Philippines Education Note JUNE 2016 | NO. 5 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines Introduction In recent times, many countries around the world have begun to devolve more authority and resources to schools in an effort to improve teaching and learning conditions. School-based management (SBM) reforms of this kind are seen as a strategy to improve education quality by bringing decision-making closer to local com- munities and by strengthening accountability between schools and the parents and children that they serve. Recent studies from many different countries have shown that school-based management can have a positive impact in terms of increasing access to education and improving learning outcomes.1 However, these reviews have also shown that the type of SBM reforms being implemented varies enormously from country to country and that the reforms can take some time to yield results. Moreover, their success depends critically on parental participation, political support, and effective implementation. In the early 2000s, the Government of the Philippines began to introduce school-based management reforms, which have had a positive impact on student learning outcomes.2 A key aspect of the success of these reforms has been the provision of ever-increasing levels of operational funding to the school level coupled with the devolution of greater school autonomy over the This note is part of a series outlining analysis and use of these funds.3 By 2014, schools were managing results from the Philippines Public Expenditure significant amounts of resources and using these funds Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery Study to implement their own school improvement plans. conducted by the Department of Education and Also, in 2015, the Department of Education (DepEd) the World Bank with the support of the Australian issued new guidelines drawing on past experience that Government through the Australia-World Bank aimed to strengthen school improvement planning and Philippines Development Trust Fund. make it more transparent. WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH 1 Assessing School-based Management 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. The purpose of this policy note is to assess the current of the key aspects of this system. Moreover, parents and status of school-based management in elementary and local communities still play a very limited role in decision- high schools in the Philippines. The findings reported in the making and in holding schools accountable. Given the ever note are based on a comprehensive survey of the public increasing amounts of resources that schools now control education system that tracked public education expenditure and the need to give them more flexibility over how to use and assessed the quality of education services (see Box 1). those funds, this note argues that the role of representative school governing councils could be expanded and efforts The note shows that the key elements of an effective made by DepEd to increase awareness among parents and school-based management system are in place. However, education stakeholders of the useful role they could play in schools report that they are not yet implementing many supporting school-based management. 2 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH Implementation of School- Most Schools Rated Themselves as Being at Figure 1:  the Lowest Level of SBM Implementation based Management in the Percentage of schools by latest self-assessed SBM implementation level, 2014 Philippines 100% Level 1-developing Level 2-maturing Studies that have assessed the implementation of school- 80% Level 3-advanced based management have generally focused on three key dimensions: 60% ¾¾ Autonomy. The degree of autonomy that schools have to make their own decisions determines their ability to 40% affect the educational outcomes of their students. 20% ¾¾ Participation in decision-making. A central component of SBM reforms has been to encourage greater 0% participation by parents and other members of Elementary School High School the community in supporting schools, usually by establishing or strengthening school governing bodies. Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school-level data. ¾¾ Accountability and transparency. The extent to which household consumption.4 Using this indicator, it was a school is accountable to its local community is an important aspect of its management practices, possible to disaggregate the SBM ratings by schools serving including the transparency of the school decision- different socioeconomic groups. The study found that making process and the quality of information that the students from the poorest 20 percent of households were school provides to its stakeholders. more likely to attend elementary and high schools that had the lowest level of self-assessed SBM implementation than Most schools in the Philippines have as yet not gone very students from the wealthiest 20 percent of households.5 far in implementing school-based management. In 2009, Other research has shown that SBM reforms have had only DepEd introduced a tool for schools to carry out their own a limited impact in schools that serve poorer communities.6 assessment of their progress in implementing SBM (Box 2). The findings from the PETS-QSDS study suggest that this In 2014 the PETS-QSDS study collected information on the may be due at least in part to the fact that schools in poorer results of these self-assessments and found that the majority areas are finding it difficult to put SBM into practice. of elementary and high schools reported having put in place only the lowest level of SBM (Figure 1). This means that they The main weaknesses identified by school principals were had only a minimum number of arrangements in place for related to school autonomy. On the whole, more elementary community participation and for taking action to improve school principals than high school principals highlighted learning outcomes. Fewer than 10 percent of schools weaknesses in their implementation of SBM. However, more reported being at the highest level of SBM implementation high school principals mentioned their inability to raise and, thus, meeting all standards of community participation sufficient resources as a major impediment to putting SBM and