In some LGUs, tax rates have been increased as the quickest
way to increase local revenues. In other LGUs, tax rates have not been raised in order not to alienate taxpayers.
4
In addition to the SEF, the Department has also been able to raise additional funds for education through the
Brigada Eskwela and Adopt-a-School programs. Brigada Eskwela is the one week “National Schools Maintenance
Program” that encourages parents, the local business community, LGUs and the community-at-large to come
together for one week in May (prior to the opening of the school year) to do minor repairs on school buildings and
other facilities. In May 2003, the effort contributed over 892,000 man-days of volunteer time and materials donated
to 12,505 schools worth a combined value of P392 Million. In May 2004, over 16,000 schools participated with
over 1.4 million volunteer man-days and materials donated worth a total of P717 million. The Adopt-a-School
program, on the other hand, involves donated funds or goods and services in-kind from private companies and
individuals made available for specific schools or for the department. From October 2002 through August 2004,
during the term of then Secretary Edilberto C. de Jesus, some 80 private corporations and corporate foundations
made over P350 Million in registered contributions to the Department of Education.
5
The law also provides that certain types of land be taxed differently (i.e. different tax rates). This contributes to
the difficulty in real estate assessment and hence, tax collection.
5


Incomplete, inaccurate land records
Continuing tax amnesty programs for delinquent taxpayers6
f. To administer the SEF, the LGC provides that local school boards be set
up. These LSBs have the following mandated composition:
Chair: Local Chief Executive (e.g. governor or mayor)
Co-Chair: Schools Division Superintendent
Members:
Chair, Education Committee, Sangguniang7
LGU Treasurer
Representative, Youth sector
Representative, PTCA (Parent-Teachers-Community Association)
Representative, Teachers’ organizations
Representative, Non-Teaching organizations
The membership in the LSB, however, can be expanded. In the case of
Naga City and Nueva Vizcaya, the membership has been expanded to
include representatives from non-governmental or civil society
organizations (NGO, CSO) as non-voting members.
g. Under the LGC, local school boards have the following authorities and
responsibilities:

To determine the annual supplementary budgetary needs of public
schools within the LGUs;8
To authorize the local treasurer to disburse the SEF;
To serve as the advisory committee on education to the
Sangguniang; and,
Other purposes including the naming and/or renaming of schools in
their area.



h. The LSBs have exercised their authorities quite liberally in terms of
funding priorities. By law, the LGC specifies the proper uses for the SEF
and limits this to the following:


Construction, repair and maintenance of schools and other
facilities
Provision or establishment of extension facilities (i.e. non-formal
6
Editorial comment: In general, tax amnesty programs tend to encourage taxpayers to avoid paying the right
amounts of tax if they can project an amnesty in the near future. In the city of Paranaque, however, a change in
mayor led to a one-time amnesty program at the start of the new mayor’s term. Taxpayers who refused to pay local
taxes under the previous mayor, came out in droves to pay arrears under the new mayor. This provided the new
administration with a windfall from previously unpaid local taxes which it used to improve on garbage collection
and street and sidewalk repairs, among others, making an immediate impact on the city’s residents.
7
The sangguniang is the provincial, city or town council. It serves as the legislative body of the LGU.
8
Supplementary to the funds provided by the National Government under the General Appropriations Act.
6

i
In actuality, LSBs spend the funds on a wider range of priorities.
general, the funds were divided into the following major categories:



j
education or alternative learning systems)9
Sports activities
In
Capital outlay (new construction, office/facilities improvements and
office equipment) – 35%
Salaries and allowance of teachers (either locally-funded teachers
or to provide additional allowances to nationally-funded teachers)10
– 25%
Maintenance – 40%
But there have been other uses as well.
LSBs also spent SEF on the following:




