Teachers Supply and Demand in the Philippines.
Clementina Acedo, HDNED
The World Bank
Contents
I. Key Issues
1.1) Teacher education and competence: Pre-service
Proliferation of low quality teacher education institutions
Low quality intakes into teacher education
Most graduates from TEIs do not pass the licensing test
Teacher education graduates are weak in subject matter content
Lower quality of teacher graduates in elementary education teaching
programs
1.2) Relationship between teachers supply from training programs and school
needs
Shortage of teachers trained in mathematics and science, particularly in
physics and chemistry
Teachers teaching subjects for which they are not prepared
A deficient in-service program
1.3) Teacher allocation and teacher management
Teacher distribution problems: Potential shortfalls in remote poor areas,
and teacher surplus in some populated schools
Institutional obstacles to teacher management: The staffing rule and the
Magna Carta
II. Accomplishments with regard the EDCOM recommendations
2.1) Background:
(EDCOM)
The 1991 Congressional Commission on Education
2.2) Implementation of EDCOM recommendations regarding teaching
improvement
Strengthening regulations governing the practice of teaching
Adopting higher standards for admission to pre-service teacher education
programs
Establishing Centers of Excellence in teacher education
Scholarships for students of mathematics and science BSE
Two leading INSET experiences
Upgrading of teachers’ salaries
III. Policy recommendations
IV. Bibliography
1
Teachers Supply and Demand in the Philippines.
Teacher salaries in the Philippines have been substantially increased 1 with the
hope that this measure would make the profession more attractive and would contribute
to improving the quality of teachers. However, it has been shown in the literature that a
policy of higher salaries by itself without improving teacher education and establishing
higher standards does not have an effect on improving teaching effectiveness (Sedlak
and Schlossman 1986; Darling-Hammond 1998). Apparently, better students have
been enrolling in the Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSE) in the last years, but
besides from that there has not been significant improvement in the quality of teachers
in the Philippines after raising teacher salaries. One reason argued for the low quality
of teachers, are the years of neglect of and lack of attention at what happens at the
school level.2 But there are also serious reasons for the low performance of teachers,
both on the supply side of teacher education and on the demand side of schools’
teaching needs.
I. Key Issues
1.1) Teacher education and competence: Pre-Service
Proliferation of low quality teacher education institutions
Pre-service training in the Philippines is provided by Teacher Education
Institutions coordinated by the Commission for Higher Education (CHED). Teacher
Education Institutions (TEIs) have proliferated in recent years. Between 1996 and
1998, the number of TEIs nationwide rose from 750 to 815. About 70 percent of these
are private. This situation has resulted in the opening of low-quality programs that do
not meet minimum standards of accreditation. Of the 815 TEIs, only 27 percent
comply with the minimum standards established by CHED for Teacher Education.
Less that 20 percent of these institutions are availed by the national accreditation
system.3 The general lack of rationalization and low standards of the higher education
system typically affect the teacher education institutions, both in the public and the
private sector.4
The enrollment of students in public and private TEIs is equivalent. In 19961997, 49.9 percent of the students were enrolled in public institutions and 50.1 percent
were enrolled in private institutions. Female students comprise the majority both in
public (76 percent) and in private (80 percent) teacher institutions (CHED 1997)5.
There are 301,148 students enrolled in education, one of the three professional
Between 1985 and 1995, teachers’ compensation increased four-fold, and from then to 1998 they are
expected to raise another 35%. The last increased was in November, 1997, when the beginning monthly
salary was raised from 6,238 pesos to 9,499 pesos.
2
Nebres (1998) “Why Can’t We Attract Good Teachers?” CEO 3 rd Roundtable Discussion, Manila.
3
The national accreditation system is voluntary, that is, institutions chose to participate or not. The system
is lead by four independent agencies. Federation of Accrediting Associations of the Philippines, (1997),
Teacher Education Council, (1998).
4
From 750 institutions in 1996, 70% were private.
5
Commission of Higher Education (1997d) Statistical Bulletin. Academic year 1996-1997.
1
2
disciplines with the highest enrollments, as high as engineering and just after business
administration. The Teacher Education Institutions have so far produced more
graduates than required by the system. But the main problem is that the quality of the
teachers produced by these institutions is very low. The single most important factor
underlying the quality of basic education is the quality of teachers and this depends on
the quality of teacher education. Teacher education thus, is an area of urgent attention
in the Philippines.
Low quality of intakes into teacher education
The problem starts with the quality of intakes into teacher education. Only 25
percent of the high school seniors who passed the National Secondary Achievement
Test (NSAT) opted for teacher education as a career path (CHED 1997), meaning that
better students chose other career paths (CHED 1997). From those that start teacher
education programs, 71 percent complete the degrees. The other 29 percent drop out of
the program, mostly due to economic problems or lack of initial preference for teacher
education.
The main route by which a student in the Philippines can obtain a pre-service
qualification as an elementary teacher is through the Bachelor of Elementary Education
(BEE) degree and as a high school teacher through the Bachelor of Secondary
Education (BSE) degree. The BSE degree is usually taken with a major in a single high
school subject. The alternative way to obtain qualification as a teacher is to complete a
regular Arts or Science degree (BA or BS) and then to enroll at a College of Education
for an 18 unit program of professional education.6 Either route entitles the graduate to
sit the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).
The faculty staff qualifications is notably low both in terms of academic
preparation (only 7 percent have Ph.D.) and in terms of teaching experience (less than
half have taught before).7
Most of those graduating from TEIs do not pass the licensing test
Only 28 percent of Graduates of TEIs taking the Licensure Examination of
Teachers (LET) in 1996 passed. The proportion of passing graduates taken the
Philippines Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) from 1992-1995 was 24 percent.
In 1996, the PBET was replaced by the Licensure Exam for Teachers (LET) as an
attempt to raise the status of the teaching profession by incorporating equivalent
requirements and certifications as other professions, i.e. Board Exam for Lawyers (Ibe
1998). The combined PBET/LET from 1992-1996 was 27 percent. The difference
shown in 1996 does not necessarily mean an improvement but merely the change of test
6
The Teacher Professionalization Law (R.A. 7836) reduced the number of units of the professional
component of teacher education from 18 to 10 units, this measure was severely objected by the Philippine
Association for Teacher Education (PAFTE) at the Congressional hearings for the law, Teacher Education
Council (1998). We are not aware of its implementation yet.
7
Interview with Pre-Service Education Specialist, PROBE.
3
from PBET to LET (Survey of Performance of Schools in the PBET/LET, 1992-1996)
(Teacher Education Council 1998).
A comparison of the licensure test pass rates of different professions is
interesting. The pass rate for teachers exceeds only those for accountants (16 percent)
and dentists (25 percent). The highest pass rates were achieved by medical doctors (78
percent), pharmacists (65 percent) and metallurgical engineers (56 percent).8
Teacher education graduates are weak in subject matter content
The curriculum of both BEE and BSE degree programs has a heavy component
on general education (50 percent). This seems to be a compensatory measure for the
short years of basic education in the Philippines education system. From the other fifty
percent, about a third of the curriculum is devoted to professional courses and just
about 20 percent to specialization courses. The result thus, is that teacher education
graduates are in general quite weak on subject matter content (TEC, 1998).