school-based management. into practice (Figure 2). It is likely that this also limits the ability of schools to carry out the activities included in their Poorer students were more likely than wealthier students school improvement plans. Approximately 20 percent of to attend schools with lower self-assessed SBM ratings. elementary and high school principals also cited weaknesses The PETS-QSDS survey included a nationally representative in school improvement planning as an issue preventing the sample of public elementary and high school student implementation of SBM. households. Using information collected on consumption and asset ownership in the survey, it was possible to rank Most principals did not regard the participation of teachers student households by estimated levels of per capita and other internal stakeholders in decision-making at PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 3 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines Box 2: Measuring the Implementation of School-based Management in the Philippines DepEd first introduced a self-assessment tool in 2009 to help schools to improve their school-based management practices. In 2013, it introduced a new self-assessment tool that asked schools to rate the extent to which they had implemented SBM based on 22 indicators that could be converted into an aggregate three-point scale as follows: 1. Level 1 – developing: Schools have developed structures and mechanisms that have increased community participation and improved learning outcomes to an acceptable level. 2. Level 2 – maturing: Schools have introduced and sustained continuous improvements that have led to community participation and have significantly improved student learning outcomes. 3. Level 3 – advanced: Schools have fully implemented a school-based management system that fully involves the local community and is self-renewing and self-sustaining. In the PETS-QSDS study, schools were also asked to identify any weaknesses they might have in six aspects of school- based management defined in the original 2009 assessment. These six aspects are related to the three dimensions of school-based management assessed in this policy note, which are: 1. Autonomy. School principals were asked about strengths and weaknesses in their school leadership, their ability to raise resources, and their school improvement planning process. 2. Participation. School principals were asked to identify strengths and weaknesses in their schools’ links with internal and external stakeholders. 3. Transparency and accountability. School principals were asked about strengths and weaknesses in the institutions that hold the school accountable for performance. Sources: Parandekar, S. (2014). “Benchmarking Public Policy: Methodological Insights from Measurement of School-based Management.” World Bank Policy Research Working Paper No. 6938, World Bank, Washington D.C.; DepEd Order No. 83 (2012) “Implementing Guidelines on the Revised SBM Framework, Assessment, and Tool,” Department of Education, Manila; and DepEd (2009). “A Manual on the Assessment of SBM Management Practices,” Department of Education, Manila. School Principals Cited Issues Related to School Autonomy as a Major Weakness Figure 2:  in the Implementation of SBM Percentage of schools reporting weaknesses in key SBM dimensions, 2014 50% Elementary schools High schools 40% 30% 20% 10% 0% Leadership Improvement Resource raising Internal External Performance process stakeholders stakeholders accountability Autonomy Participation Accountability & transparency Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school-level data. 4 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH the school level as a weakness. However, 40 percent of Schools have discretion over only a very small amount elementary school principals felt that the engagement of of their total revenues. The PETS-QSDS study collected external stakeholders, including parents, local government, detailed information on all sources of school revenue and and other community representatives, was relatively weak. expenditure from a nationally representative sample of elementary and high schools.8 The findings showed that Autonomy the average annual revenue of an elementary school was approximately PHP 3 million and for high schools it was PHP While schools have only a limited amount of autonomy to 8.1 million (Figure 3). Over 80 percent of school funding make decisions about their own affairs, most schools develop is devoted to teacher and staff salaries, and most of these their own improvement plans and implement them to the extent that their authority and resources allow. In each salary payments are for centrally hired government teachers school, the school improvement plan (SIP) is developed by and staff. While school principals have some control over the the principal with help and input from teachers and the local day-to-day supervision of their staff, the hiring and resources community. It reviews the school’s performance (for example, used for school staffing fall outside the school’s control. Only in terms of student scores on the National Achievement Test) around PHP 188,000 or 7 percent of total funds are available and identifies areas where improvements are needed. Each to each elementary school to use at its own discretion. High SIP covers a three-year period, and the school produces a schools have a little more flexibility in the use of their funds more detailed implementation plan every year. However, but only around PHP 987,000 or 12 percent of each school’s schools have very limited authority over such important total funds are discretionary. areas as the hiring and deployment of teachers and school infrastructure improvements.7 In 2014, almost all schools The bulk of these discretionary funds are provided by DepEd had current school improvement plans in place, and only 5 and come with some conditions over their use. DepEd percent of elementary schools and 10 percent of high schools provides 70 percent of discretionary funds for elementary did not have an up-to-date annual implementation plan. schools and 83 percent for high schools. The bulk of cash Discretionary Resources at the School Level are Low Figure 3:  Annual school revenue by type and source, 2013/14 school year Composition of all school funding (PHP 000s) Percentage of discretionary funds by source 10,000 100% 8,000 80% 6,000 60% 4,000 40% 2,000 20% 0 0% Elementary School High School Elementary School High School Salary Infrastructure DepEd Other cash School Other in-kind Discretionary/cash Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school level. Note: The averages reported in the table are for all schools even if they received zero revenue under a particular category. Other cash revenue includes cash provided to schools by parent-teacher associations, local governments, and barangays and from private sector or NGO contributions. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 5 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines funds provided by DepEd is allocated on the basis of available to spend at their own discretion in effect curtails student numbers and is provided to cover maintenance the autonomy that they have to make their own decisions and other operating expenses (MOOE).9 Schools are on how best to improve their operations. allowed to use these funds on many recurrent items (such as utility payments and small repairs) but are prohibited Participation from spending them on other important items such as Effective school-based management requires parents and learning materials and any capital assets (for example, IT local community members to play a strong supporting equipment).10 role in school decision-making and oversight. The School Schools also generate their own funds, but their ability to Governing Council (SGC) for each school is a forum for do so is dependent on the socioeconomic composition parents, students, teachers, and community stakeholders of their student populations. Schools collect student to participate in making school improvement decisions. It contributions to cover specific activities (such as school takes an active role in developing the school improvement projects, Red Cross, uniforms, and school feeding programs) plan (SIP) and, together with the school principal, is as well as running the school canteen and other income- responsible for endorsing it to the schools division generating projects. About 27 percent of discretionary superintendent (SDS) for approval. It is also expected to revenue comes from these sources in elementary schools participate in the monitoring of the implementation of compared with 16 percent in high schools.11 However, the SIP.15 The number and type of the SGC’s members and schools that serve a large proportion of children from the frequency of its meetings are initially decided through poorer households are restricted in terms of how much of an establishment meeting attended by parents and other this kind of revenue they can raise. For example, in 2014 stakeholders. In this meeting the constitution and by-laws students in the poorest quintile attended high schools that of the SGC and the election process for selecting council collected approximately PHP 60 per student in canteen members are agreed. funds, while students in the wealthiest quintile attended schools that collected PHP 116 per student in canteen Most schools have established school governing councils, funds.12 While some of this difference may have been due and their composition tends to be representative of to the quantity and quality of food provided, it may also stakeholders within the school and in the local community have reflected the greater capacity of wealthier schools to (Figure 4). The PETS-QSDS survey found that approximately collect revenues to support their own school improvement 90 percent of elementary schools and 80 percent of high planning. schools had SGCs. The PETS-QSDS survey was administered in the last quarter of 2014, and its results showed that, on A lot of school discretionary resources are devoted to average, SGCs had met twice since the beginning of the routine expenditures, which leaves only a limited amount 2014/15 school year. This implies that SGC meetings are available to fund additional activities. The most detailed usually held every quarter. The survey found that SGCs information available on the use of school discretionary generally include representatives of most of the major resources comes from official school records on school-level stakeholders including parents, teachers, and students. spending on MOOE. In 2013, schools used approximately In terms of overall numbers, parents and students tend three-quarters of their MOOE funding to pay for supplies to be most heavily represented on elementary school and printing, to undertake routine maintenance, and to SGCs, whereas in high schools, teachers are more heavily pay their utility bills.13 While these are clearly important, it represented. does not leave much room for schools to invest in other activities that might support better learning. For example, School principals reported that the most common types of less than 5 percent of MOOE funding was used to finance support provided by SGCs is the time and labor that they teacher training. A recent detailed costing study found devote to school activities. Two-thirds of elementary school that existing levels of MOOE were insufficient to provide principals and nearly half of all high school principals education services up to the standard of existing DepEd reported receiving this kind of support from SGCs. About norms.14 The limited amount of funding that schools have half of all principals also cited financial support for school 6 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH School Governing Councils Are Representative of Most Key Stakeholders Figure 4:  Percentage of SGCs by type of membership, 2014 100% 75% 50% 25% 0% Elementary Schools High Schools Teachers Barangay captain Parents/PTA representatives Student council members NGO members Alumni Local professionals Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school level. planning as another type of support received from the SGC. and reporting on their use.16 However, PTAs are an important When SGCs meet, the most common topics of discussion way in which parents can raise any concerns about school are student discipline, school improvement planning, school issues and provide support for school operations. As with finances, and student academic performance. SGCs, many PTAs include representatives of other local stakeholders including barangay captains and other local Very few parents of students were