Athletic meets (from 10% - 47% in some LGU cases)
Cultural events
Scouting (i.e. boys and girl scout activities and programs)
Others (including the purchase of cell phones)
A sampling of LSB priorities are as follows:
Bulacan (province) -
43% school building
construction and repair
Bohol (province)
26% salaries, 20% school
building construction and
repair
Naga City
61% salaries
Tagbilaran City
62% salaries, 11% school
building repairs
General Santos City 83% salaries, 13% sports
Nueva Vizcaya (province) -91% salaries
Polomolok (town) 65% salaries, 12% school
building construction and repairs
k. Other more specific, though extremely limited, uses include:
 Anti-insurgency campaigns (South Cotabato province)
 Aid to dormitory operations (for students and teachers) (Bohol
province)
 PTCA presidents travel and radio equipment (Talibon, ____)
9
In mid-2004, the Department formally changed the name of the Bureau of Non-Formal Education (BNFE) to the
Bureau of Alternative Learning Systems (BALS).
10
Nationally-funded teachers are provided for the Department under the General Appropriations Act (GAA). In
many instances, given shortages in teachers, LGUs fund what are classified as “locally-funded teachers”. These
teachers are subject to the same screening and hiring policies of the Department but do not have tenure or a regular
plantilla position and can be hired and fired by the LGU at any time. In addition, many are paid lower than
nationally-funded teachers given the paying capacity of the LGU and the LSB.
7
National/Local government development policy in the sector
The Philippine EFA 2015 Plan is a vision and a holistic program of
reforms of the country to achieve an improved quality of basic education for every
Filipino by 2015. The Plan is anchored on the Dakar Framework of Action
adopted by various participating countries including the Philippines during the
World Education Forum in April 2000, Dakar, Senegal. The Dakar Framework for
Action is a re-affirmation of the vision set out in the World Declaration on
Education For All (Jomtien1990) that every child, youth and adult has the human
right to benefit from education that will meet their basic learning needs including
the full development of human personality
The Philippine EFA 2015 Plan adopts the prescription of the World
Declaration on Education For All that basic learning needs shall be made
available to all by various means- by way of schools or formal education or by
way of alternative learning schemes such as informal and non-formal education.
Based on this, the central goal of EFA is a basic competency for all that will bring
about functional literacy for all with the following component objectives:
1. Universal Coverage of Out-of-School Youth and Adults in the Provision of
Basic Learning Needs: All persons beyond school-age who for various
reasons have failed to acquire the essential competence to be functionally
literate should finally be made functionally literate in their native tongue, in
Filipino and in English. Functional literacy is merely the first step for these
disadvantaged adults to become educated Filipinos in the sense articulated
by EDCOM. Achievement of this outcome requires that the many social,
political, cultural and economic mechanisms that are already reaching these
persons should be enhanced by adult literacy programs. This outcome
involves reaching and educating up to about 9 million functionally illiterates
as of year 2003.
2. Universal School Participation and Elimination of Drop-outs and Repetition in
First Three Grades: All children aged six should enter school ready to learn
and prepared to achieve the required competencies for Grade 1 to 3
instruction. Attainment of this outcome is just the first installment for insuring
that education disadvantage does not take root early thereby limiting the
future options available to disadvantaged pre-school children. Achievement
of this outcome requires that quality-assured programs for pre-school and
early childhood care and development should be expanded to reach all
children aged 3 to 5 years old, with first priority to reaching first those children
least likely to enter school or most likely to drop-out or repeat in Grades 1 to
3. This outcome involves reaching about 5.7 million children aged 3 to 5 years
old, with about 20% of these (1.2 million children) comprising those least likely
to enter Grade 1 and most likely to repeat or drop out between Grade 1 to 3.
3. Universal Completion of the Full Cycle of Basic Education Schooling with
Satisfactory Achievement Levels by All At Every Grade or Year: All children
aged six to eleven should be on track to completing elementary schooling with
satisfactory achievement levels at every grade, and all children aged twelve to
8
fifteen should be on track to completing secondary schooling with similarly
satisfactory achievement levels at every year. Attaining this outcome assures
that schooling will become a real factor in eliminating education disadvantage
regardless of socio-economic circumstances of school age children.
Achievement of this outcome requires that all elementary and high schools
work with their respective communities to jointly take full responsibility for
assuring that all school-aged children stay in school, that no student is
allowed to significantly lag behind in grade level achievements, and that every
student attains the required level of competency necessary for the next grade
level until graduation. This outcome involves a school-age population of 12.6
million children aged 6 to 11 years old (elementary schooling) and another 7.6
million children aged 12 to 15 years old (high school). This also involves
getting every one of the almost 40,000 elementary schools (36,000 public and
4,000 private) and the almost 8,000 high schools (5,000 public and 3,000
private) to perform above a desired minimum level of effectiveness.
4. Total Community Commitment to Attainment of Basic Education
Competencies for All: Every community should mobilize all its social, political,
cultural and economic resources and capabilities to support the universal
attainment of basic education competencies in Filipino and English. Education
for all demands nothing less than all for education. Attainment of this outcome
assures that education disadvantage is not allowed to grow or remain in any
Philippine community. Achievement of this outcome requires a mass
movement that reaches and engages every community of the country. Such a
movement involves not just government, but also civil society, business,
media and all other institutions and organizations important to the civilized