Faculty members in the TEIs tend to have master’s degree, 90 percent of all
master’s degree are in education, but most of these teachers teach specialized courses
for which their MAs do not qualify them.9
Computers are utilized only in the TEIs located in wealthy urban centers (8 out of
10 institutions do not have computers or overhead projectors). Libraries are poorly
maintained and with outdated materials. Students rely mostly on handouts or lecture
notes. The majority of science laboratories are minimally equipped, even in the private
TEIs where student fees are quite low.
Lower quality of teacher graduates in elementary education teaching
programs
Two-thirds of the students enrolled in teacher education programs are in the
Bachelor of Elementary Education (BEE) while the remaining one third go to the
Bachelor of Secondary Education (BSE) degree program. At the beginning of the
1990s this pattern of preference tended to shift but by the end of the 1990s the trend
reversed again with higher enrollment in BEE degrees (3:1). An evaluation done in
1996 of the Professional Board Exam for Teachers (PBET), which used to be
administered by the Civil Service Commission, showed consistently better performance
of secondary school teachers as compared with elementary school teachers. This is
attributed to the fact that in the high school teachers curriculum, students take several
more subjects in the field of specialization (Ibe, 1998). Also, students consider BEE an
easier and cheaper option than the BSE, so students with lower preparation and
motivation tend to be attracted to the BEE degree. Besides, the reward is the same,
since salaries are equal for primary and secondary teachers. The low quality of
elementary school teachers is particularly worrisome if a priority concern for
8
9
See Johanson, (1999) “Higher Education in the Philippines.” TBP. No. 3.
It is interesting to note that 87% of the graduate programs in the country are in education.
4
elementary education is to improve student achievement. Teacher effectiveness is
recognized as a key element to improve student learning.
1.2) Relationship between teachers supply from training programs and school
needs
Shortage of teachers trained in mathematics and science, particularly in
physics and chemistry
Of those prospective teachers enrolled in BSE degrees, only 1.5 percent chose the
majors of mathematics and science. There are four BSE science programs (general
science, biology, chemistry and physics) and a single mathematics program. The
majority of universities focus on non-science BSE subjects and mathematics. The only
science major which is commonly offered in BSE programs is general science, which
prepares the teacher for the first year high school science curriculum. Programs which
prepare teachers for specialized science (biology, physics and chemistry, taught in
second, third and four school years) are only taught in a few institutions, in general in
the Centers of Excellence. (Somerset et al. 1998). This results in a general shortage of
teachers in priority areas such as mathematics and sciences, and within sciences,
especially in the specialization majors of physics and chemistry.
Teachers teaching subjects for which they are not prepared
A 1992 survey conducted by DECS showed that 45 percent of teachers teaching
mathematics were non-specialists. The proportions were even worse for science
teachers: 60 percent of general science teachers, 59 percent of biology teachers, 79
percent of biology teachers and 82 percent of physics teachers were non-major in the
subjects they were teaching (DECS 1998).10
Besides this general shortage of teachers in these key areas, there is a lack of fit
between the formal qualifications of mathematics and science high school teachers and
the demands of the high school curriculum. In the sample of BSE programs studied by
Somerset, Alfafara et alias in Central Visayas, mathematics and biology teachers were
in adequate supply, but there were shortages of chemistry and physics teachers and a
substantial oversupply of general science teachers. General science teachers were
teaching physics or chemistry, areas for which they were not specifically trained, and
many mathematics teachers, who could easily teach physics were unwilling to do so.
These patterns are a legacy of the low enrollments in mathematics and science in preservice training programs. Very recently a targeted scholarships program in the teacher
education colleges is beginning to correct the problem. (Somerset et al. 1998, p. 21).
10
DECS “Masterplan for Continuing In-Service Training” (1998)
5
A deficient in-service program
The in-service teacher training program, referred to as is INSET, is coordinated
by DECS (Staff Development Departments of the Bureaus of Elementary Education
and Secondary Education). The INSET program is based on a top-down, “cascade”
model that rarely addresses the real needs of classroom teachers and uses outdated
materials.11 Also, most INSET courses are one-time courses taught away from the
school context. There are important exceptions, such as the PROBE program and
UNICEF’s in-service training program for teachers in multi-grade schools. However,
with a pre-service system where prospective teachers are ill prepared in terms of subject
matter and only have 13 units of their course work load as teaching practice, the inservice preparation and support system for young teachers is extremely important.
This weak exposure that student teachers have to actual classroom situation
translates into poor classroom teaching methods: “many classrooms appear to be
operating in a very authoritarian, undemocratic, teacher-centered, hierarchical fashion”
(Brigham 1998). Other identified ineffective teacher practices include: teacher
dependence on guides and manuals; heavy emphasis on recall and repetition rather than
understanding; learning environments that elicit passive pupil behavior; underdevelopment of pupil problem-solving skills; lack of attention to individual learning
needs; and under-use of group methods to foster cooperative learning.12
Teachers have identified priority training needs which their pre-service education
has failed to meet, including the need for greater subject content; specific pedagogic
training, applicable to the subject they teach; knowledge and methods of student
assessment; and classroom management techniques. Also, teachers who teach multigrade classes feel overwhelmed by the lack of specific pedagogic preparation needed to
perform effectively in a multi-grade environment.13
There is a consensus that in-service training (INSET) programs have not been
adapted to teachers’ needs. Responding to this concern, DECS has transferred the
implementation of INSET to the divisional level and is willing to push it down further
to the school level. New expressed objectives of INSET are the following:
improvement in subject area teaching; upgrading teaching competencies in pre-school
education, multi-grade teaching and assessment at the classroom level, and capacitybuilding for head teachers and principals in order to properly assess teachers’
performance (DECS 1998d). Some of these needs will be addressed in the INSET
training under TEEP. Instructional supervision should be enforced at the school level
with the joint work of master and experienced teachers, the principal and trained
teachers. Methods for instructional supervision include classroom observations,
coaching, team teaching and observation of experienced and co-trained teachers.
11
From Regel (1998), and interviews.
Taguiwalo, (1993) Background paper for TEEP, p. 46.
13
Idem. Interviews with Decs administrators staff bureaus, PROBE inservice specialist, and teachers.
12
6
1.3) Teacher allocation and teacher management
Teacher distribution
Although there is no absolute shortage of teachers, there are distributional
problems that create shortfalls in specific locations, particularly in remote poor areas,
and teachers not teaching in some populated schools
The student-teacher ratio is 1:34 but the average class size is much larger, 41 in
elementary education and 50 in secondary education. This does not seem to be a
serious problem either for student achievement or for cost–efficiency considerations,
but there are distributional disparities that lead to inequities in the system. For instance,
region-wide average class sizes in elementary education range from 50 in NCR to 33
and 34 in region 1 and CAR respectively. Schools in urban areas tend to have more
resources, more students, and therefore attract more teachers. Schools in sparsely
populated, as well as remote rural communities are less well-endowed and tend to be
smaller and incomplete, have fewer teachers and, in most instances, are headed by nonprincipals. There are many more teachers on the pay roll than there are teachers
teaching. In urban widely populated schools, often many teachers are fulfilling nonteaching functions, like clerical or administrative ones.