aware that their child’s government officials. school had an SGC. The PETS-QSDS study interviewed a random sample of student households from the schools that Parents are moderately more aware of and active in PTAs were sampled. Nearly three-quarters of the household heads than in school governing councils. All schools and almost that were interviewed were unaware that their child’s school all parents reported that their child’s school had a PTA. had an SGC (Figure 5). These findings raise questions about how effectively the SGCs are fulfilling their role as forums for Few Parents Know about the SGC or Are Figure 5:  school and community collaboration in improving learning Aware of the School Improvement Plan outcomes. Percentage of parents of elementary and high school students who know about the SGC and the SIP, 2014 Given that parents tend not to know about the existence of the SGC, it is perhaps not surprising that fewer than half of 40% all parents interviewed were aware that their school had an improvement plan. Most of the parents who knew about the SIP seem to have been invited to participate directly in its preparation, but any awareness beyond this group of parents 20% was rare. Parent-teacher associations (PTA) are another mechanism through which parents can support school improvement. All 0% schools sampled as part of the PETS-QSDS study reported Aware of School Aware that the school has that they had a functioning PTA. The role of PTAs in school Governing Council an improvement plan decision-making and in the development of the school Kindergarten Elementary High School improvement plan in particular is less clearly articulated than Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – household level. the role of the SGC. The DepEd guidelines governing PTAs Note: The bars relate to the level of education attended by the student focus almost exclusively on procedures for collecting funds from the interviewed household. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 7 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines Interviews with the Presidents of the PTAs indicated that physical labor and participation in school maintenance most PTAs met on a monthly or quarterly basis (Figure 6). week (Brigada Eskwela). PTAs were also active in providing Only 10 percent of PTAs in elementary and high schools additional funding to schools through their own PTA fees met less than twice a year. Almost a half of all parents as well as organizing fund-raising activities for the school. participated in PTA meetings and on average attended Only 32 percent of elementary school PTAs and 41 percent four meetings during the school year (Figure 6). On the of high school PTAs mentioned planning as one of their whole, over 90 percent of parents were satisfied with the main areas of support. functioning of their local PTA. These findings suggest that PTAs are generally more active Even though PTAs play only a limited formal role in school in school affairs than SGCs and are the main mechanism affairs, PTA Presidents reported that they had had some through which parents and other stakeholders participate. involvement in both the formulation and monitoring of These findings are confirmed by school principals who school plans. Approximately 85 percent of elementary stated that one of the most common ways in which and high school PTAs participated in the development of they receive feedback and complaints from parents and the school improvement plan as well as in monitoring its other stakeholders is through the PTA. Approximately 60 implementation. The small proportion of PTAs that were not percent of elementary and high school principals reported involved in the SIP process mentioned either that they were receiving comments and complaints from the PTA, and, not asked to help or that the PTA did not have the time to with the exception of direct discussions with parents devote to it. and students, this was their most common feedback mechanism. The main kind of support that PTAs provide to schools is in the form of additional financial and human resources. PTA Accountability and Transparency Presidents mentioned that providing their labor and skills for school projects was one of their most common activities This note has already provided an assessment of the kinds in support of schools (Figure 7). Two of the most commonly of institutions that are available at the school level to hold cited kinds of support given to schools by their PTAs were schools accountable for the resources they receive and PTAs Meet Regularly and Parents Play an Active Role Figure 6:  Frequency of PTA meetings and percentage of parents reporting that they attended regularly in 2013/14 school year Frequency of PTA meetings Parents’ participation in PTA meetings 60% 5 100% 50% 4 75% 40% 3 30% 50% 2 20% 25% 10% 1 0% 0 0% Elementary schools High schools Kindergarten Elementary High school Monthly Quarterly Biannually Annually No. of meetings attended in last school year Percentage of parents participating (RHS) Source: PETS-QSDS national survey. Left hand panel from student household interviews and right hand panel from PTA interviews. 8 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH PTAs Commonly Provide Schools with Labor, Finances, and Assistance during the Brigada Eskwela Figure 7:  Percentage of PTAs providing support by type, 2014 80% 60% 40% 20% 0% Elementary Schools High Schools Physical Financial Brigada Eskwela Fund raising Planning Administrative Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – PTA interviews. Note: Brigada Eskwela, or school maintenance week, happens at the start of the school year and the local community provides labor and resources to repair and tidy up school facilities. ultimately for the education outcomes they deliver. This Information on school performance was also rarely section focuses on the information that parents, PTAs, and provided on publicly accessible notice boards. Only 41 SGCs can use to hold schools to account and ways in which percent of elementary schools and 12 percent of high parents and other stakeholders are able to provide feedback schools placed information such as the results achieved by to schools. their students on the National Achievement Test and school dropout rates on transparency boards (Figure 8). While While the PETS-QSDS enumerators