functioning of societies. This outcome involves organizing a community-level
effort at each of 79 provinces, 114 cities, 1,496 municipalities, and possibly
41,945 barangays.
To attain the EFA goals, one of the strategies to be pursued is the
strengthening of Muslim Education. The development and adoption of the
National Standard Curriculum for Muslim Education to be used by both public
schools and Madaris has been considered as a breakthrough in Philippine basic
education. Annex X shows DepED Order 51, series of 2004. The issuance is a
strategic response to the global commitment of the country to Education for all to
provide access to education of whatever delivery system. Its primary purpose is
to provide Muslim Filipino quality Islamic Friendly Education based on the
existing national curriculum of the Department of Education
Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) is a policy reform
package of institutional, structural, financial and other critical changes necessary
to accelerate, broaden, deepen and sustain education reform. It would be the
basis of GOP directions and actions towards attainment of EFA goal which is
improved basic education competencies for all Filipinos.
BESRA consist of five key reform thrusts: schools, teachers, DepEd
organization, complementary interventions, and institutional environment. Each
key reform thrust consists of a number of policy actions that would bring about
change in the DepED system. The five Key Reform Thrusts are as follows:
9
1. School stakeholders improve their own schools continuously
2. Professional standards for teachers meet demand for better outcomes
3. DepEd central, regional and divisional levels focus on aligning people’s
collective aspirations for education with actual teaching practices in
schools and learning outcomes attained by Filipinos.
4. Providers of early childhood care and development, alternative learning
services, and private sector increase their respective complementary
contributions to national basic education outcomes.
5. National government creates the conditions for changing the culture of
DepED in support of BESRA.
Problems to be solved in the sector
1.
The challenge for the Department of Education (and all local
government units) is how to channel more funds from the SEF to
public education.
1.1 In 2002, the Bureau of Local Government Finance
calculated that the total potential for the SEF in aggregate
at P14.4 Billion (based on real property assessments
nationwide).
1.2 This is in contrast to actual aggregate SEF collections of
P9.0 Billion (62.5%)…
1.3 And, actual aggregate SEF spending (as reflected in LSB
budgets) at P7.8Billion (54.2% of total potential; 86.7% of
actual collections)
2.
How can the Department work with LGUs to increase SEF for
education?
2.1
2.2
3.
How to increase tax collection efficiency?
How to increase absolute LSB levels for public education?
Can DepED capture more of the SEF in the LSB budgets?
3.1
3.2
To match DepED priorities and programming
To supplement the DepED budget and add to total education
spending
2. Beneficiary Groups:
Students of selected elementary and secondary schools in 5 th and 6th
class municipalities nationwide will be the direct beneficiaries while the
community, parents and the local government units will be the indirect
beneficiaries project. At the end of the project, SEF utilization will become
10
efficient and the tax collection effort of the LGU will be enhanced.
3. Overall Goal:
Improve SEF utilization mechanism and tax collection strategy of LGU in
the 5th and 6th class Municipalities nationwide to channel more funds to school
via SEF
4. Project Purpose:
1.
To set up a matching grants fund specifically aimed at 5 th and 6th class
(by income) local government units across the entire Philippines.
2.
To stimulate higher levels of SEF in 5th and 6th class LGUs through (a)
higher real estate tax collection efficiency and (b) incentives to
encourage better tax mapping
3.
To channel more LSB spending towards essential capital outlay and
investment for public schools.
4.
To place education performance (i.e. EFA performance indicators)
squarely in the center of the program of local school boards and as the
basis for budgetary support.
5. Expected Outputs:
1.
Improved spending mechanism of Special Education Funds through the
formulation of Operations guidelines on the utilization of Special
Education Fund
Improved Tax Collection Efficiency of 5th and 6th Class Municipalities.
thus, increased Special Education Funds for Education Projects and
Activities
2.
3.
Increased social awareness on the value of participation to improve
school performance under the school-based management strategy
6. Activities
The programming strategy is to be three-fold: Affirmative Action (as
basis for inclusion) and Performance-driven (as basis for providing incentives
for LGU performance).
Further, Education Performance-linked to SEF
spending must likewise provide additional rewards for LGUs:
1
Affirmative Action – The grant facility shall be open to all 5th and 6th
class LGUs nationwide and shall be on a matching grant basis.
11
2
Performance-driven – Priority shall be given to LGUs that achieve
certain targets in terms of SEF tax collection efficiency.
Level of tax collection efficiency Matching grant level
75 – 100%
P2.00 grant for every
P1.00 in SEF
generated
50 – 74%
P1.00 grant for every
P1.00 in SEF
generated
< 50%
Not a priority
Thus, while all 5th and 6th class LGUs are eligible for the matching
grants program, they must first demonstrate the capacity to collect
adequate levels of the SEF in order to avail of the matching grants.
The program provides an appropriate incentive to LGUs to improve
on tax collection efficiency in order to avail of larger matching
grants.
(3)
Education Performance-linked. EFA indicators for schools in
given LGUs will be monitored and benchmarks established per
LGU. LSBs should encouraged to spend in areas that will have
most impact on improving specifically-recognized EFA indicators
that are at-risk in their respective schools.
Improvement in
Identified EFA indicators
Matching grant level
> 100%
P2.00 grant for every
P1.00 in SEF
+ 50 to 99%
P1.00 grant for every
P1.00 in SEF
< 49%
No matching grant
While in principle all schools are eligible, recipient elementary and
secondary schools will be determined based on the following
consideration:
 Must not be a recipient of one of the major projects of DepED such as
TEEP and SEDIP.
 At least headed by a Head Teacher or a Principal
Program Plan
The use of the matching grants is to be limited to the following expenditures:
12
(1)
Capital outlay