Institutional obstacles to teacher management: the staffing rule and the
Magna Carta
DECS is the biggest single employer of teachers, employing 326,970 teachers for
elementary education, 20,572 supervisory staff (principals, head teachers, counselors)
and 13,034 administrative and support staff 14. More than 80 percent of the education
budget of DECS is devoted to teachers’ salaries. This leaves very little room for
improvement in other areas of education, but teachers are the key factor in education
delivery and the student-teachers ratio is relatively high and not particularly inefficient
in comparison to other countries. There are, however, inefficiencies in the deployment
of teachers than can be corrected by eliminating some of the obstacles of staffing and
placement policies and, at the same time, by creating an incentive structure that would
attract good teachers where they are most needed.
The basis of staff administration policies in public school needs to be revised.
Due to the fact that the school system has been growing continuously in size, due to
population growth and expansion of the education system, staff administration policy
has focussed largely on allocating the additional staff needed each year. The allocation
of new teachers has not necessarily responded to actual need but mostly to bureaucratic
requirements. The staffing norm is based on student enrollments, that is, the number of
students is the basis for establishing another class section and appointing another
teacher. The relationship is one to 40 (more than 40 students entitles a school to
another section and therefore another teacher). When enrollments decline, however,
schools resist losing teachers. The reasons being that the staffing rule generates wrong
incentives. For instance, a principal’s rank depends on the number of teachers in the
14
1997 data. DECS, Statistical Unit.
7
school. So principals in schools with high enrollments in urban areas exert pressure on
superintendents to allocate more teachers to their schools. It is common then to assign
teachers to non-teaching jobs rather than reducing actual classes. Many teachers are
used as clerks, supply officers and maintenance persons.
Another obstacle to teacher management is the “Magna Carta for Teachers,”
enacted in 1966 and put into practice in 1967 under a very centralized management
system. The Magna Carta rules that no teacher can be transferred from “one station to
another” without his or her express consent. Even when the “exigencies of the service”
would allow a divisional superintendent, district supervisor or school principal to
decide the transfer of a teacher, the affected teachers can appeal the decision. The
process becomes so difficult and time-consuming that most DECS officials are
discouraged from even initiating such actions. The purpose of the Magna Carta was to
protect public school teachers from capricious action by schools heads and DECS
officials but the unintended consequence is that it restricts the ability of local education
authorities to deploy teachers in order to meet local needs or respond to demographic
changes. Teachers want to remain where they are assigned, except when they are
assigned to the most difficult posts. Young teachers, on the other hand, are assigned to
the most difficult posts without adequate support and incentive. As soon as they can,
they relocate to less difficult posts.
A revision of the Magna Carta for Teachers and an assessment of existing
staffing rules would be needed to give greater flexibility and make more efficient use of
teachers. The current policy of allocating teachers, according to enrollments and
assigning school head rank according to teacher numbers have created a number of
unintended behaviors, e.g. padding enrollment data, under-reporting dropouts,
condoning classes that are too small and using teachers for non teaching jobs.
Due partly to poor teacher deployment of this centrally managed system and to
the weakness of the local authorities to influence teacher placement and assignment,
divisions and municipalities tend to manage shortages by locally hiring supplementary
teachers, according to local preferences and school needs. These teachers hired by the
school boards while are paid less (because the salary comes from local sources) tend to
have similar qualifications than teachers recruited by DECS. Whereas this practice
may currently disadvantage locally hired teachers, the move towards greater autonomy
on the part of local schools and school boards and increased power to hire, fire and pay
teachers according to local preferences and local market conditions sets a precedent that
could be extended over time to cover all teachers. This would allow and promote real
school-based management and tend to improve efficiency in the basic education
system.
8
II. Accomplishments with regard the EDCOM recommendations
2.1) Background: The 1991 Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM)
In 1988 the World Bank assisted the Department of Education, Culture and
Sports (DECS) to carry out a study of the education and training sector. This study was
meant to contribute ideas for reform to the newly-restored democratic Government of
the Philippines. A new Constitution was ratified that placed fundamental importance to
education to the point of including a provision that mandated the State to “assign the
highest budgetary priority to education.” Since then the Government has undertaken a
number of important steps.
Since 1988, there have been other studies undertaken by other donors, the
Government and civil society. The Congressional Commission on Education
(EDCOM) was probably the most influential one15. EDCOM comprehensive report
served as a framework for a wide range of policy actions, including legislation for the
new institutional framework of the educational sector. This new institutional
framework was the so-called “tri-focalization” of education that divided the
responsibilities of the education sector into three main agencies DECS, that would
devote itself only to improve the access and raise the quality of basic education, the
Commission of Higher Education (CHED) and the Technical Education and Skills
Development Authority (TESDA). Previously the three responsibilities were under
DECS.
EDCOM resulted in a number of executive instructions and major reforms.
These included, a series of salaries increases for teachers over the period of 1993 to
1997, increasing the total number of classroom contact hours in basic education. More
recently, de-concentration of education functions from the regional level to the
provincial and district levels and devolutions of specific functions to the local
governments.
EDCOM recommendations for improving teacher effectiveness were numerous.
These included strengthening regulations governing the practice of teaching, adopting
higher standards for admissions to teacher education programs, establishing Centers of
Excellence in teacher education, scholarships for student-teachers for mathematics and
science, upgrading of teachers salaries, identification of primary and secondary
excelling leading schools to be used as role models, etc.
In the first five years seven out of twelve legislative recommendations were
passed into laws. Three of these concerned teachers. Several other EDCOM policy
recommendations affecting teachers were also implemented either fully or partially. In
this section, we include the major EDCOM recommendations, consequent laws or
changes in policy and, finally some background information and evaluation of the
implementation.
15
Congressional Commission on Education (1993), Making Education Work.
9
2.2) Implementation
improvement
of
EDCOM
recommendations
regarding
teaching
Strengthening regulations governing the practice of teaching
In 1994, RA 7836 established the Licensure Examination for Teachers (LET).
Implementation began in 1996, covering the professional practice of all teachers under
the Professional Regulation Commission. This examination replaced the Professional
Board Examination for Teachers (PBET) previously administered only for teachers in
public schools by the Civil Service Commission. The idea was to raise the standard of
the teaching profession, putting it a par with other professions. Some of the advantages
of the new test, as compared with the old, are spelled out in the following table:
PBET
Civil Service Commission
Certified a teacher for life
The same test was given to both
elementary and high school.
Allowed unlimited number of retakes
The PBET was used only to assess public
school teachers
LET
Professional Regulation Commission
The license is only good for three years,
after which the teacher must renew the
license or produce evidence that she/he
has grown professionally
Different tests for elementary and
secondary school teachers
Efforts are being made to convince the
Professional Regulation Commission to
accept the fact that three failures in the
exam indicate a need for additional
courses (as for most other professions)
The LET applies to all teachers and is
also used to gauge the performance of
schools16
Source: Ibe, 1998.