were visiting schools, they many schools do display this information, they usually do so noted that approximately 70 percent of elementary and high within the principal’s office, which is inaccessible to parents schools had some kind of notice board or transparency board and other community stakeholders. where information was posted (Figure 8). However, many of these transparency boards were not publicly accessible. For The limited availability of information provided by schools is example, around 40 percent of the transparency boards in perhaps a key reason why parents appear to be unaware of elementary schools were located inside the principal’s office the kinds of financial resources that schools receive to fund or in the staff room. improvements. Interviews with the parents of students in PETS-QSDS schools revealed that they had little knowledge Most schools do not display or publish up-to-date of what resources the schools received. For example, only information on how they spend their discretionary resources. 40 percent of parents of elementary and high school The proportion of schools, particularly high schools, that students were aware that schools received MOOE funding reported such information was low (Figure 8). The most from the national government. Even among the parents common information posted in schools was reports on who were aware of this, fewer than half had received how they had spent their MOOE funds. However, in one- any information on how the funds had been allocated third of the cases where this information was included in their school over the previous year. School meetings on the transparency board, it was over three months old. and PTA meetings were the most common places where Information on how revenues from sources such as school information on MOOE was disseminated. Fewer than 5 canteen funds were reported in slightly over half of all percent of elementary and high school parents reported elementary schools but in fewer than one-third of high obtaining this information from the transparency board at schools. the school. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 9 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines About a Half of Schools Have an Accessible Transparency Board but the Information Figure 8:  Provided Is Frequently Limited Percentage of schools with a transparency board and types of information posted on the boards, 2014 Elementary Schools High Schools 80% 80% 60% 60% 40% 40% 20% 20% 0% 0% Has transparency board Board in public space MOOE liquidation Canteen funds PTA funds LGU funds School performance MOOE guidelines Has transparency board Board in public space MOOE liquidation Canteen funds PTA funds MOOE guidelines LGU funds School performance Board Information on board Board Information on board Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school level. There are few other ways by which parents and other high school students felt that their school worked well with stakeholders can access information on school performance. other stakeholders to respond to the needs of learners. As part of the school improvement planning process, schools are supposed to prepare an annual school report Beyond school-level institutions, social accountability card that includes information on key school performance initiatives like Check My School do not appear to have indicators such as the National Achievement Test (NAT) had a significant impact. Check My School (CMS) is a results and student progression indicators. Yet only around project that uses mobile and internet technology to a half of parents of elementary and high school students enable communities to monitor the quality of basic said that they had been given such a card or even any education services. The initiative involves local facilitators information in the previous two school years. A similar who mobilize communities to verify information on the proportion of parents reported that they had not even status of their school. Any discrepancies between official received a report card on their own child’s progress. government data and the data collected by the CMS are then brought to the attention of DepEd. Although the Despite the limited provision of information by schools, initiative began in 2011, its coverage appears to be quite parents on the whole felt that schools were fairly responsive small. Only 15 percent of elementary school principals and and that there were a number of mechanisms in place for 20 percent of high school principals were aware of CMS, parents to provide feedback. Over 85 percent of parents and only a small proportion of these schools had had any either agreed or strongly agreed that schools provided direct dealings with the initiative (Figure 9). For example, opportunities for parents to file complaints on school-related fewer than 5 percent of high schools had ever provided issues. A similar proportion of parents of elementary and feedback through CMS.17 10 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH Social Accountability Initiatives like Check My School Do Not Work in Many Schools Figure 9:  Percentage of school principals reporting any involvement with Check My School (CMS) in 2013 or 2014 20% 15% 10% 5% 0% Elementary Schools High Schools Aware of CMS Visited by CMS CMS report Feedback through CMS Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school level. Division and district supervisors from DepEd regularly visit the public schools district supervisor (PSDS) and one visit schools to monitor their operations and to provide them from division office supervisors (Figure 10). Given that the with administrative and academic support. Elementary PETS-QSDS survey was administered in the last quarter of school principals reported that, since the start of the 2014/15 2014, this means that the PSDS was visiting an average of school year, they had received two visits on average from once every two months and the division supervisors were Division and District Supervisors Carry Out School Monitoring Visits Regularly Figure 10:  Average number of visits to schools in first half of 2014/15 school year and issues covered Number of visits Issues discussed 3 80% 60% 2 % of visits 40% 1 20% 0 0% District supervisor Division supervisors Division supervisors Academic Planning and management Administrative Financial Academic Planning