(2)
School building (classroom) construction
School building (classroom) repair and maintenance
Provision/manufacturing of school furniture
MOOE




Reading programs
Teacher training
Development of local, indigenous instructional materials
Other LSB innovations in school management or enhancement
of learning
7. Location of the Project:
All 5th and 6th class Municipalities nationwide will be covered by the
project. (Please refer to Annex ____ for the list of 5th and 6th class
Municipalities by province, by region
8. Duration of the Project
a. Estimated start Date:
b. Estimated end Date:
c. Indicative Activities:
June 2009
May 2010
April-May 2009
-
Research: Levels of SEF collection among
5th and 6th class LGUs
June 2009
-
LGU roadshow (target: 5th and 6th class LGUs)
July 2009
-
Level of matching
August-Dec 2009
-
Programming proper/ implementation of
projects funded
Jan-Feb 2010
-
Monitoring and evaluation; review of previous
year’s SEF collection and spending levels
March 2010
-
Program evaluation
April-May 2010
-
Preparation for SY 2006-2007 program
9. Financing Scheme
1. Annual Budget Plan
Source
Total
Domestic Fund
Imputed
Foreign Fund (KOICA USD 1, 000,000
TOTAL
USD
First Year
2nd Year
13
10. Expected Effects of the proposed project to the host country:
1.
Economic Effects:
With the improvement of Tax collection efficiency of priority
municipalities would mean additional Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA)
which can be used by each LGU to increase their spending on social
services particularly on livelihood, education and health.
2.
Technical Effects:
3.
Social and environmental effects:
It is expected that there would be an increased social awareness on
the value of paying taxes on time.
11. Significance of the project in the development plan of the host country:
a. Whether the project is included in the country’s development Plan?
YES
b. If yes, give brief description in the following:
1. Title of the Socio-economic development Plan:
Medium Term Philippine Development Plan (MTPDP)
2. Duration of the Development Plan: 2004-2010
3. Priority of the proposed project in the development plan
MTPDP strategically support the effort of the Department of
Education to Promoting School-Based Management. One of the strategic
partner of each school in improving school performance are the Local
Government Units (LGU) though the use of Special Education Fund (SEF)
MTPDP states that all policy initiatives and program interventions in
basic education depend mainly on the ability of the schools to make good
use of these resources in imparting knowledge to the students. Within this
framework, DepEd, in collaboration with all stakeholders in education,
shall:

Develop interventions to make schools continuously perform better
through improved teaching processes and greater support from
parents, LGUs and community organizations;

Encourage the schools to undertake self-evaluation, formulate their
own improvement plans, and determine the kinds and sources of
resources required to improve learning; and
14

Continue to reengineer its systems and procedures to maximize the
benefits that will go to the schools, e.g. procurement of goods and
services, financial management, payroll services, teacher welfare,
health and nutrition, alternative learning programs and management
information system.
12. Involvement of other countries or international organization in the project:
None
C. REQUIRED AID (INPUT) FROM KOICA
1. Dispatch of Korean experts
Priority Order
Field
School-Based
Management
Number of
Experts
1
Duration of
Service
1 year
Required
Services
Technical
assistance to
project
management
team
2. Technical training for your personnel in Korea
Priority Order
Field
Number of
Duration of
Trainees
Training
School
20 Principals
Management
5 selected
and supervision Supervisors
5 CO personnel
3.
4.
Provision of Equipment
Priority
Item
Quantity
Order
Desktop
1 each
computer
recipient
school
Purpose of
Use
For school
MIS
Construction or renovation of facilities
Priority Order
Name of Facilities
Required
Training
Contents
New trend in
school
Management
2 weeks
Specification
Complete set
with printer
Scale of
Construction
Estimated
Price (US$)
$1,700 each
unit
Purpose of Use
None
15
5. Others
Priority Order
D. PREPARATION OF HOST COUNTRY
1.
Mobilization of Personnel
Field
# of Personnel
Education
4
Duration of
Service
1 year
Major Activities
Manage the project
in coordination with
other offices
particularly field
offices
TOTAL
2.
Mobilization of Equipment
Item
Desktop Computer
Quantity
2
Purpose of Use
Communications, Monitoring and
evaluation and day to day operation
Total
3.
E.
Others (If other preparatory works is to be done, give brief description)
OTHER INFORMATION CONCERNING THE PROJECT
16