An evaluation of PBET results showed that, over the years, many students would
take the test but their answers to questions were blank. The reason for this was based
on a provision of the Magna Carta of 1966, that states that teachers who have taught for
10 consecutive years are given the option to forego taking the exam and nevertheless
become certified teachers. Many teachers then, would start teaching without the
needed qualifications and without passing the test under an “emergency credential” and
become certified teachers in 10 years without having shown any improvement or
upgrading of their teaching skills and knowledge. Also some teachers would go into
private schools first, since these school did not require taking the exam and then switch
to public schools. This is still a common practice since not all private schools enforce
16
There is a present attempt to freeze new admissions to schools that have not had more than one percent of
recent graduates pass the LET. Right now there is no authority in the country that can close teacher
training institutions. This would be a first step towards the closure of institutes with constant poor
standards.
10
taking the LET and public schools in general pay higher salaries. The LET cut off
grade is still low and nevertheless only 28 percent of graduates pass the licensure
examination.
Adopting higher standards for admission to pre-service teacher education
programs
No formal change in standards for admission to teacher education programs has
been made. There is a suggestion for stricter screening of incoming students into
teacher education. This suggestion is based on the fact that when the NCEE was still
administered, and teacher education required an admission criterion of at least 60
percentile, students admitted under this criterion performed rather well in the licensure
examination. Given the fact that TEIs are producing more graduates than needed by the
system and that 74 percent of them do not pass the LET, it seems important to limit the
admission of students based on a screening test that could also later influence better
outcomes in terms of teacher quality. To include screening for aptitude and motivation
is a more complicated matter that could inhibit the fairness of the admission process
and the possibility of a diverse pool of teachers.
Establishing Centers of Excellence in teacher education
In August 1994, the RA 7784 instituted the Teacher Education Council, which
would establish criteria to base the selection of teacher education institutions as Centers
of Excellence, and created a seed fund of P100 million for development activities in
these Centers of Excellence (Taguiwalo 1999). The established criteria for identifying
schools as Centers of Excellence were: a) that they implemented their mandate, that
was, to provide “highly educated, professionally qualified and experienced faculty,” b)
well-selected students, c) adequate library, research and study facilities, d) competent
administrative and support staff, e) well planned and relevant curriculum, f) adequate
student development programs, g) percentage of graduates who became teachers.
These criteria were translated by CHED into:
Criteria for selection of Centers of Excellence
Level of accreditation
Years as Regional Science and
Technology Center
Original Normal School
In a University Setting
No of PBET takers (changed after 1996
to LET)
PBET passing rate for 5 years
Ranking of schools based on EDCOM
study
Source: CHED 199817
17
30 points
10 “
10
10
10
“
“
“
30
10
“
“
Interview with CHED official.
11
Presently, there are 21 Centers of Excellence, 9 public and 10 private. There is at
least one center in each region and the maximum number of centers of excellence that
one region has so far is three, this only in region VII. An evaluation of PBET results
helped to establish a ranking of teaching training schools (Ibe 1998). The private
sectarian schools in Metro Manila had the highest scores, second in rank were the state
colleges and universities in Metro Manila. State colleges and universities in the
provinces ranked 6th . The 9 original Normal Schools in the country ranked among the
best teacher-training colleges, most of them have been converted to state colleges and
universities. While these schools are the ones that produce quality teachers they do not
produce a sufficient number of mathematics and science majors. This ranking was one
of the original basis for identifying centers of excellence for teacher education, which
have been identified to provide a steady stream of qualified teachers in the market.
The number of students holding scholarships for pre-service instruction in centers
of excellence is 766 for 1996-1997 and 840 for 1997-1998. The number of faculty
benefiting from faculty development scholars is 96. The total budget is P 47,289,150.45
of which 90 percent is devoted to the scholarship program. (CHED, 1998). There is a
consensus on the benefits of these centers as well as on the positive effect of the
scholarships programs to improve enrollments in priority areas as well as to improve
general teacher qualifications in pre-service.
Scholarships for students of math and science BSE
It is clear from the analysis of Somerset et al (1998) that in general BSE programs
have not been attractive to students. In the Silliman University, in which five BSE
programs were considered, there were on average only about three students per year in
each subject, and even less in chemistry and physics. Over the past two years due to the
impact of two scholarship programs there has been a striking rise of intakes. Whereas
without the scholarship program, there were one student in forth-year and 8 students in
third-year; with the scholarship program in first-year and second-year the cohorts are
made up of 17 and 29 students, respectively. These scholarship programs started in
1996-1997 by the Commission of Higher Education (CHED) program and the PROBE
program.
CHED scholars receive a contribution towards their tuition fees of 3,500 pesos per
semester, which reduces the University fee of P 8,500 – P 10,000 to P 5,000- P 6,500.
There is also a living allowance of P 1,500 per month. CHED tends to attract more
science applicants because the standard fee is about P 3,000 higher than those for nonscience programs.
The PROBE program is financially more generous -- scholars receive full tuition
cost plus living allowance of P 2,500, but it is more restricted in its coverage. There are
only two PROBE science/mathematics scholars at Silliman University this year. The
formal criterion for acceptance is a score at or above 60th percentile. Most CHED and
PROBE scholars come from lower and middle income families, so without the assistance
provided by these scholarship programs it is doubtful that any of these 25 students would
have enrolled for the BSE program. The College of Education requires that the scholars
12
maintain a minimum honors-point average, that is, 2.3. Only one student has not met this
requirement. From the rest, only five have achieved mean HPAs of 3.25 or better.
The scholarship programs of the University of San Carlos analyzed by the same
authors show similar outputs. Financial support comes from three sources: Department
of Science and Technology DOST (18 double-major students); CHED, (28 double-major
and 22 in single major programs); and STEPS (17 full scholarships for the first year and
supplemented support for 18 DOST scholars.) For the second year, STEPS supplemented
the support provided to 28 CHED and 5 DOST scholars.
Table 1: Expected outputs of science and mathematics BSE graduates, at six
institutions, year 1997-1998.
Subject
Centers of Excellence
Sill USJ USC Total
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
5
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
General Science
Biology +
Chemistry
13
0
Total 1
Source: Somerset at al. 1998, p.20.
14
Other Institutions
UV UC
CSC Total
24
35
27
86
1
1
21
19
11
51
-
Total
45
152
54
39
138
92
0
0
2
53
5
The graduates in Table 1 started their programs before the new scholarship
programs funded by CHED and other institutions at the Centers of Excellence were
initiated. Before the scholarships programs started the pattern of enrollment had not
improved the teacher supply for the areas in which most science teachers were needed.
Of 152 students to graduate from math and science BSE degrees, only two would have
majored in biology, 5 in the double majors of chemistry and biology, and none in physics
or chemistry. The remaining 95 percent of the total group would have majored in
mathematics (92) and general science (53), which was the current pattern. Also, of the
152 math and science graduates, only 9 percent would graduate from the three Centers of
Excellence. The reason is that the Centers of Excellence have tuitions twice as much
higher than other Universities. Given these patterns, plus the fact that the Centers of
Excellence are the only training institutions in the region offering BSE degrees in the
shortage subjects, “it is evident that initiatives to lower economic barriers to recruitment
must be a key component of any strategy to produce more teachers in these fields” (p.24).