and management Administrative Financial Elementary School High Schools Elementary School High Schools Source: PETS-QSDS national survey – school level. Note: Only issues that were discussed with the public schools district supervisor are reported for elementary schools. PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 11 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines visiting every quarter. Similarly, high schools were being need support from district and division-level supervisors visited by division supervisors every two months.18 These to help them to develop and implement better school visits usually included academic supervision of classroom improvement plans and to increase the effectiveness of teaching and discussions with school principals on planning, PTAs and SGCs. This support could be provided during management, and administration. the existing visits that district and division supervisors make routinely to schools. A recent evaluation of training Policy Directions to in Indonesia highlighted the importance of supervisors playing this kind of mentoring role in supporting school Strengthen School-based improvements (see Box 3). Management Providing schools with more discretionary funding could support the implementation of SBM and increase the The relatively low level of SBM implementation reported by effectiveness of public spending. The small share of schools in their own self-assessments highlights the need discretionary funding that schools currently receive limits for DepEd to provide more support to schools. Providing their autonomy and ability to implement their school school-level staff and SGC and PTA members with training improvement plans. Less than 15 percent of school on their roles and responsibilities has the potential to funding is controlled directly by schools, and much of enable them to support schools in implementing all of the this funding is spent on utility bills and routine supplies aspects of SBM. However, it is also likely that schools will instead of on actions aimed at improving the learning Box 3: An Evaluation of School-based Management Training Activities in Indonesia In 2011, Indonesia embarked on a massive program to train school principals and school committee members on the core elements of school-based management, including planning, budgeting, and financial management. Approximately 650,000 people attended a three-day training event held in different locations across Indonesia. An evaluation of the program came to a number of important conclusions: • A follow-up survey of participants found that the materials covered under the training program were relevant to the needs of schools in terms of school-based management. • The training program contributed to a number of changes at the school level particularly in terms of school governance. These positive findings were confirmed by interviews with parents and community members, which revealed that schools were using discretionary funds in a transparent and accountable way. • Schools reported that they were better able to follow the central government’s guidelines for reporting on their use of discretionary funds, which increased transparency and accountability. • The follow-up survey highlighted overall improvements in the management of school operational funding, particularly by school committee members. • The quality of training varied greatly across regions. There was a lack of supervision of the training events at the district level, which resulted in differences in the length of the training, class sizes, the capacity of trainers, and the quality of training facilities. The majority of trainees interviewed in the follow-up survey felt that more guidance and assistance was needed to help them to implement the training elements in their own schools. Source: Shaeffer, S. (2013). “BOS Training: Its Implementation, Impact, and Implications for the Development of Indonesia’s Education System. An Independent Review” Report prepared for AusAID Indonesia, Jakarta. 12 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH outcomes of their students. DepEd has already embarked This note has shown that most parents of students on a strategy to increase the level of school MOOE funds are unaware of the existence of SGCs or their school’s significantly, and this will go some way towards providing improvement plan. It seems clear that a campaign is schools with the resources that they need. urgently needed to increase the awareness of parents and other education stakeholders of the role of SGCs and school The government should consider increasing the authority improvement plans. Recent evaluations in Indonesia and that schools have over the use of other school-level funding. Pakistan have shown that it is possible to use old and new For example, DepEd is currently engaged in a massive school technologies to increase awareness. In Indonesia, an impact infrastructure improvement program, but analysis of the evaluation study showed that well-designed information PETS-QSDS survey has shown that the quality of classrooms campaigns using simple SMS text messages or school and water and sanitation facilities built or rehabilitated meetings can significantly increase public knowledge under this program has generally been poor. Giving about schools’ funding levels and responsibilities.20 It also schools and the SGC a greater role during the planning and found that this increased knowledge led to higher levels implementation of these improvement projects and giving of parental participation in school affairs. In Pakistan, a schools the authority to certify project completion could similar strategy was used in a successful pilot program to improve the quality of these facilities in the future.19 disseminate information about school councils.21 The pilot set up a call center and used inbound and outbound calls, This note has also highlighted the need for DepEd to provide robot calls, and SMS text messages to transmit important greater support to schools that serve poorer communities. information on the role played by school councils and their It has shown that poorer children generally attend schools members. An assessment of the pilot showed that the where SBM implementation is less advanced and where knowledge that school council members had of their roles fewer discretionary funds are