Philippines Education Note JUNE 2016 | NO. 4 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines Introduction Evidence from around the world has shown that improving school infrastructure leads to better learning outcomes.1 For example, a 2011 review of the economics literature over the last 20 years showed that the availability of basic school infrastructure (such as classrooms, desks, and chairs) and facilities (such as electricity, libraries, and blackboards) is frequently associated with better student learning achievement.2 These findings have been backed up by a systematic review of recent impact evaluations, which showed that infrastructure investments have a positive impact on school enrollment rates, attendance rates, and learning achievement.3 Also, research in the Philippines has shown that reducing the number of students per classroom is associated with better student learning outcomes, particularly in rural schools.4 Ensuring that schools have adequate infrastructure of good quality is a central pillar of government efforts to improve education outcomes in the Philippines. Over the last five years, the government has been conducting a renewed reform effort to increase access to good quality basic education. It has supported these reform efforts with significant increases in public spending on education. In real terms, school infrastructure spending in 2015 was five times higher than in 2010 and has been used to reduce classroom congestion and the proportion of schools operating multiple shifts. This note is part of a series outlining analysis and The purpose of this policy note is to provide a snapshot results from the Philippines Public Expenditure of the state of existing school infrastructure in the Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery Study Philippines and to assess the government systems that conducted by the Department of Education and build and repair school buildings and facilities. The the World Bank with the support of the Australian findings come from a comprehensive survey of the Government through the Australia-World Bank public education system carried out for the Philippines Philippines Development Trust Fund. Public Education Expenditure Tracking and Quantitative WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH 1 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines Box 1: The Philippines Public Education Expenditure Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery Study The aim of the Philippines Public Education Expenditure and Quantitative Service Delivery Study has been to answer four main questions on the use of the public education budget: 1. Resource flow, management, and control. What factors prevent resources from reaching their intended destination in a timely and transparent manner? 2. Existence, use, and financing of inputs at the school level. Do schools have access to essential inputs and how effective are the systems that govern their use? 3. Equity. How do the resources available to schools and the systems that manage these resources differ among regions and socioeconomic groups? 4. School performance and resources. How and why does the performance of schools differ and what drives those differences? The study has tracked over 80 percent of the national government education budget (including teacher salaries and training, school maintenance and operating expenses, construction, and learning materials) as well as local government spending on basic education. In order to assess how funds flow and how they are used at the school level, the study team conducted a nationally representative survey of government institutions and public schools in the last quarter of 2014. The Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was excluded from the study because government funds for this region are managed separately and flow to schools through a different mechanism. In addition, integrated schools (which offer both elementary and high school education) and schools that did not have final grade elementary and high school students were excluded from the sample, primarily because the study aimed to measure outcomes at the end of elementary school and at the end of high school. The sample for the survey included all regional offices of the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Department of Budget and Management (DBM), 51 division and 113 district offices of DepEd, 54 district engineering offices of the Department of Public Works and Highways, 74 provincial and city/municipality local governments, 249 public elementary schools, and 200 public high schools. At the school level, interviewers administered a questionnaire to each parent-teacher association, assessed the competencies of approximately 1,500 teachers, and interviewed 2,200 student households. The data collected were used to explore the systems that govern the use of public funds and to assess how the availability of resources differed among schools. The study team combined information on the flow of funds to schools with information on school characteristics and quality to evaluate how financing and governance affected school performance. Service Delivery Study (PETS-QSDS) that tracked public the planning, implementation, and monitoring process is a education expenditure and assessed the quality of education promising route to ensuring that all students are provided services (see Box 1). In assessing government systems, it with good quality schools and learning environments. primarily focused on projects managed by the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH), which is responsible for the bulk of school infrastructure projects. The Current State of The note finds that, while there is a continuing need to invest School Infrastructure in school infrastructure, any increases need to be combined with efforts to improve allocation mechanisms and project The bulk of public school infrastructure in the Philippines implementation. The note also finds that existing monitoring, was built using funds from national and local governments, coordination, and accountability mechanisms are weak. The with only a limited proportion built using funds from private note argues that increasing the involvement of schools in sector sources. For example, in 2014 approximately three- 2 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH quarters of all instructional rooms in elementary and around However, schools in more densely populated areas tend to two-thirds of rooms in high schools were built by the central be larger and have more congested learning environments. government. Local governments were responsible for Schools, particularly high schools, tend to be much larger building around 10 percent of instructional rooms across the in city and urban areas. For example, in 2014 the average whole country, although wealthier city governments have high school in a highly urbanized city had approximately