This recommendation must have been heard since most CHED scholarships for this year
will be given to students enrolled in Centers of Excellence.
The impact of the scholarship programs in enrollments is shown in Table 2.
13
Table 2: BSE mathematics/science programs at the three Centers of
Excellence. Region VII, 1997-1998, first-year and fourth-year enrolments
Subject
Fourth-year enrolments
(graduation 1998)
Sill USJ USC Total
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
5
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Gen. Science
Biology +
Chemistry
Physics +
Mathematics
Physics +
Chemistry
0
Total 1 13
Source: Somerset et al., 1998, p. 24.
First-year enrolments
(graduation 2001)
Sill USJ USC Total
4
6
15
25
2
0
2
0
0
5
10
15
6
3
9
1
1
-
-
17
17
-
-
-
16
16
14
17
10
58
85
Table 2 compares enrollments of fourth-year students (few of whom received
scholarship support) with enrollments of first-year students (most of whom received
scholarship support).
The impact of the program is particularly strong in University of San Carlos where
the two new double-major programs have attracted substantial enrollments. This is not
surprising given the full financial support provided in this University by the combination
of CHED,DOST and STEPS scholarships. Somerset's evaluation of the scholarship
programs concludes by recommending further but more focalized scholarship programs:
The scholarship programs will provide an increase of qualify teachers in the highshortage subjects of physics and chemistry. However this increase will be insufficient to
meet the needs of the high schools in the short and medium term. The study also suggests
that the program would have a stronger impact if priority in the allocation of
scholarships were given to students enrolling in physics or chemistry programs with a
second priority to those enrolling mathematics and biology. Evidence does not justify
providing support to general sciences recruits. Highest priority however, should be given
to those taking the programs that combine the two high-shortage subjects, that is double
qualification in physics and chemistry. These graduates would be highly demanded in
any high school, but would be specially valuable in smaller schools where the teaching
loads are too light to justify the appointment of single subjects specialists. Finally, these
programs should increase both their geographical scope (teachers and students in
isolated schools did not know the availability of the scholarships) and there should be an
active promotion between the recruiting university and the high schools. (Somerset et al.,
1998, pp. 20- 28)
14
Two leading INSET experiences
Even though government inset programs tend to be deficient, two leading INSET
experiences deserve to be mentioned as demonstration cases:
1) The UNICEF/UNDP Multi-grade Program in Philippine Education, known as
MPPE, has been implemented by DECS since 1993, under the assistance of UNICEF
and UNDP. MPPE under UNICEF' s Fourth Country Program for Children (CPC IV)
had the following objectives: a) producing instructional guides and prototype
instructional materials for dissemination to teachers and students in selected areas in 1994
and 1995; b) training five trainers per selected region in 1994, and a total of 6,000
teachers from 1994 to 1998; and c) providing improved multi-grade instruction to a total
of 180,000 students from 1995 to 1998. MPPE has the following components: a)
development and production of instructional package for multi-grade teachers, b)
development and production of pupils' self-learning materials, c) training of trainers,
supervisors and teachers of multi-grade instruction d) monitoring, supervision and
research/evaluation of multi-grade classes and the multi-grade program as a whole.
MPPE is currently being implemented in 32 provinces and one city in the Philippines.
In 1996, UNICEF commissioned SEAMEO INNOTECH to evaluate MPPE18. One
of the conclusions reached is that the multi-grade program seems to be the most effective
intervention program to address the small and incomplete public elementary education in
the poorest and most remote areas of the country. However, mostly young teachers are
sent on their first assignment to this demanding teaching environment. Therefore, rather
than perceiving this job as a challenge or opportunity to be creative or innovative,
teachers see this as a burden that they would avoid if possible. These young teachers,
thus, try to be relocated as soon as they can to single-grade classes and in general to
urban areas. This high turnover makes the training effort inefficient and constant training
of new teachers is needed (p. 5).
The materials seem to be the single most appreciated part of the program by the
trainees. There are two types of materials: (a) The ‘multi-grade instructional package’
for trainees, that is for teachers, school administrators and supervisors. These materials
are particularly valued by the teachers because they reduce the number of hours that
teachers have to put into developing lesson plans (a few teachers trained complained that
they did not receive the materials and had to xerox the lesson plans for their own use).
(b) Equally important were the ‘self-instructional multi-level materials’ for students
because they provide desk work activities “for remediation, reinforcement or enrichment
of new learning based on the pupil’s ability level” (p. 8). These materials made the
classes more interesting for students who can teach themselves, the fast learners can
cooperate with the other students and they are useful in helping the teacher to manage the
class. Also since there is a general lack of teaching materials, teaching aids, school
supplies, like pens, pencil, paper, notebooks, such learning materials become extremely
important.
18
Barsaga, Eligio and Lacuesta, Debbie. 1996. An Evaluation of the Multigrade Program in Philippine
Education. UNICEF/SAMEO INNOTECH, Manila.
15
Dropouts seem to have been reduced, even though students still become absent
during plantation or harvesting periods. The "multi-level materials" have helped to
improve student learning in particular for the lowest levels. Specially in grade II, multigrade students achieve better learning outcomes that students in single grade classrooms.
There seems to be not much difference however on student achievement for the higher
grades. Monitoring and supervision continues to be a problem.
2) The Philippine-Australian Project to Improve Basic Education, known as
PROBE established lead schools for in-service teachers’ training in three regions under
the assistance of AusAid. This is the most complex and interesting in-service experiment
in the Philippines today. PROBE supports education in English, Mathematics and
Science in 588 elementary schools and in 300 secondary schools in Regions II, VII, IX,
X, and Caraga. This includes 12,000 teachers and 420,000 students in elementary
education and 10,400 teachers and 300,000 students in secondary education. It focuses
on: Grades 1-6 & Years 1-4 in English; Grades 5-6 & Years 1-2 in Mathematics and
same in Science.
Two strategies lie at the heart of PROBE: a) The establishment of Teacher Support
Units (TSUs) which provide well-equipped resource bases for teachers in in-service
training, and b) The appointment of selected teachers as In-service Facilitators (ISFs),
that constitute the essential human resource that provides direct support, encouragement
and training of teachers. There are TSUs in 98 Elementary lead Schools and in the 50
Divisional Leader Schools. 346 teachers have been selected as In-service Facilitators
after receiving training at the University of Queensland in Australia. PROBE is a joint
venture that includes EDPITAF, DECS, the Bureau of Secondary Education, the Bureau
of Elementary Education and AusAID through GRM International.
Upgrading of teachers’ salaries
The secondary school system before 1986 was much more diverse that it is today.
This variation was not just between the public and private sectors but also within the
public sector itself. Schools differed by source of finance. There were nationally-funded
schools and locally funded schools. The nationally-funded schools were of two types,
those administered by DECS and those attached to state universities and colleges. The
locally-funded schools were of four types, three financed by provincial, city and
municipal governments and one -- the barangay school -- financed by local communities
with financial transfers from the central government. This implied a wider variation in
teacher’s salaries, too. This diversity in the public sector disappeared with the
nationalization of the salaries of teachers in local schools and the abolition in 1988 of
tuition fees in all public schools. (WB, 1988, p. 28). A desire to narrow the wide
disparities in the system (despite government subsides to poorer local schools) was
probably the reason for the shift in the policies since 1986 to the nationalization of the
salaries of local school teachers.