available. The introduction of and responsibilities had increased, while school principals an equity component in the school MOOE funding formula reported an increase in the participation of the councils in would be one way to address these funding inequalities. school affairs. For example, schools in remote areas and/or that serve disadvantaged groups could be given additional funding This note has found that PTAs seemed to function well, with to account not only for differences in their own revenue- high participation rates by stakeholders and good relations raising abilities but also for the higher costs they incur to with school principals. These findings suggest that parents purchase school equipment and supplies and to attend and other stakeholders could participate to a greater extent training sessions. While more training and support for SBM in school improvement planning and in the management implementation is needed throughout the Philippines, it and oversight of school funds. However, it is also vital that is likely that additional help will be needed by the most the roles and responsibilities of SGCs and PTAs should be disadvantaged schools. clarified by DepEd to ensure that there are no duplications in functions and that each institution fulfils its particular role. Greater efforts are required to revitalize the role played by school governing councils in the school improvement Schools also need to make more information available to planning process in schools across the Philippines. As DepEd their stakeholders on how they use their funds and on the considers devolving more of the public education budget to school’s overall performance. This note has shown that schools, it is vital that accountability structures and resource many schools do not routinely share this kind of information planning processes are strengthened. In particular, SGCs with parents even though there are regulations obligating could be given greater responsibility for monitoring how them to do so. Keeping parents informed can encourage schools use their MOOE funds as a supplement to DepEd’s them to expand their role in supporting schools and in oversight mechanisms. For example, SGCs could become holding schools to account. Schools in the Philippines are jointly responsible with the DepEd divisions office for signing required to produce report cards on the performance of the off on schools’ MOOE liquidation reports. If the SGCs are to school and of individual students, but this note has shown take on an expanded role, then more training and support that this often does not happen. There is evidence from will need to be provided by DepEd to their members. other countries that these report cards can have significant PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 13 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines benefits in terms of, for example, higher student test scores enormous benefits in terms of better education outcomes. and reduced absenteeism by teachers (Box 4). Therefore, Schools around the country have already embarked on many DepEd needs to ensure that its regulations requiring schools of the reforms needed to realize these benefits. However, to produce report cards are enforced and to make parents there is a need to revitalize school-level institutions and to aware that they are entitled to expect to be given more increase the amount of information that schools provide information on their children’s schools. to parents and other stakeholders on the services that the schools are providing. Only then will the full potential of The evidence from the Philippines clearly shows that the school-based management to improve education outcomes introduction of school-based management can have be realized. Box 4: An Evaluation of School-based Management Training Activities in Uganda A randomized controlled trial in Uganda explored the impact of different interventions that used school report cards as a way for school managing committees to monitor performance. The two interventions that were tested were as follows: • A standard scorecard. School committee members were trained on how to use a school-level report card developed by education officials and NGOs. • A participatory scorecard. School committee members were trained and helped to produce a school-level report card that they themselves had developed and that included indicators of school progress agreed upon with the school. Interventions like these can be expected to improve education outcomes by providing local communities with the information needed to hold their schools accountable. They can also encourage schools to improve their performance either through social pressure or through a closer collaboration between the school and community. The experiment found that the participatory scorecard approach had a statistically significant impact on education outcomes. In terms of student learning, schools where the participatory scorecard was introduced had a statistically significant advantage in primary school test scores of approximately 0.2 standard deviations over control schools. Teacher attendance also improved, with teachers working in participatory scorecard schools being 13 percentage points more likely to be present than teachers in control schools. The results for the standard scorecard approach were less promising. The experiment found no statistically significant effects on student learning although it did appear to have a positive effect on the attendance of some teachers. The authors argue that the better outcomes for the participatory scorecard were primarily the result of increased cooperation between the school and the local community rather than because of differences in the information contained in the different scorecards. These findings suggest that using participatory methods to develop school report cards may improve education outcomes and strengthen the supporting role played by school committees. Source: Barr, A., F. Mugisha, P. Serneels and A. Zeitlin. (2012). “Information and Collective Action in Community-based Monitoring of Schools: Field and Lab Experimental Evidence from Uganda.” Unpublished paper. 