played a much more significant role than their counterparts 1,700 students compared to about 1,000 students and elsewhere with approximately one-quarter of all instructional 570 students in city and municipality schools respectively. buildings being built with local government funds in highly These large numbers translate into more students in each urbanized cities.5 classroom in highly urban areas (Figure 2). On average, 51 high school students share each classroom in highly While high schools tend to be better equipped than urbanized cities compared with only 39 students per elementary schools, around one-third have no safe source classroom in municipal schools. Moreover, around 30 of drinking water (Figure 1). This is partly because more high percent of high schools in these highly urbanized cities have schools than elementary schools are located in urban areas student/ instructional room ratios in excess of 55. While this where they rely on piped water and do not have access to is not a measure of class size because double shifting is more alternative sources such as drinking wells. When schools commonplace in cities, it does point to the greater intensity do not have access to safe drinking water, this can be of use of school facilities in urban areas. This is likely to result detrimental to attendance and learning, particularly when in the need for larger upkeep and maintenance resources for students and teachers have to leave the school premises to schools in these areas. collect water. In 2014, the study found that approximately one in Schools in municipalities tend to have more limited facilities seven of all elementary and high school instructional than those in cities. Municipalities include almost all rural rooms in the Philippines to be unsuitable for teaching areas in the Philippines, and rural schools tend to be less and learning. On the whole, a larger share of elementary well equipped than their urban - and generally wealthier school infrastructure than high school infrastructure was - counterparts. For example, elementary schools in highly of poor quality (Figure 2). Given the much larger numbers urbanized cities are almost twice as likely as schools in of elementary schools in the Philippines, these findings municipalities to have a health clinic (Figure 1). suggest that a larger share of resources would be needed High Schools Tend to Have Better Facilities than Elementary Schools Figure 1:  Availability of key facilities in elementary and high schools, 2014 Facilities by school type Elementary school facilities by location 90% 90% 80% 80% % of elementary schools 70% 70% 60% 60% % of schools 50% 50% 40% 40% 30% 30% 20% 20% 10% 10% 0% 0% Library Working Drinking Health Library Working Health internet water* clinic internet clinic High School Elementary School HUC Other Cities Municipalities Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school level data. Note: * Drinking water only includes piped, well, and natural sources. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 3 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines School Facilities Tend to be Used by More Students in Urban Areas Figure 2:  Intensity of use and quality of classrooms, 2014 Students per instructional room State of instructional rooms 20% Students per instructional room 60 16% % of instructional rooms 50 15% 14% 40 13% 13% 12% 30 10% 20 6% 5% 10 0 0% Elementary School High School HUCs Other Cities Municipalities HUCs Other Cities Municipalities HUC Other Cities Municipalities Elementary School High School Condemned Condemnable Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school-level data. Note: DepEd’s definitions of condemned and condemnable instructional rooms are used. at this level to address shortcomings in the existing stock of suggest. The average class size observed by the study in 2014 classrooms. Fewer classrooms in cities tend to be classified as was 34 in high schools and 27 in elementary schools. This is condemned or condemnable than in municipalities despite below DepEd’s guidelines on ideal class sizes, which range from their greater intensity of use. This may reflect their greater 40 to 55 students. According to the study, only 5 percent of ability to maintain their facilities because city schools tend classrooms in elementary schools and 12 percent in high school to receive more resources from local governments and their had more than 45 students being taught at the same time. communities that can be used for this purpose. A significant number of classrooms used by schools for Aggregate statistics on the availability and quality of school teaching were judged by the enumerators of the PETS- infrastructure often do not adequately represent the true QSDS survey to be in a relatively poor state of repair in learning environment in schools. Most statistics use student- 2014 (Figure 3). The survey enumerators found that over 20 classroom ratios as a proxy for the average number of percent of classrooms in both elementary and high schools students taught together. However, many schools operate were in a poor state of repair. While the enumerators were more than one shift during the school day, and student not specifically trained to assess the quality of infrastructure, groupings and timetables often mean that class sizes are these findings do raise concerns about the impact that this very different to the simple averages recorded in official may have on student learning. statistics at the school level. For example, approximately 23 percent of both elementary and high schools in the study The more intensive use of high school infrastructure also reported operating more than one shift in at least one grade. affects the learning environment negatively. In most cases, To get a better picture of the real learning environment high schools have poorer indicators of the overall learning faced by students, around 7,000 classes and classrooms environment than smaller and less crowded elementary were observed as part of the Philippines Public Education schools. For example, as of 2014, a greater proportion of high Expenditure Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery school classrooms tended to suffer from poor ventilation and Study (PETS-QSDS). insulation and to be less clean than elementary classrooms (Figure 3). In contrast, far fewer elementary classrooms than These classroom observations revealed that class sizes were high school classrooms appeared to have adequate seating much smaller than official statistics on student-classroom ratios for all students. 