16
Source: OECD, 1999
Salary standardization laws have raised teachers’ salaries substantially. Between
1986 and 1995, teachers’ compensation increased four-fold, and from then to 1998 they
are expected to raise another 35%. The last increased was in November, 1997, when the
beginning monthly salary which used to be 6,238 pesos was raised to 9,499 pesos. The
salary standardization laws have increased teachers salaries in public schools and have
equalized the salaries within different regions and between primary and secondary
teachers.
A comparison of teacher salaries by countries shows some interesting results: (i) The
ratio of starting salary in the Philippines is the highest of all the countries considered.
When comparing the Philippines with other Asian countries the difference is extreme and
even higher than Korea, it is higher than Latin American and OECD countries, as well.
Only Jordan has similar starting salary with respect to GDP per-capita. (ii) The other
interesting finding is that in the Philippines, there is almost no increase of salary after 15
years of experience. If you compare with other countries with initially high salaries with
respect GDP per-capita, salaries after 15 years almost double (Korea and Jordan). The
case of the Philippines shows that there is little room for improvement in terms of
creating teacher incentives, since initial salary is so high. Even years of experience will
be little rewarded. The other distinctive feature of the Philippine system is that it pays
the same salary to primary and secondary teachers even though the required
qualifications are not the same. A chart of secondary teachers salaries for the same
countries shows a similar distribution, with the exception that salaries of secondary
school teachers are higher than salaries of primary school teachers. The only Asian
country for which this is not the case is the Philippines.
What started as an important policy to eliminate wide disparities within regions,
districts and local governments has become an obstacle for further improvement of
teacher quality.
Some salary discrimination is needed, particularly linked to
17
performance, qualification, added responsibilities in schools and professional
development. The recent policy of moving the entire pay structure upward, in order to
make the teaching profession more attractive to more qualified applicants and better
teachers, without differentiating among teachers according to what they know and do, do
not elicit greater effort from the current teacher force.
Another consequence of the public upgrading of salaries is that in general public
school teachers earn more than private school teachers, with the exception of the national
Capital Region were private schools have raised salaries to a slightly higher level than
public ones probably to adjust for the cost of living.
Table: Salaries of Private and Public School Teachers.
(Average monthly salary for 1997 in pesos)
Philippines Nation-wide
Elementary
High School
National Capital Region
Elementary
High School
Public
Private
Public/Private
8,930
8,930
4,967
5,412
1.80
1.65
8,930
8,930
10,300
10,900
0.87
0.82
Sources: For salaries of public teachers, GOP, National Budget Circular No. 458 Series, 1997b; for
salaries of private teachers, Catholic Education Association of the Philippines Survey, 1997.
The EDCOM recommendations include some vague references to linking teacher
promotion to learning outcomes in an effort to make teachers and schools accountable. A
more complete set of standards on teacher performance and professional development
needs to be attached to the promotion of teachers and teacher compensation, a more clear
incentive structure is necessary for the further professionalization of teachers in the
Philippines. For instance, setting aside a small share of the total education budget (1-2
percent) for special bonuses that reward schools and their teachers for outstanding
performance would be an incentive that teachers and schools principals would respond to.
18
III. Policy recommendations
Teachers' compensation is the largest expenditure item in basic education.
Improving teacher effectiveness thus constitutes the major step towards improved
efficiency in the sector. Also the single most important factor to improve quality of
basic education is teacher effectiveness, therefore a systemic efforts to rationalize and
improve quality of education have to take into consideration better teacher management
and training.
As it was previously mentioned the major problems with teachers in the
Philippines is not a shortage in absolute numbers. There major problems are two: (i)
sub-optimal deployment of teachers (e.g. lack of teachers in difficult post, large number
of teachers currently assigned to administrative, non teaching jobs, teachers teaching
subjects for which they are not prepared) and (ii) inadequate preparation of teachers
themselves. Many of those entering the teaching profession, as well as many already
teaching are not up to the task of delivering to students the full content of the
curriculum, or the skills they will need for the next level of education or when they
enter the labor force.
In support of the diagnosis that poor education quality in the Philippines is
attributable to poor teacher quality, the 1991 EDCOM recommendations included
important measures to enhance teacher effectiveness -- imposing higher admission
requirements for pre-service teacher education; establishing centers of excellence for
teacher education to attract the best candidates; providing targeted scholarships for
mathematics and science teacher education; establishing periodic licensure tests to
qualify college graduates to teach and to determine promotions, improving and
establishing teacher benefits, etc. If successfully implemented and maintained over
time, these measures can go a long way towards improving teacher effectiveness, but
more basic changes will be needed.
First, it is important to let teachers teach, that is to make teaching their primary
activity eliminating present distractions that remove teachers from the classrooms under
regular basis. These include the current practice of assigning teachers to administrative
and clerical functions in schools and local district offices, involving teachers in school
fund raising activities in school hours, and the tradition of heavily engaging teachers in
the electoral process.
Second, expand the mandate of local school boards (beyond the administration of
the Special Education Fund, which is their only responsibility today)19 to include
decision making over teacher deployment, promotions and incentives seems holds
promise for the improvement of the quality of teaching. In order to increase both
quality and the internal efficiency of the basic education sector more power should be
devolved to the local school boards (LSBs), especially redirecting DECS budget and
the functions of placement and deployment of teachers, so as to reflect more closely the
19
The Special Education Fund (SEF) consists of locally raise funds for basic education coming from a levy
of real state in every division and municipality. The SEF is primarily devoted to construction, repair and
maintenance of school buildings and facilities, extension classes and sporting activities.
19
circumstances and aspirations of particular communities and schools. There are limits
to the power of school boards giving the fact that teachers belong to the national civil
service and minimum qualification standards are set centrally by DECS, but within
these parameters there is scope for greater local autonomy, participation and
responsibility. For instance, school principals should be empowered and provided with
needed training and incentives to develop their managerial capacity and motivation to
foster a more student-center school environment focussed on learning. They should
also support their teachers to improve and consider relevant in-service school cluster
based training options.
Third, incentive schemes to produce desired behaviors in teachers. Start teacher
salary in the Philippines is relative high in comparison to comparable countries in the
region. However, the pay structure does not discriminate among teachers according to
what they know and do. Future structural changes in teachers pay must raise the top
end of the scale in order to widen the scale and create incentives. Widening the pay
structure within grade levels will allow differentiation among teachers by competencies
and performance.
Additionally, setting aside a small share of the total education budget (1-2
percent) for special bonuses that reward schools and their teachers for outstanding
performance would be an incentive that teachers and school principals will respond to.
For instance, bonuses could be paid to schools where a high percentage of teachers
complete recommended in-service training programs, especially in mathematics and
science instruction; to schools where teachers missed very few school days; and to
those where students perform better in value-added terms on standardized achievement
tests. A key requirement to make this reward system work is to determine carefully
what results are valued (learning achievement, broader student artistic or atletic
development, inclucating moral values and citizenship) to measure and reward those.