14 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH Table 1: Strengthening School-based Management Findings Policy suggestions Schools assess their level of SBM • Provide further training to school principals, school governing councils, and implementation as low parent-teacher associations on school-based management • Build the capacity of district and division supervisors to mentor schools in the implementation of school-based management Only a small share of school funding is • Increase central government MOOE funds to a level that will enable schools discretionary to meet existing education service standards • Increase the authority of schools over other funds (such as school construction funding) SBM implementation is less advanced • Introduce an equity component into the MOOE funding formula and fewer discretionary funds are • Provide additional supervisory support on school-based management to available in schools that serve poorer schools serving disadvantaged groups communities SGCs are not functioning as they were • Clarify the roles and responsibilities of SGCs and PTAs designed to do • Establish a role for the SGC in overseeing the use of school discretionary funds • Increase the knowledge of SGC members on their roles and responsibilities through school-level training initiatives • Conduct an information campaign to increase public awareness of the role of SGCs and PTAs, the SIP, and the use of and the reporting requirements associated with discretionary school funds (such as MOOE funds and canteen revenues) Transparency at the school level needs • Strengthen monitoring by DepEd district and division offices of the to be increased production of key information (such as school report cards and student report cards) by schools • Enforce regulations on making information publicly available on school performance and use of funds PHILIPPINES EDUCATION NOTE 15 Assessing School-based Management in the Philippines Endnotes 1 AusAID ERF (2011). “Current Issues in Education: School Grants 10 A more detailed assessment of the systems governing the use and School-based Management.” Canberra; Bruns, B., D. Filmer, of MOOE funding for schools is provided in a separate note- and H. Patrinos (2011) “Making Schools Work: New Evidence on Providing Schools with Adequate Operating Expenses to Deliver Accountability Reforms” World Bank, Washington, D.C.; and Carr- Quality Education in the Philippines. Hill, R., C. Rolleston, T. Pherali, and R. Schendel (2014). “The Effects 11 Despite these sources representing a lower proportion of total of School-based Decision-making on Educational Outcomes in discretionary funds in high schools than in elementary schools, Low- and Middle-income contexts: A Systematic Review” Institute high schools collected higher absolute amounts from these of Education, London. sources in 2014. 2 Khattri, N., C. Ling, and S. Jha (2010). “The Effects of School-based 12 The pattern is similar in elementary schools and for other Management in the Philippines: An Initial Assessment Using school-level revenues (for example, charges for school utilities). Administrative Data” Policy Research Working Paper Series. No. Full details are available in a set of additional annexes and tables 5248, World Bank, Washington, D.C. and Yamauchi, F. (2014) “An accompanying the main PETS-QSDS report. Alternative Estimate of School-based Management Impacts on Students’ Achievements: Evidence from the Philippines.” Journal of 13 A more detailed assessment of school MOOE funding is provided Development Effectiveness. 6, no. 2: 97-110. in a separate note- Providing Schools with Adequate Operating Expenses to Deliver Quality Education in the Philippines. 3 World Bank and AusAID (2013). “School-based Management in the Philippines: An Empirical Investigation.” World Bank and 14 World Bank (2016). “The Development and Implementation AusAID, Manila. of a Normative School MOOE Formula in the Department of Education in the Philippines.” Washington D.C. 4 The household questionnaire included a short module on consumption and a set of questions on assets that have been 15 SGCs also play a role in making policies regarding student welfare used by the Department of Social Welfare and Development and in managing council resources. See DepEd (2009). “A Manual (DSWD) to undertake a proxy means testing (PMT) approach on School Governing Councils.” Department of Education, Manila. to estimating household consumption per capita. The results 16 DepEd Order No. 54 (2009). “Revised Guidelines Governing reported here are based on information gathered using the PMT Parents-Teachers Associations at the School Level.” Department of approach, and a full description is included in a separate note. Education, Manila. 5 The full results are provided in a set of additional annexes and 17 Similar results were also found for Government Watch initiatives tables accompanying the main PETS-QSDS report. in the education sector like textbook count and textbook walk. 6 Carr-Hill, R., C. Rolleston, T. Pherali, and R. Schendel (2014). 18 High schools are not monitored by public schools district “The Effects of School-based Decision-making on Educational supervisors. Outcomes in Low- and Middle-income Contexts: A Systematic 19 A fuller discussion of the strengths and weaknesses of existing Review” Institute of Education, London. school infrastructure improvement systems is provided 7 Systems governing the use of school infrastructure improvement in a separate note in this series - Building Better Learning funds is discussed in detail in a separate note - Building Better Environments in the Philippines. Learning Environments in the Philippines. 20 Cerdan-Infantes, P. and D. Filmer (2015). “Information, Knowledge, 8 A full description of the information collected in the PETS-QSDS and Behavior: Evaluating Alternative Methods of Delivering study and the approach used to calculate total school revenue School Information to Parents.” World Bank Policy Research and expenditure is included in a set of additional annexes and Working Paper No.7233, World Bank, Washington D.C. tables accompanying the main PETS-QSDS report. 21 Cambridge Education (2014). “Review of Implementation of 9 In 2013/14, DepEd also provided school-based management School Council Policy 2013.” Cambridge, UK. grants of between PHP 100,000 - 200,000 to 7 percent of elementary and 17 percent of high schools in low income class municipalities. The revenue from these funds is included under revenue from DepEd in Figure 3. 16 WWW.WORLDBANK.ORG/PH