4 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH A Significant Proportion of Classrooms Were Observed to Be of Poor Quality Figure 3:  Indicators of classroom quality from direct classroom observation 30% High School 25% Elementary School % of observed classrooms 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Poor state Unclean Poor Poor sound Without Inadequate of repair ventilation insulation electricity seating Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – classroom observations at the school level. While most schools meet DepEd’s service standards, 45 and 55 in most elementary and high school grades.7 Over a significant proportion do not, particularly in highly 94 percent of elementary schools and 83 percent of high urbanized cities. The government’s medium-term schools have student-classroom ratios that fall within or below expenditure framework highlights a number of key service that range (Table 1). However, 24 percent of elementary and standards that DepEd is seeking to achieve.6 In particular, 30 percent of high schools in highly urbanized cities have DepEd aims to eliminate multiple shifts in all schools and student-classroom ratios well above the maximum set out in has set a target for student-classroom ratios of between DepEd standards. Table 1: Percentage of Schools that Failed to Meet DepEd Service Standards, 2014 Elementary Schools High Schools Other All Other All HUCs Cities Municipalities schools HUCs Cities Municipalities schools Students per instructional room Fewer than 45 46 74 87 84 61 40 70 66 Between 45 and 55 30 19 9 10 9 16 19 17 More than 55 24 7 4 6 30 44 11 17 Students per toilet More than 50: Girls 41 22 21 22 70 56 32 38 More than 50: Boys 35 14 19 19 65 49 33 37 Students per seat More than 1 21 24 23 23 7 6 7 7 Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – classroom data at the school level. Notes: Assumes that a trough urinal can be used by two boys. Unisex toilets are counted in both boys’ and girls’ totals. All students, including kindergarten and special education students, are included in the calculations. Numbers of students per seat are taken from classroom observations and relate to the percentage of classrooms rather than schools. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 5 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines A large proportion of schools also fail to meet DepEd The government budget devoted to improving and standards regarding sanitation facilities (Table 1). In expanding school infrastructure has risen rapidly in recent particular, around one-third of high schools fail to meet the years (Figure 4). Recognizing the backlog in school infra- 50 students per toilet standard. The proportion of schools structure needs, the government has devoted an ever-in- failing to meet sanitation standards is much higher in city creasing share of the budget to construction and rehabili- schools than in municipal schools. For example, 70 percent tation. In 2005 only around 2 percent of the budget was used for infrastructure, but this had increased to 18 percent of high schools in highly urbanized cities have ratios of by 2015. Given the increasing size of the overall education female students to toilets in excess of 50. budget, this has meant that infrastructure spending has increased nineteen-fold in real terms since 2005. An Assessment of The increased priority afforded to school infrastructure in Existing Government the national budget has resulted in a large increase in the number of classrooms built, which has eased congestion, Efforts to Improve School particularly in high schools. National statistics show that Infrastructure between 2005 and 2013 an additional 122,000 elementary and high school classrooms were built, increasing the overall stock to 477,000. These increases have also reduced In 2013, approximately two-thirds of all infrastructure student-classroom ratios particularly in high schools. projects taking place in basic education schools were Between 2005 and 2013, the average number of students funded by the Department of Education. Local governments per classroom fell from 70 to 47 in high schools. provided 13 percent of project funding, while the rest of the projects were largely financed from congressional funds, by While the Department of Education maintains overall the private sector, or by non-governmental organizations. control over the selection of projects, most projects Government Spending on School Infrastructure Has Been Rising Rapidly Figure 4:  Trends in government school infrastructure spending, 2005-2015 60 20% 50 16% PHP billion (2014 prices) % of DepEd budget 40 12% 30 8% 20 4% 10 0 0% 2005 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 DepEd Infrastructure Funds DepEd School Building Program % of total DepEd budget (right axis) DPWH local infrastructure support for schools and basic education facilities Source: Department of Budget and Management. Note: All figures are appropriations. DepEd school infrastructure funds include all DepEd infrastructure spending including funds under construction of elementary and high schools in areas experiencing acute classroom shortages prior to 2011 and the Basic Education Facilities Fund (BEFF) from 2011 onwards. In 2013, the Department of Public Works and Highways (DPWH) received an appropriation for the BEFF directly. The 2014 and 2015 figures also include separate DPWH programs for local infrastructure support to schools. 6 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH Table 2: Characteristics of School Infrastructure Projects, 2013 Basic Education Facilities Fund School Building Water and Program Construction Sanitation Repair Projects Elementary Schools 3,597 8,794 1,656 505 High Schools 1,765 3,768 367 189 Classrooms built/repaired Elementary Schools 8,204 5,696 1,081 High Schools 6,524 1,749 496 Toilets (urinals and bowls) Elementary Schools 3,012 32,607 - - High Schools 4,795 18,355 - - Hand washroom counters Elementary Schools - 34,224 - - High Schools - 19,878 - - Allocation (PHP billions) Elementary Schools 7.1 3.5 0.9 0.6 High Schools 6.9 1.9 0.3 0.3 Other - 1.3 0.1 0.1 Allocation (%) Elementary Schools 51 52 69 60 High Schools 49 28 23 30 Source: DepEd central office construction project list, 2013. Note: Estimates drawn from school project lists for each funding source. Of the 1,081 elementary and 496 high school classrooms, 674 elementary and 325 high school classrooms were newly constructed while 325 and 171 respectively were repaired. have recently been managed and implemented by the The central office of DepEd identifies priorities and Department of Public Works and Highways (Box 2). Since allocates funds for infrastructure projects using 2013 the Basic Education Facilities Fund (BEFF) and the information collected annually in the Basic Education School Building Program (SBP) have been the two main Information System (BEIS). First, the office identifies budget lines for school infrastructure, with the BEFF schools with high student-classroom ratios and a lack accounting for over 95 percent of the total funds. The DPWH of water and sanitation facilities. In the second step through site visits, the office verifies the actual condition manages approximately three-quarters of these funds, most of facilities and