Another important element is to include a correction for poorer schools and family
income level in order not to discriminate less favored schools. (Mizala and Romaguera
1999, Odden 1997).
20
Bibliography
Arcelo, Adriano A. 1997. “Private Education in the Philippines.” FAPE, Manila.
Arellano, Busto V. 1991. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government
Code of 1991, Republic Act No. 7160. Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1993. Philippines Nonformal Education Project (Loan 1254PHI). Appraisal Report. Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1998a. “Compendium of Social Statistics in the Philippines.”
Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1998b. Financing Education in Developing Asia: Patterns
Trends and Policy Implications.” Regional Education Seminar. Manila.
Asian Institute of Management. 1998a. “Is the Education System up the Task of
Competitiveness? Investing in Education: What Should the Estrada
Administration Do to Improve Philippine Education?” A Policy Report prepared
by the Washington SyCip Policy Forum of the Asian Institute of Management
together with the CEO Forum on Education. Manila
Asian Institute of Management. 1998b. “Notes for the CEO Forum on Education.”
Manila.
Barsaga, Eligio and Debbie Lacuesta. 1996. An Evaluation of the Multigrade Program
in Philippine Education. UNICEF/SAMEO INNOTECH, Manila.
Barsaga, Eligio B. 1998. “An Overview of the Performance of the Education Sector in
the Philippines.” Washington SyCip Policy Forum of the Asian Institute of
Management. May, 1998. Manila.
Carnoy, Martin and Michel Welmond. 1996. “Do Teachers Get Paid too Much? A
Worldwide Comparison of Teacher Pay.” Draft.
Carnoy, Martin et al. 1996. Impact of Structural Training of Teachers. ILO. Geneva.
Catholic Education Association of the Philippines. 1997. Survey. Manila.
Commission of Higher Education. 1998. Survey of Performance of Schools in the
PBET/LET, 1992-1996
Commission of Higher Education. 1997a. Statistical Bulletin. 1996-1997. Manila..
Commission on Higher Education. 1997b. 1998 Performance Commitments. Manila.
Commission on Higher Education. 1997c. Action Plan for 1998. Manila.
Commission on Higher Education. 1997d. CHED Statistical Bulletin. Manila.
21
Congressional Commission on Education. 1993. Making Education Work: An Agenda
for Reform. Congress of the Republic of the Philippines. Quezon City,
Philippines.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. Various years. DECS Statistical Bulletin.
Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1996a. Master Plan for Basic Education
(1996-2005): Modernizing Philippine Education. Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1996b. Studies on Functional Education
and Literacy. University of the Philippines Center for Integrative and
Development Studies. Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1997. Modernizing Philippine Education.
Revised Master Plan for Basic Education, 1998-2005: Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1998a. “Asia/Pacific Literacy Database.”
Report submitted to the Asia/Pacific Cultural Center for UNESCO. Philippines.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1998b. Budget Proposal CY 1999.
Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1998c. Fact Sheet. Office of Planning
Service. Manila.
Department of Education, Culture and Sports. 1998d. “Master Plan for Continuing InService Training”. Manila.
Department of Labor and Employment. 1997. 1996 Yearbook of Labor Statistics.
Manila.
Department of Science and Technology. 1997. Engineering and Science Education
Project (ESEO) II : A Project Proposal. Manila.
Department of Science and Technology. 1998. “Science Education and Training on the
Philippines.” Paper. Manila.
Development Academy of the Philippines. 1997. “Policies, Trends and Issues in
Philippine Education.” UNESCO. Bangkok, Thailand.
Federation of Accrediting Associations of the Philippines, 1997.
Filmer, Deon and Lant Pritchett. 1998a. “The Effect of Household Wealth on
Educational Attainment around the World:
Demographic and Health Survey
Evidence.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 1980. World Bank. Washington,
D.C.
22
Filmer, Deon and Lant Pritchett. 1998b. “Estimating Wealth Effects without
Expenditure Data – or Tears.” Policy Research Working Paper No. 1994. World
Bank. Washington, D.C.
Fund for Assistance to Private Education. 1995. FAPE Survey 1994-1995. Manila.
Fund for Assistance to Private Education. 1997. “Study of Tracer Study of 1995 Higher
Education Graduates.” Manila
Gonzalez, Andrew. 1998. Reforms and Innovations in Basic Education. Keynote
Address at 1998 NCR Educators’ Congress. Manila
Gonzalez, C.T. and C.V. Pijano. 1996. “Non-Formal Education in the Philippines: A
Fundamental Step Towards Lifelong Learning.” APEC HUDIT Internet Site.
Government of the Philippines. 1991. Local Government Code of 1991.
Government of the Philippines. 1992. Philippine Statistics Yearbook. Various years,
1981-1992. Manila.
Government of the Philippines. 1997a. “The Philippine National Development Plan:
Directions for the 21st Century.” Draft. Manila.
Government of the Philippines. 1997b. National Budget Circular, No. 458 Series.
Manila.
Government of the Philippines. 1998. Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing
Fiscal Year 1998. Manila.
Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. 1998. “Philippines:
Student Loan Market Study.” Berkeley.
Heyneman, Stephen, Dean Jamison, and Zenia Montenegro. 1984. “Textbooks in the
Philippines: Evaluation of the Pedagogical Impact of a Nationwide Investment.”
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 6(2): 139-150.
Ibe, Milagros. 1997. “The Philippines Performance in the TIMSS.” College of
Education, University of the Philippines.
Ibe, Milagros. 1998. “Discussion on PBET and LET.” In CEO 3rd Roundtable
Discussion: Why Can’t We Attract Good Teachers? ACCEED. Manila.
Ibe, Milagros D. and Ester B Ogena. November, 1998. “Science Education in the
Philippines: An Overview.” Department of Science and Technology. Manila.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 1997a.
Mathematics and Science Achievement in the Primary School Years: IEA’s Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS International
Study Center, Boston College. Boston, MA.
23
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 1997b.
Science Achievement in the Primary School Years: IEA’s Third International
Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS International Study Center,
Boston College. Boston, MA.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 1998.
Mathematics and Science Achievement in the Final Year of Secondary School:
IEA’s Third International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS
International Study Center, Boston College. Boston, MA.
James, E. “Private Higher Education: The Philippines as a Prototype.” Higher
Education, 21, 189 – 206. 1991.
Johnson, Robert. 1976. Elementary Statistics. 2nd edition.. Wadsworth Publishing
Company. California.
King, Elizabeth M. and Berk Ozler. 1998. “What’s Decentralization Got to Do with
Learning? The Case of Nicaragua’s School Autonomy Reform.” Working Paper
Series on Impact Evaluation of Education Reforms Paper No. 9. Development
Research Group. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
Lemana, N. 1997. “Private Education Component: A Proposal for the Secondary
Education Development Improvement Project (SEDIP).” Paper prepared for
DECS. Manila.
Licuanan, Patricia. 1995. “High Performance Principals.” A Comparative Study of High
Performing and Low Performing Elementary Schools. Ateneo de Manila
University, Quezon City, Philippines.