the feasibility of the needed work and of which are allocated to new construction of classrooms finally prepares a list of potential projects that are and water and sanitation facilities. The remaining funds are aligned with the available budget. Once the national managed by DepEd and used for repair and rehabilitation, budget is approved by Congress, the Department of additional water and sanitation projects, and the provision Budget and Management releases budget allocations of school furniture. Funds managed by DepEd are also to the DPWH and DepEd central offices, which in turn devoted to infrastructure projects carried out through the allocate these funds to their local offices in charge of Public Private Partnership scheme.8 In the 2013 budget, the implementation of the various projects. Projects national government funding was allocated to support the managed by the DPWH are governed by a set of construction of 16,000 classrooms and the repair of 8,000 guidelines that outlines the roles and responsibilities classrooms and a large number of toilets and washroom of DepEd and the DPWH during their planning and facilities (Table 2). implementation (see Box 2). PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 7 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines Box 2: Responsibilities for Joint DPWH-DepEd Projects Each year, DepEd identifies the extent of school infrastructure needs using the Basic Education Information System (BEIS) and develops a list of school-level projects to be carried out by the DPWH using the infrastructure budget appropriations for the year. Once the DepEd central office has selected the projects, it informs the regional and divisional offices who in turn notify the selected schools. The Schools Division Superintendent (SDS) and the Schools Division Engineer (SDE) within DepEd Division offices are responsible for coordinating with their DPWH counterparts on the procurement and implementation of projects. The main stages where coordination occurs are: • The DPWH prepares the program of works, undertakes procurement, and implements the works in accordance with DepEd’s standard designs and specifications. • The SDS approves the program of works prepared by the DPWH. • The staff of DepEd’s Physical Facilities and Schools Engineering Division (PFSED) and the Division Physical Facilities Coordinator (DPFC) supervise the DPWH’s procurement, monitor the implementation of the projects, and conduct joint inspections of the completed works. • The DPWH, DepEd’s Physical Facilities staff, and the school principals are expected to carry out a joint inspection of the completed works. • The DepEd SDS and the DPWH District Engineer both approve the Certificate of Completion for each completed project. Sources: DepEd Memo No. 87 (2015) and DepEd/DPWH joint circular No. 2013-1 (2013). Allocations The allocation of government infrastructure resources However, there is still significant room to strengthen the tends to be broadly in line with need. The study has found link between allocation and need. Approximately half of that new classroom construction as a proportion of the the elementary schools that had student-classroom ratios total existing stock of classrooms was generally higher in in excess of DepEd standards (in other words higher than those regions with more congested classrooms (Figure 5). 55) were selected for a project, while 30 percent of schools For example, in the 2013 budget, funds were allocated to with student-classroom ratios well below 45 received school build an additional 800 classrooms (equivalent to 5 percent improvement funding. A similar picture emerges regarding of the current stock) in the National Capital Region (NCR) sanitation facilities, with 28 percent of elementary schools where student-classroom ratios were far higher than any with a female student to toilet ratio below 50 being selected other region. Classroom construction in the Autonomous for a project while only 55 percent of elementary schools Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) in 2013 was much with ratios in excess of 60 received support. higher than in other regions, which partly reflects the region’s need for additional school places to accommodate Implementation out-of-school children. Utilization rates for school infrastructure funds have been A closer look reveals that on the whole schools with relatively low over the last 10 years (Figure 6). Between 2005 poorer quality facilities are more likely to be selected for and 2014, only 54 percent of allotments were obligated a school improvement project (Figure 5). For example, a in the same year they were allocated. With the exception higher proportion of the schools that were awarded an of 2013, DepEd has experienced significant difficulties infrastructure project in 2013 had no access to drinking in utilizing the growing budget for school infrastructure water and had fewer classrooms and toilets relative to the development. For example, in 2014, the utilization rate size of their student populations compared to schools that was only around two-thirds, suggesting that one-third of did not receive a project. allocations were not obligated. 8 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH New Classroom Construction is Broadly in Line with Need at the Regional Level Figure 5:  Infrastructure needs and project allocations, 2013 New elementary school classroom construction under Di erences in facility quality between elementary schools BEFF and student-classroom ratio by region with infrastructure projects and those without, 2013 12% 51 School with project ARMM School without project New construction as % of stock 10% 40 8% 30 30 6% NCR 20% 4% CARAGA IX IVB XII 12% CAR VIII XI IVA 2% X 6% III 4% II VI V I VII 0% % of schools % age of Students per Girls per 20 30 40 50 60 70 without classrooms instructional toilet drinking condemned room Student classroom ratio 2013/14 water Source: Left panel = DepEd central office construction project list (2013) and DepEd EBEIS. Right panel = PETS-QSDS DPWH and DepEd records of school construction projects and school-level information on school facilities. Note: School Building Program construction is not included. Utilization rates mask large differences in budgeted funds only around 70 percent of this appropriation was released and the amounts actually released in any given year. In in 2013. Even taking into account the releases from this the 2013 budget, Congress appropriated approximately appropriation in the following year (2014), only 74 percent PHP 27 billion for school infrastructure improvements, but of the 2013 appropriation was finally released. This is a Utilization Rates for School Infrastructure Have Been Relatively Low Figure 6:  School infrastructure fund allotments, obligations, and utilization rates, 2005-2014 35 Allotment Obligation 30 91% PHP billions (current) 25 58% 64% 20 15 63% 10 35% 35% 65% 48% 79% 5 0% 0 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 Source: DepEd and DPWH Statement of Appropriations and Obligations, various years Note: Allotments/obligations for a given year include current, continuing, and extended allotments/obligations. The utilization rate is indicated by the percentage figures in the graph and show the proportion of allotments obligated in a given year. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 9 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines particular concern given the infrastructure shortages Approximately 40 percent of national and local government outlined in the previous section and the large increases infrastructure projects undertaken in 2013 were rated as planned for infrastructure investment in the coming years.9 unsatisfactory by schools (Figure 7). The schools reported being much more satisfied with the projects that they Even when national government projects have been managed and financed themselves. A major factor in this identified and funds have been released, a significant dissatisfaction, particularly with projects financed by the proportion of projects are not completed, which results in national government, is the large number of projects that low levels of satisfaction at the school level. School staff are left incomplete by contractors. Moreover, approximately reported to enumerators of the PETS-QSDS survey that three-quarters of schools also mentioned the poor quality one in five DepEd projects that began in 2013 remained of the repairs and new construction as a reason for their incomplete by the final quarter of 2014 (Figure 7). They dissatisfaction. cited insufficient funds, other demands on contractors’ time, and design issues as the main reasons why projects Delays in transferring project lists and financial were not completed. Moreover, completion rates were allocations from DepEd to the local offices responsible much higher for local government and school-managed for implementing them are the reason for many project projects than projects managed by DepEd and the DPWH. implementation delays. Figure 8 shows the proportion of DPWH district engineering offices that had received their The high completion rates of school-managed projects is infrastructure allocation by the end of each quarter in 2013. likely to reflect the greater control that schools have over It shows that over 80 percent of DPWH district offices had contracts and contractors when they are managing their received their 2013 allocation to carry out work on the BEFF own resources. construction component by the end of the first quarter. The prompt release of these funds gives district engineering offices time to plan out their infrastructure projects over the Figure 7:  Schools Report Low Levels of Satisfaction course of the financial year. Given that BEFF construction with Government-funded Infrastructure funding represented the bulk of national government Projects infrastructure spending, this is a positive finding. However, Completion and satisfaction rates for 2013 school around 15 percent of engineering offices did not receive infrastructure projects, 2014 these funds until the end of the second quarter of the year. 100% Also, the majority of DPWH offices received other infra- structure funds (such as the BEFF water and sanitation and 80% school building program funds) much later in the year. For example, regarding funds from the School Building Pro- gram, only around three-quarters of the offices had received 60% their allocations for BEFF water and sanitation projects and fewer than one-third of them had received their allocations 40% for school construction by June. Receiving funds so late in the year limits the time available to implement projects and means that they are still being implemented when the 20% school year starts in June, thus inconveniencing school staff and students.10 0% Completion rate Satisfaction rate A majority of district engineering offices reported that, DepEd Local government Own funds even after they have received their resources, they have Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – infrastructure project information at to overcome many difficulties to implement their projects the school level successfully. Two-thirds of DPWH district engineering offices Note: Data relates to all school infrastructure projects in 2013. Completion and all offices in urban areas reported finding it difficult rates are the proportion of 2013 projects that were completed by the last to implement school infrastructure projects, particularly quarter of 2014. DepEd projects include those managed by the DPWH as due to a lack of flexibility in the funding of school projects. well as major school repair and water and sanitation projects managed by DepEd Division offices. For example, 62 percent of offices reported that they did 10 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH The Timeliness of the Downloading of Infrastructure Allotments from Figure 8:  Central Offices Varies by Budget Source Receipt of project list and first sub-allotment at DPWH district engineering offices11 100% 80% % of DPWH o ces 60% 40% 20% 0% End of rst quarter End of second quarter End of third quarter After third quarter (March) (June) (September) BEFF construction SBP construction BEFF WATSAN Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – DPWH district engineering offices. not receive sufficient funds to cover hauling away debris The PETS-QSDS survey asked staff of the DPWH and DepEd and 33 percent complained of the impractical costing of divisional offices about the infrastructure projects that they school projects (Figure 9). A further issue raised by over undertook within the surveyed schools. The study team then 60 percent of the offices was a lack of space within the compared this information with similar information collected schools to locate the new infrastructure. within the schools themselves to check whether the projects Many DPWH Offices Reported Facing Difficulties in Implementing and Figure 9:  Supervising School Infrastructure Projects Common problems faced by the DPWH in implementing school infrastructure projects, 2014 70% 60% % of DPWH o ces reporting 50% 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Insu cient funds for hauling Impractical uniform pricing Attracting contract bidders Speci cations too rigid Political intervention Insu cient Late receipt of project list Site availability DPWH sta Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – DPWH district engineering offices. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 11 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines were actually carried out and to assess the accuracy of society initiatives in the Philippines that aim to ensure systems used to monitor the use of infrastructure funds. that education funds reach their intended beneficiaries. For example, the Check My School initiative aims to There were large discrepancies between implementing promote citizen participation in the monitoring of public offices and schools in their accounts of infrastructure school performance.12 It mobilizes communities to projects. The analysis was carried out only on elementary validate school-related information from DepEd on many schools since the number of projects documented in high issues including school infrastructure. Any discrepancies schools was not sufficient for the team to be able to draw with this information or issues with the relevant school any reliable conclusions. First, the elementary schools infrastructure that citizens raise are publicized and fed reported that fewer DepEd-funded projects had been back to DepEd to be resolved. While such initiatives have implemented than was reported by DepEd and the DPWH. the potential to improve DepEd’s projects and strengthen Second, only around one-half of the projects that the DepEd accountability for the delivery and quality of infrastructure and DPWH offices claimed to have implemented could be improvements, they operate on a limited scale. Only verified by information provided by the schools. However, around 20 percent of elementary and high school one-quarter of projects reported by schools as DepEd- principals had heard of the program and only around 10 financed projects could not be matched with information percent of schools had any interaction with the initiative from the relevant DepEd divisional or DPWH district office. in 2013 or 2014. Third, among those projects that appeared in both sets of data, about 40 percent had different descriptions. For example, schools reported the project as being a water and Policy Directions for sanitation project while DepEd or the DPWH reported it as a construction project. The project costs also frequently Improving School Learning differed. Environments It is hard to draw firm conclusions about whether all infrastructure funds are reaching their intended destinations. Notwithstanding the significant investments made in On the one hand, a significant number of projects recorded school infrastructure over the last five years, further at the district or division level were not implemented in investment is needed. Funds are needed to address the schools. On the other hand, schools reported projects remaining deficiencies in existing school facilities and to funded by DepEd that were not recorded in the DepEd or keep pace with the ever-growing student population. DPWH offices. However, it does seem clear that existing Between 2010 and 2013, an additional 1 million children information and monitoring systems are not able to entered the basic education system, an average of around accurately record the use of infrastructure funds. 350,000 students annually, and the introduction of the senior high school program in 2016 will put an additional Weaknesses in monitoring and feedback systems are also burden on existing high schools. highlighted by other findings from the survey. Managers of projects in the DepEd and DPWH offices reported that The findings from the PETS-QSDS study also show almost all infrastructure projects in 2013 had already been that government systems for delivering infrastructure completed even though the schools reported a completion improvements need to be strengthened and made rate of only 80 percent (see Figure 7). The widespread more accountable if any increased funding is to be used dissatisfaction with projects at the school level also does not effectively. First, the methods used to identify and target appear to be reflected at higher levels of the administration. school improvement projects need to be strengthened to Nearly all respondents in DepEd and DPWH offices reported ensure that the neediest schools are prioritized. Second, that they were satisfied with the projects undertaken in the implementation capacity needs to be increased to ensure surveyed schools, whereas only 57 percent of school heads that government systems are fit for purpose and are able were satisfied. to absorb the funds needed to fill infrastructure gaps. Finally, monitoring and evaluation efforts need to be Social accountability initiatives aimed at soliciting feedback stepped up and mechanisms to feed the findings back to and providing oversight on the state of school infrastructure implementers are needed to improve the quality of repairs also do not appear to be widespread. There are many civil and construction. 12 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH Improving the Allocation of Public effectively deliver good quality classrooms at a comparable Infrastructure Funds or lower cost than government systems and frequently in areas where government systems are particularly stretched At the end of 2014, DepEd embarked on a school inventory (such as remote and hard-to-reach areas).13 Establishing or exercise, the results of which will help to improve the expanding partnerships between the government and these allocation of infrastructure funds. The exercise provided institutions is likely to reduce the stress on government division-level and school staff with guidance on how to systems and speed up the process of improving and classify schools in terms of the state of their facilities with expanding school facilities. the aim of improving the quality of data collected annually through the Enhanced Basic Education Information System Developing a medium-term planning framework for school (EBEIS). This information can then be used to identify schools infrastructure investment would have the potential to that do not meet existing DepEd standards. Combined with increase the timeliness and improve the quality of projects. a realistic assessment of the potential to improve or expand The findings of this study demonstrate that in many school facilities (for example, the amount of buildable instances both project lists and funds are received well after space), policymakers can use the information to develop and the start of the financial year. This shortens the period for establish a clear and transparent set of criteria to prioritize implementation and compromises the ability of DepEd and infrastructure spending among schools whose facilities do DPWH offices to monitor projects adequately. Developing not meet existing standards. a two- or three-year plan that would list all school improvement projects in each DepEd division would reduce Allocation decisions could also be greatly improved by the work involved in putting together the annual project list the creation of a validation and finalization process at and accelerate the transmission of funds to the responsible the division level. The present centralized mechanism for implementing offices. It would also give implementing allocating funding according to need requires validation at offices time to do some advance planning and thus avoid the local level to ensure that the central-level data reflect the some of the difficulties associated with inadequate funding real situation in the selected schools. This would make sure and site availability so commonly cited as reasons for that the extensive knowledge that divisional staff have of implementation delays. schools and communities is reflected in the final allocation decisions and would ensure that infrastructure funds are put Coordination has improved between DepEd and the DPWH to the best use. in recent years, but increasing the role played by schools in project planning and implementation could also yield To ensure that allocation decisions are transparent, significant benefits. In 2015, DepEd and the DPWH reissued a information on the criteria and data used to select 2013 joint circular outlining their respective roles and respon- schools for infrastructure improvements could be widely sibilities in project management (see Box 2). However, the disseminated. Feedback mechanisms could also be guidelines specify only a weak role to be played by schools established to provide a channel for schools and their and their principals in project management. For example, the communities to voice any grievances that they may guidelines state that school principals should accompany have about either the data used or the selection process DepEd and DPWH officials on inspection visits but they are (see below). not empowered to approve the completed works. Giving school principals authority alongside DepEd and DPWH Strengthening Implementation Capacity officials for certifying that projects have been satisfactorily completed might reduce the differences in rates of reported Building strong partnerships between government systems completion between DPWH/DepEd managers and schools and non-government partners would increase the capacity that were highlighted in the PETS-QSDS survey findings. for infrastructure improvement. While infrastructure School principals in the Philippines have taken on roles of this budgets have been growing rapidly, the study’s findings kind in the past and with appropriate training could become have raised concerns about whether government systems a major driving force in improving the quality of school have enough capacity to absorb these increases. There infrastructure projects. Other countries in the region (such as is a long tradition of NGO and private sector support for Indonesia and Laos) and beyond (for example, Mexico) have school infrastructure in the Philippines. Many of these non- engaged local communities in project implementation with government initiatives have demonstrated that they can significant success (see Box 3). PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 13 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines Box 3: Mexico’s Better Schools Program The Better Schools Program (BSP) in Mexico was a key component of a broader education reform program aimed at improving the quality of basic education. Between 2008 and 2012 the program carried out school infrastructure improvement projects in 19,400 of the neediest basic education schools in Mexico. The involvement and participation of each school community through its parent association was a major thrust of the BSP. A central government body was in charge of making payments to contractors and of overseeing the overall implementation of the program, but the schools’ parents associations acted as the legal client and was responsible for: • Commenting on, making decisions, and supervising the school project • Contributing to the transparency and presentation of financial accounts • Verifying that the building materials and improvements were of good quality • Approving all stages of the planning and implementation of the project. After the Ministry of Education made an initial selection of schools in need of urgent repair, technical facilitators worked with each school to complete a technical assessment of its requirements that formed the basis of the project. Prospective contractors aiming to implement BSP projects were required to go through a rigorous pre-screening exercise, after which an approved list of contractors was drawn up and these companies were randomly selected to implement packages of projects. A recent assessment of the program noted: • The process of identifying priority schools and working with the schools’ parents associations to undertake the necessary work was efficient and flexible enough to adapt to each school’s circumstances • The procedure of awarding contracts was relatively quick, and the payments process was transparent. It also ensured that contractors had incentives to deliver good quality projects • Overall, the project was cost-effective in that it reached more schools than was initially intended and used resources effectively and in line with the relevant regulations and guidelines. The necessary components for the effective participation of local communities in school infrastructure improvement were summarized in the assessment report: “The BSP has demonstrated how partnerships between the community and government can result in substantial benefits to the community and foster trust in the government’s capacity to deliver quality education services. A clear decision-making framework, clarity of roles and expectations, and well-defined lines of responsibility have contributed to the successful engagement of parents and others in the BSP.” Source: Blyth, A., Almeida, R., Forrester, D., Gorey, A. and J. Zepeda (2012). “Upgrading School Buildings in Mexico with Social Participation: The Better Schools Program,” OECD, Paris. Developing Better Monitoring, engineers need to make frequent visits to project sites Evaluation, and Feedback and make detailed reports to DepEd and DPWH in order to address the project quality issues highlighted The findings outlined in this policy note have shown that the in the PETS-QSDS survey. Allocating projects to specific monitoring and evaluation of school improvement projects DepEd divisional or DPWH staff and requiring them to in the Philippines is weak. Users reported that the overall visit these project sites on a regular basis (for example, quality of projects is low, and project managers do not twice a month) has the potential to improve the quality seem to be informed about the progress and completion of of projects for a relatively small investment. Given the projects on the ground. significant increase in the number of projects that have been undertaken in recent times, it is likely that current In order to address these weaknesses, it seems clear that numbers of physical facilities staff in DepEd and DPWH the capacity of DepEd divisional and DPWH offices to offices will need to be reassessed to ensure that they monitor projects effectively requires strengthening. Trained are adequate. 