Lockheed, Marlaine and Adriaan Verspoor. 1991. Improving Primary Education in
Developing Countries. The World Bank. Washington, D.C.
Lockheed, Marlaine and Qinghua Zhao. 1993. “The Empty Opportunity: Local Control
and Secondry School Achievement in the Philipines.” International Journal of
Educational Development 13(1): 45-62.
Mizala, Alejandra and Pilar Romaguera. 1999. “Sistema de Incentivos en Educacion y
la Experiencia del SNED en Chile.” Paper presented at the Conference: Los
Maestros en America Latina: Nuevas Perspectivas sobre su Desarrollo y
Desempeno. San Jose, Costa Rica.
National Economic Development Authority. 1998a. “The Expanded Tertiary Education
Equivalency and Accreditation Program of the Philippines.” NEDA Occasional
paper. Manila.
National Statistical Coordination Board. 1998. “1997 Philippine Statistical Yearbook.”
NSCB. Manila.
24
Nebres, Bienvenido F. 1998. “Why Can’t We Attract Good Teachers?” CEO 3rd
Roundtable Discussion. Manila.
NEDA. 1998. “On the Need for a Successor Plan for Science and Math Education.”
Interagency Think paper. Manila.
Odden, Allan and Carolyn Kelley. 1997. Paying Teachers for What They Know and Do.
Corwin Press.
Ordonez, Victor. 1998. “Gearing Up for the Global Future.” The Asian Manager.
March-April 1998. 39 – 41.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998. Education at a
Glance. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Paris.
Pena, R. Uundated. “Rationalization of Higher Education Institutions/Programs,”
Paper. CHED. Manila.
PRISM (Official Newsletter of CHED), 111, 1, Jan – Mar. 1997.
PROBE. 1998a. Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluation. DECS, Manila.
PROBE. 1998b. Report of the Mid-Term Review of the Philippine-Australia Project in
Basic Education. Manila.
Regel, Omporn. 1998. “Status of Teachers.” Manuscript. The World Bank.
Washington, D.C.
Republic of the Philippines. 1998a. Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing.
Fiscal Year 1998. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1998b. “National Expenditure Program, Fiscal Year 1999.”
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1997. National Budget Circular No. 458 series 1997.
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1997. Report Card to the Nation. Manila: DECS. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1996. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
Republic Act No. 4670. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1994. Family Income and Expenditures Survey.
Households Bulletin, Series No. 80. National Statistics Office, Manila.
Ribero, Rocio and Jaime Tenjo with Pablo Santamaria. 1997. “Evaluacion del Programa
de Becas PACES,” Processed, CEDE, The University of the Andes, Bogota,
Colombia.
Saleeby, Najeeb. 1924. The Language of Education of the Philippine Islands.
25
Saniel, Montana C and Ed van den Berg. 1998. “Case Studies of Science and
Mathematics Teaching in the Philippines: Lessons for Teacher and School
Development.” Science and Mathematics Education Institute, University of San
Carlos, Cebu City, Philippines.
Santos, Augusto B and Napoleon B Imperial. 1997. “Visions and Challenges of the
Philippine Elementary School for the Next Millenium.” NEDA, Manila.
Schwartz, A. 1995. “The Philippines: Cost and Financing Issues In Education,”
Education and Social Policy. Draft. World Bank. Washington, D.C.
Somerset, Anthony et al. 1998. “Teaching and Learning Secondary Mathematics and
Science. Study carried out in Central Visayas Region, Philippines.” Manila.
Draft.
Taguiwalo, Mario. 1998. “The EDCOM Report: What Was Recommended? What Was
Implemented?” (draft)
Taguiwalo, Mario. 1993. “Background Paper on the Third Elementary Education
Project.” Paper. Manila.
Tan, Jee-Peng, Julie Lane and Gerard Lassibille. 1998. “Schooling Outcomes in
Philippine Elementary Schools: The Impact of Experiments.” Processed. World
Bank. Washington, D.C
Task Force on Higher Education. 1998. “Philippine Higher Education in the 21st
Century: Strategies for Excellence and Equity.” DECS. Manila
Teacher Education Council. 1998. Master Plan for Teacher Education, 1998-2008.
Manila
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. Various years. Technical
Education and Skills Development Factbook. Manila
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. 1997. Regional Skills
Priorities. Manila.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. 1998a. “1997 Annual Report.”
Manila.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. 1998b. “Budget Proposal CY
1999.” Manila.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. 1998c. “Discussion on the
World Bank Education Sector Assistance Strategy Formulation Mission:
Proposed Talking Points.” Manila.
Technical Education and Skills Development Authority. 1998f. Third Vocational
Project. Draft. Manila.
26
UNESCO. Various years. Statistical. UNESCO Publishing & Bernan Press. Paris.
UNESCO. 1998. World Education Report. Teachers and Teaching in a Changing
World. UNESCO Publishing, Paris.
Woodhall, Maureen. 1992. “Turning Points in the Development of Higher Education in
Asia: A Comparative Study of Alternative Patterns of Provision, Finance and
Governance, 1960-90.” Paper for World Bank Senior Policy Seminar on
Strengthening Public and Private Roles in Higher Education, Singapore, June 28July 3.
World Bank. 1988. The Philippines Education Sector Study. Part I, II. World Bank
Report No. 7473-PH. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1994. Higher Education: The Lessons of Experience. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1995a. “A Strategy to Fight Poverty, Philippines.” Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1995b. World Development Report. Oxford University Press. New York.
World Bank. 1995c. Philippines Public Expenditure Management for Sustained and
Equitable Growth. Vol. 1, Report No. 14680-PH. September. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1996. Philippines Education Financing and Social Equity: A Reform
Agenda. Report No. 15898-PH. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1997b. Sector Strategy for Basic Education. Draft. Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1998a. Philippines Draft Education Sector Strategy. Draft. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 1998b. Philippines -- Social Expenditure Priorities. Report No. 18562PH, Washington, D.C.
World Bank. 1998d. The Philippines Social Expenditure Review. Draft. Washington,
D.C.
World Bank. 1998e. World Development Report, Knowledge for Development, 1998/99.
Oxford University Press, New York.
Other PESS Technical Background Papers (TBPs) and Policy Notes (PNs)
Acedo, Clementina. “Philippines Education Sector Study: Statistical Annex.” TBP No. 1.
Brigham, Susan and Emma S. Castillo. “Language Policy for Education in the
Philippines.” TBP No. 6.
Hall, Stewart. “Non-Formal Education in the Philippines.” TBP No. 7
27
Jimenez, Emmanuel Y. “Private Education and Public Policy in the Philippines.” PN
No. 1
Johanson, Richard. “Higher Education in the Philippines.” TBP No. 3.
Johanson, Richard. “Technical-Vocational Education and Training in the Philippines.”
TBP No. 4.
King, Elizabeth. “Education Decentralization.” PN No. 2.
Maglen, Leo and Rosario Manasan. “Education Costs and Financing in the Philippines.”
TBP No.2.
Somerset, Anthony. “Mathematics and Science Education in the Philippines.” TBP No.5.
28