14 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH Monitoring and evaluation systems also need to make Increasing transparency is only one of the steps needed to much better use of schools and local communities. increase accountability for project funds. Across the whole School principals, teachers, and local communities have a process for allocating and implementing infrastructure strong interest in ensuring that projects are implemented spending, mechanisms are needed to enable schools and well. Giving school principals and governing councils a other stakeholders to seek redress for unfair allocations stronger role in project monitoring could improve the or poor project implementation. Exploring the feasibility quality of projects and also yield better information on of introducing a formal grievance system for schools to the effectiveness of contractors. While school principals utilize for all school funding, including school infrastructure are already nominally involved in inspection visits, their projects, would be a useful step that policymakers could role could be expanded. For example, they could produce take towards making government education spending more regular on-site reports about project progress to share effective and improving education services. Encouraging with DepEd and DPWH engineers as well as contractors. social accountability initiatives such as Check My School If they were also involved in approving inspection could also help schools to use grievance systems as well reports and completion certificates, this would signal to as providing further external pressure on government to contractors that the schools are the final clients for their implement improvements. projects. The government of the Philippines has made rapid progress In order to increase transparency, information on ongoing in improving school learning environments. It has introduced school projects could also be made more widely available. a process to identify the infrastructure needs of thousands Allowing public access to divisional lists of school projects of elementary and high schools and developed systems would enable schools and local communities to check to fund and implement a huge school building program selections and ensure that criteria have been applied every year. While these achievements are impressive, more correctly for allocating projects. In a similar way to the funding will be needed to meet the remaining infrastructure school maintenance and operating funds provided by challenge. However, increased funding will not be enough. DepEd, school staff could also report on the project A stronger focus on the governance and management of and its progress on the school’s transparency board to these resources will be required if schools and students inform parents and other stakeholders about progress across the Philippines are to get the good quality facilities and to give them greater oversight over infrastructure that they need to improve the teaching and learning improvements.14 environment and raise learning achievement levels. Table 3: Strengthening Government Systems for School Infrastructure Improvements Findings Policy suggestions Allocation mechanisms for • Establish transparent criteria for prioritizing schools based on existing facility standards school infrastructure systems • Validate project priority list at the division level need strengthening • Increase transparency and accountability by disseminating project selection criteria and by establishing feedback/grievance mechanisms Large increases in • Expand and establish partnerships to build and improve infrastructure infrastructure spending are • Introduce multi-year planning for school improvement projects required but implementation • Strengthen coordination between implementing institutions capacity also needs to be • Strengthen the role of schools and school governing councils in implementation strengthened significantly Weaknesses in the • Increase the capacity of DepEd and DPWH to monitor projects regularly monitoring and evaluation of • Increase the transparency of school infrastructure improvement activities at the infrastructure spending need division and school levels to be addressed • Empower schools to monitor projects more closely and provide effective feedback channels for all stakeholders to use PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 15 Building Better Learning Environments in the Philippines Endnotes 1 Woolner, P. Hall, E. Higgins, S. McCaughey, C. and K. Wall (2007). 7 In kindergarten and Grades 1 and 2, DepEd aims for classes to “A Sound Foundation? What We Know about the Impact of consist of fewer than 45 students. Environments on Learning and the Implications for Building 8 In 2013, 62 percent (PHP 4 billion) of the BEFF releases managed Schools for the Future.” Oxford Review of Education 33(1): 47-70. by DepEd were allocated to the PPP program. 2 Glewwe, P. Hanushek, E. Humpage, S. and R. Ravina. (2011). 9 Appropriations for school infrastructure are set to grow from PHP “School Resources and Educational Outcomes in Developing 27 billion in 2013 to PHP 81 billion in 2016. Countries: A Review of the Literature from 1990 to 2010,” National Bureau of Economic Research, Cambridge, MA. 10 A similar pattern can be seen in the infrastructure funds that flow through DepEd divisional offices. 3 Krishnaratne, S. White, H. and E. Carpenter. (2013). “Quality Education for All Children? What Works in Education in 11 Downloading refers to the issuance of a sub-allotment release Developing Countries?” Working Paper 20. New Delhi: order from DPWH central office to the DPWH district engineering International Initiative for Impact Evaluation (3ie). office. Sub-allotments are authorizations issued by the central office of DPWH or DepEd transferring a portion of an available 4 Yamauchi, F. and S. Parandekar (2014). “School Resource and allotment to the district office. Performance Inequality: Evidence from the Philippines.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6748, World Bank, 12 World Bank (2012). “Check My School: A Case Study on Washington D.C. Citizens’ Monitoring of the Education Sector in the Philippines.” Washington D.C. 5 Highly urbanized cities are cities with populations of over 200,000 and with average revenues of at least PHP 50 million in 1991 13 Philippines-Australia Classroom Construction Initiative (2013). prices. Other cities are defined as cities that do not meet the “Partnership Scoping Study - A Discussion Paper.” Manila. criteria to be classified as highly urbanized. Municipalities are 14 The transparency board is a publicly accessible notice board administrative units for all other areas in the Philippines. where schools post information on the receipt of government 6 DepEd (2013). “Medium-term Expenditure Framework for operating funds and school canteen funds. Basic Education 2014-2020: Enrollment Projections and Cost Simulations under Alternative Scenarios.” Department of Education, Manila. 16 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH