Policy-level Improvement and Institutionalization of Field-level Trials:
Achievement of Third Elementary Education Project in the Philippines
Izuru Kimura 1
Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) 2
July 2008

Abstract: This paper introduces key devices to sustain impacts of development assistance by taking
a case study on a Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) in the Philippines.

TEEP targeted

twenty-three poverty-affected provinces to improve quality of elementary schools.

Through

TEEP’s implementation, students’ academic achievement and the completion rate of the target
provinces were significantly improved.

Department of Education recognized TEEP as a“nationwide laboratory,” after its mid-term review, to improve the entire elementary education.
Among TEEP’s various trials in the field, some significant devices, such as School BasedManagement, were institutionalized at the policy level at the end of the project.

Key Words: East Asia, Philippines, elementary education, student achievement, development
assistance, institution

1. Introduction
1.1 TEEP as a “Nationwide Laboratory”
Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) is a nine-year public investment program(1998-2006) of the Department of Education (DepEd) in the Philippines with external financing
from the World Bank and the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC) (Figure 1-1). TEEP
targets twenty-three poverty-affected provinces3, out of seventy-nine provinces in the country, withfull participation of the Local Government Units (LGUs) (Figure 1-2). The main goal of TEEP is
to improve the education quality through decentralization by providing multiple school inputs suchas classroom facilities, textbooks, teacher training, and school management enhancement.
1Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC)､1-4-1 Ohtemachi, Chiyoda-ku, Tokyo, 100-8144, JAPAN. (Tel)+81-3-5218-3585, (Fax) +81-3-5218-3969, e-mail: i-kimira@jbic.go.jp.

This paper is based on the findings and discussions of the author. The views
expressed in this paper are those of the author and do not necessarily represent theofficial position of the JBIC.
3 20 target provinces of TEEP were the prioritized provinces under the Social Reform Agenda (SRA)2

set by the Ramoz Administration, and the rest were selected by TEEP taking into consideration theprovincial socio-economic indicators. The number of target provinces was originally 26, but finally
23 provinces were covered since 3 WB-target provinces were excluded during the implementation.

306

Specifically, TEEP aimed to (i) improve learning achievements, completion rates, and access toquality elementary education; (ii) build institutional capacity of Department of Education (DepEd) to
manage change; and (iii) actively involve the community and local government in a large-scale
effort to attain quality education (DepEd, 2005).
Moreover, TEEP was intended to be a “nationwide laboratory” for reforms that involves
planning by the stakeholders, social targeting, decentralization, and school focused andinformation-based decision making.

In other words, DepEd tried to make institutional change bydeveloping capacity of stakeholders through TEEP.

In 2006, TEEP was completed with many

development outcomes and rich implications on both policy and field practice. With such results,
TEEP is considered not only as a “nationwide laboratory” but also as a “catalytic device” forelementary educational development.
It was from 2001 to 2005 that TEEP was accelerated much with strong ownership andleadership of the management of DepEd. In 2001, the mid-term review of TEEP was conducted.
Based on the findings of the review, TEEP’s design, in terms of project management, and somecomponents were correctively restructured. The then Undersecretary of DepEd was the one who
recognized TEEP as a “catalytic devics” as well as a “nationwide laboratory,” considering TEEP’s
coverage and potential impact, and kept encouraging the staff to fully activate all the stakeholders
through implementation of TEEP. Consequently, this paper picks up TEEP, mainly focusing on the
period of 2001-2005, as a case study to examine effective devices to enhance and to sustain theimpact of development by identifying some key aspects that contributed to the policy improvement
and institutional change.

1.2 What Did TEEP Change?
TEEP’s approach was to improve comprehensively the educational environment in thetarget provinces by providing various inputs. Aiming to improve quality, access, and managementof elementary education, TEEP’s inputs were categorized into three major components: (i) education
development; (ii) civil works; and (iii) finance and administration.

In concrete, each component

had the following inputs:(i) Education Development Component:

This component provided (a) in-service training of

education staff (school head, teacher, DepEd administrative staff), (b) the School Improvement
Innovation Facility (SIIF), a grant facility for funding specific school improvement initiatives, (c)textbooks and supplementary materials, (d) school kits, (e) equipment, (f) and furniture.

After themid-term review in 2001, School-Based Management (SBM) was added to this component.
(ii) Civil Works Component: This component provided classroom and DepEd administrative officefacilities. Almost all schools in the target provinces were planned to have at least one classroom
facility constructed or repaired by TEEP. TEEP required ten-percent of LGUs’ equity for theschool building program.

307

(iii) Finance and Administration Component: This component provided teachers and staff of DepEd
and LGUs with technical assistance to improve their management of procurement, finance, andproject monitoring. It also provided the Education Management Information System (EMIS) tostrengthen the monitoring and evaluation function of DepEd.
After the completion of TEEP, it was reported by the World Bank (2007) that 5,397
classrooms were constructed, 17,110 classrooms were repaired, and 62,251 teachers, school heads,
and district supervisors underwent various in-service training.

Physical accomplishment of TEEP

is visible everywhere in the target provinces, but more remarkable result was the impact on students’
academic achievement and completion.

TEEP schools performance in the learning areas tested(English, Math, Science, Filipino) in Grades 2, 4 & 6 improved significantly as measured in the
National Sample-Based Assessment (NSBA) between its baseline year (1999) and final year of
implementation (2005) (Figure 1-2).

The completion rate likewise, improved significantly frombaseline compared to the rate of the country as a whole (Table 1-1).

Figure 1-2. Mean Percentage Score (MPS)* in the National Sample-Based Assessment (NSBA)
by Year of Administration, TEEP and non-TEEP Divisions
Source: Draft TEEP Project48

Completion Report, 2006

46
44

*MPS indicates the ratio

42

Teep

40

Non-TEEP

38

between the number of correctly
answered items and the total
number of test questions or the36

percentage of correctly

34
1999

2001

2003

answered items in a test.

2005

Table 1-1: Project Outcomes Indicators, by Province (Baseline to 2005)
Change inCompletion Rate
Completion
Rate
TEEP Target Province
1994-95
2002-03
2004-05
1995-2005(Public)
Abra
68
69
78
+10
Agusan del Sur
62
47
50
-12
Antigue
62
64
59-3
Aurora61
78
76+15
Batanes
86
94
89+3
Bengeut
74
68
70-4
Biliran
61
67
73
+12
Capiz
61
71
56
-5

308

Change in Rank
on NAT*
Achievement
2003-2005
Neg.
Pos.
Pos.
Neg.
Neg.
Pos.
Pos.
Neg.

Eastern Samar
62
53
91+29 Pos.
Guimaras
61
74
75+14 Pos.
Ifugao
44
61
51
+7
Neg.
Kalinga-Apayao
48
73
49+1 Kalinga–Pos.
Leyte
59
66
63
+4 Pos.
Masbate
50
51
54
+4
Neg.
Mt. Province
59
69
68+9 Pos.
Negros Oriental
42
54
57
+15
Neg.
North Cotabato
60
52
57-3 Pos.
Romblon
68
70
59-9 Pos.
Southern Leyte
71
90
81+10 Pos.
Surigao del Sur
57
66
60+3 Pos.
Zamboanga del Sur
48
61
54
+6
Neg.
Source: 1994-1995 completion data are from the World Bank (1996) Staff Appraisal Report (RN
15888-PH); and 2002-03 and 2004-05 data from the Project Completion Report of theGovernment of the Philippines (DepEd, 2006).
Achievement change-in-rank data are from the JBIC report.
*NAT: National Achievement Test
Table 1-2: National Student Assessment Examinations Administered Between 1997-98 and 2004-05.

97-98

98-99

99-00

00-01
NSBA
Grade 2,4, & 6

01-02

02-03
NSBA
Grade 2,4, & 6
NAT

03-04

NAT

04-05
NSBA
Grade 2,4, & 6
NAT

Pupil performance on NSBA corroborated the NAT findings (TEEP MPS-61.06% andNational MPS-58.73% in 2005 NAT).

The MPS of 2005 NSBA of pupils in TEEP schools werehigher than those in the non-TEEP sample across grade levels and subjects (Table 1-3).

This isnotable given the higher MPS of the non-TEEP sample in 1999.

Table 1-3: National Sample-Based Assessment 2005 Results

TEEP MPS
Non-TEEP MPS
Total Country MPS

English
44.44
37.97
43.26

Math
41.74
35.13
40.53

Science
45.41
38.71
44.19

Pilipino
51.27
46.92
50.47

Total Test
45.84
39.92
44.76

The difference in the scores of TEEP and non-TEEP pupils was significant in favor of thelatter until 2003 when the scale tipped, giving TEEP pupils an edge over their counterparts in
non-TEEP schools by 2005.

Even though the target divisions were in poorer environment in termsof socio-economic indicators, TEEP showed that the educational performance could be improved.
With such achievement, DepEd recognized the efficiency and applicability of TEEP-type
comprehensive and bottom-up approach, which motivate various concerned stakeholders toparticipate in, and started to institutionalize and replicate the same approach nationwide.

309

2. Basis Education Settings in the Philippines
2.1 Issues of Elementary Education
The World Education Forum in 2000 advocated a new strategy “(Quality) Education forAll” together in the Millennium Development Goals and affirmed that qualitative improvement
should be attempted equally with quantity expansion.

In the Philippines, enrolment rates at all

education levels were relatively higher compared to those of countries with equivalent and/or higher
income levels.

In basic education, universal access has been almost achieved at Grade 1, and net

enrolment rate was 96.4% in 2004.
However, dropout and repetition rates were high, survival rate was still as low as 69.8%,
and academic achievement was low. Overall academic scores did not reach 50% on average in
2004. Moreover, in the 2004 High School Readiness Test, only 0.64% attained the passing score of
75% or better. Therefore, the problems of education quality were very serious.
As for secondary school, since 1990 of free compulsory high school education, there has
been a rapid increase in enrolment, and net enrolment rate is as high as 72.3%. However, dropout
rate is still high, survival rate is as low as 66%, and completion rate of high school for children who
entered grade 1 is below 50%.

Compared to the rest of the East Asian countries, education

outcomes in terms of quality in the Philippines are relatively low in 1999. The Philippines ranked
nearly last in student performance on mathematics and science tests (Table 2-1).

Table 2-1: Student Performance on Mathematics and Science Tests in East Asia

Country
Singapore
Korea
TaiwanHong KongJapan
Malaysia
ThailandIndonesia
Philippines

Math Score & Rank
604
(1)
587
(2)
585
(3)
N.A.
579
(5)
519
(16)
467
(27)
403
(34)
348
(36)

Science Score & Rank
568
(2)
549
(5)
569
(1)
530
(15)
550
(4)
492
(22)
482
(24)
435
(32)
345
(36)

Source: Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (from 1999); Institute of Education
Statistics, US Department of Statistics (2003)

Furthermore, population growth rate was 2.36% on average from 1995 to 2000. The
growth rates of enrolment were 1% for primary and around 5% for secondary education, and theincrease in enrolment was more than 100 thousand and 300 thousand respectively on average every
year.

Therefore, in order to accommodate the increasing number of enrollees, classroom

construction and textbook provision were implemented, especially in disadvantaged areas of Social
Reform Agenda.
310

In dealing with the problems of educational access including dropout and repetition issues
and those of education quality, it is crucial for all the levels of education administration units (central,region, division, district and school), to work together in analyzing current conditions, setting
objectives, planning concrete measures to achieve those objectives, setting indicators to measure thedegree of achievement, and carrying out activities.

Since these series of analysis processes

currently lack in a decision-making process at all levels, it was necessary to improve education
management including teacher deployment, teacher development planning and budget allocation.
At both primary and secondary levels, there exist regional disparities and public-private
disparities in student- classroom and student- teacher ratios, teachers’ teaching quality and students’
academic performance.
Accordingly, it is considered that the issues to be addressed in primary and secondary
education in the Philippines are how to improve (i) education access including dropout and repetition
issues, (ii) education quality including teachers’ teaching capability and (iii) education management,in consideration of regional disparities. Table 2-2 shows the summary of the status and issues ofbasic education in the Philippines.

2.2 Decentralization: Opportunity or Threat
Decentralization policy gave strong impact on the basic education in the Philippines. Inline with the “Local Government Code 1990”, the government of the Philippines have made gradualshift of major responsibilities of basic education from the central Department of Education (DepEd)
to the Local Government Units (LGUs) (GOP, 1990). The Code devolved service responsibilities
and revenue authority to LGUs, placing them at the forefront of development and poverty alleviation(Nolledo, 1991). The Code stipulated that the Local School Boards shall be established in every
province, city and municipality. The provincial school board shall be composed of the provincial
governor and the division superintendent of DepEd as co-chairmen.

The municipal school board

shall be composed of the municipal mayor and the district supervisor of schools as co-chairmen. In
this way, the structure of the school board was organized to constantly involve both the local
political leader and the local administrative head of DepEd, and the Code requires to have the Local
School Board meeting at least once a month or as often as may be necessary.
This decentralization policy made some significant change in LGUs.

Remarkable

outcome of the Code has been the emergence of good models of LGUs performance and service
delivery under dynamic local leadership.
visible example of good governance.

Successful and well-managed LGUs have become a

These LGUs not only inspired neighboring LGUs, but in a

few cases they also achieved a track-record of performance across several administrations, thus
showing some signs of institutionalization of good governance.

Successful LGUs serve as

replicable models for an emerging culture of service delivery and a stronger social contract. TEEP
helped streamline and structure the government’s broader policy approach towards all LGUs,

311

including relatively weaker ones, in order to create conditions for them to join the ranks of thestronger and well-managed LGUs. (World Bank, 2005)
On the other hand, lack of social inclusion was a serious obstacle to development, one thatis closely linked to the country’s economic and social challenges. Inequality certainly remained
high in the Philippines. Coupled with low growth over the longer term, this translated into slow
progress on poverty reduction.

The richest five percent of households account for nearly one thirdof national income, while the poorest twenty percent accounts for only six percent (Figure 2-1).

Figure 2-1: Distribution of Income
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%

Richest 5%
30%

75%
64%

Poorest 20%
6%
National Income

Household Population

Source: Philippines Statistical Yearbook 2003
As a result of unequal distribution of incomes and opportunities, many people in thePhilippines, especially the poor, are skeptical of economic reforms since they are unable to reap the
benefits of growth. School enrollment rates are twenty-eight percent lower in the poorest groupcompared to the richest; similarly, female literacy rates (age 15-49) are nine percent lower for thepoorest group compared to the richest. Geographic disparities in health and education outcomesalso remain high. Moreover, they are not involved in the decision-making process. Thus theability of the central government to take collective decisions and to provide public goods andservices is impaired (World Bank, 2005).
Based upon the understanding of major issues of basic education, considering not only
elementary but also secondary education, and taking into account the difficult transition period ofdecentralization, TEEP was implemented to tackle the relevant bottlenecks.

3. Key Devices to Maximize the Impact
In spite of hard socio-economic conditions, TEEP target provinces could significantly
improve their elementary education environment, as is indicated in the student academic

312achievement and completion rate. Based on the practical experiences of TEEP’s implementation,
DepEd, relevant external donors, and scholars have been conducting TEEP’s impact survey with thequestion: Why did TEEP’s approach work, and what kind of devices were installed in the field
through TEEP?
Though there is no comprehensive quantitative analysis to prove the relationship between
TEEP’s various inputs and student performance except for a sample-based case study4, reality iseloquent and persuasive.

DepEd, the World Bank and JBIC have conducted review study

respectively and found the qualitative characteristics of the high performing schools and teachers in
the TEEP target provinces. Quijano (2008) says, “TEEP has developed leaders at all levels of theorganization and across functions with the capacity to manage changes in the educational system
specifically in empowering school heads and teachers for making schools effective. It mobilized
parents, local officials and communities to invest time, energy and resources in achieving theschool’s vision, mission, goals and objectives.”

The successful schools and divisions could be

attributed to the following characteristics and strategies pursued by the school heads (DepEd 2005):- The high performing school heads have a dynamic leadership.
-The high performing schools have strong community partnership.
-The high performing schools have a clear mission and high expectations for pupils and teachers.
-The high performing schools ensure optimal utilization of resources and provide facilities forincreasing academic achievement.
-The high performing schools practice meaningful assessment and reporting of pupil progress.
-The high performing schools have a strong sense of accountability.
Followings are the key devices that various sources of TEEP review raised as importantfactors that contributed to TEEP’s achievement.

3.1 Project Design (1): Involvement of Stakeholders
The implementation scheme of TEEP was designed to involve various concerned
people/groups to schools so that field-level demand can be reflected in the development policy andactual implementation.

TEEP implemented decentralization of public education management at thedivision and at the school levels in terms of administrative authority and financial management.
This was undertaken with active participation of the Local Government Units (LGUs), parents andother community stakeholders. The process succeeded in instilling sense of ownership and greater
accountability to school clients and parents. School-Based Management (SBM) was implemented in
the Philippine schools for the first time and served as the central integrating framework that
operationalized the implementation of specific project components like (i) Principal-led School

4

Kobayashi (2005, not-for publication) showed interesting statistical result that theteacher training and school facilities provided by TEEP have significant impact on the
improvement of NSBA test scores, based on the multiple regression analysis.
313

Building Program, (ii) School-Based Procurement of Furniture, and (iii) School Innovation and
Improvement Facility, or School Grant with equity or fund counterpart from several stakeholders.
Local Government Units at the provincial, municipal and barangay (village) levels, congressmen,parents, non-government organizations and people in the community all acted as key agents toimprove educational environment through implementing TEEP.
Likewise, TEEP empowered the divisions and schools together with their stakeholders tomake them key agents in creating and supporting effective schools that focus on learning andteaching. It was significant that DepEd documented and published the best practices of schools in abook “Transforming Schools on the Ground, Fifty Studies of School-Based Management under
TEEP,” in 2005 (DepEd, 2005).
3.2 Project Design (2): Decentralized Local-Oriented Management
TEEP’s strategies and interventions to improve key performance indicators of schools
were always selected based on the needs identified by the school staff together with the community,
the LGUs and other stakeholders.

In this process, all stakeholders ensured active support toachieve the needed results.
Roles and functions of the central, regional and division offices of DepEd were clearly
identified to have simple delineations in terms of training, material development, procurement,
monitoring and technical assistance, and assessment and evaluation for quality assurance, to avoid
duplication of functions and instead maximize the technical assistance or expertise that are provided
to schools.
Resource allocation varied from division to division or school to school but most favoredthe depressed, disadvantaged and underserved.

In pursuance of the decentralization policy,

divisions and schools were allowed to manage their own funds based on their development plans.
Several in-service activities had already been conducted at the school level. Clusters ofschools with the same training needs conducted their own training. Peer coaching and mentoring
usually followed the formal in-service training. This strategy ensured that in-service trainings
respond to needs of teachers and students, and were conducted with minimal cost.
3.3 Added Value (1): Making Achievement Visible for Further Understanding
Advocacy and information campaigns and activities were undertaken in offices, schools
and communities nationwide to achieve awareness and common understanding of the educationalinnovations.

They brought about positive changes in the way the schools delivered the services.

This kind of advocacy was done through various media: print and non-print. Distribution of“TEEPstar” was one of the successful examples. DepEd central office collected information ofgood practices under TEEP schools, made it into a monthly newsletter and distributed to all theschool heads including non-TEEP provinces.
The award of “Brigada Eskwela (School Obligation)” also worked. This was an award
system to encourage school-community partnership which required no cost.

314

When a schoolimproved its educational environment with mobilizing local resources, DepEd division officerecommended the school to DepEd central, and the honor was provided by the Secretary. Then thepanel of acknowledgement was displayed in the school so that the community members could keep
supporting the educational environment.
The unique color of classrooms constructed or repaired by TEEP unexpectedly worked toshow the progress. In 2000, the then Education Secretary decided to differentiate the color ofclassrooms between the normal ones and TEEP contributed ones.

TEEP classrooms were coloredin blue for the roofs and in yellow for the walls, while the national standard classrooms had green
roof and white wall. Since almost all the schools had at least one classroom constructed or repaired
by TEEP, the color strongly appealed to the local people as well as the congressmen, and thiscontributed to increase the social awareness.
3.4 Added Value (2): School-Based Management
After the mid-term review of TEEP in 2001, School-Based Mangement (SBM) was added
to the project component. TEEP had defined SBM as the decentralization of decision-making
authority from central, regional, and division levels to individual school sites, uniting school heads,
teachers, students as well as parents, the LGUs and the community in promoting effective schools.
Its main goal is to improve school performance and student achievement, where decision-making is
made by all those who are closely involved with resolving the challenges of the individual schools sothat the specific needs of the students could be served more effectively.
The objectives of SBM are to (i) empower the school heads to lead their teachers andstudents through reforms which lead to higher learning outcomes; (ii) bring resources, including
funds, down to the control of schools to spur change; (iii) strengthen partnership with communities
as well as local government units to invest time, money and effort in making the school a better
place to learn and (iv) integrate school management and instructional reform for making the school
effective (Figure 3-1) (DepEd, 2006).

315

Figure 3-1: School-Based Management Milestones

Source: DepEd 2005

Introduction and development of SBM under TEEP became a milestone to replicate and tosustain the impact by institutionalizing the well practiced model.

The enactment of Republic Act(RA) 9155, otherwise known as Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001, gave added impetus to
the earlier efforts of DepEd to decentralize the governance and management of basic education.
The Act provides the legal framework for the formal institution of the systems and procedures thatwould govern the exercise of SBM in public elementary and secondary schools nationwide.
Even before the passage of the Act, DepEd had already identified the modeling of SBM
and the development of its human resource capacity as two of the major objectives of TEEP in orderto achieve its goal of improving the quality of elementary education.

During the period ofconceptualizing SBM under TEEP, a confluence of events occurred, marked by the passage of the
Act in year 2001 and the promulgation of its Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) in
January 2003.
In 2005, Education Secretary (DepEd 2005) embarked “Schools First Initiative (SFI),”
which aimed to strengthen SBM capacity in order for a school to solve its problems and improvetheir school on its own, along with the former Secretary’s “Road Map for Philippine Education” (De316

Jesus, 2004). The SBM model developed under TEEP was an integral part of SFI, providing major
inputs to the institutionalization process of SBM in compliance with the letter and spirit of RA 9155.
Since the SBM model was institutionalized, the ASSA (Assessment, Setting of Standards,
Strategies, and Accountability) Model (Figure 3-2) was applied to all the elementary schools in thePhilippines.

It had components like stakeholders’ participation in running schools;

school/cluster-based training, fund management, and school improvement and innovation activities.
Under the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA), the current mid-term development
agenda of the Philippines, SBM was recognized one of the identified key reform thrusts to makecontinuously improvement to schools (Quijano, 2008).
The abovementioned aspects were major examples of key devices that TEEP had instilledduring its implementation.

There were some unexpected outcomes, such as concluding partnershipwith Coca-Cola Cooperation, Inc. for the textbook distribution, taking advantage of the corporation’s
logistics network.

4. Implications: Institutional Change for Sustainability
4.1 Drivers of Change
Education is arguably the most important of wealth-sharing and opportunity-creating
mechanisms (World Bank 1993.p.160). The provision of universal primary education and wideaccess to secondary and higher education contributed substantially to opportunities for upward
mobility.

This mobility in turn mitigated the feeling of non-elites that society is unjust and madethem more accepting of the market-oriented policies needed to foster growth (Bray & Lee, 1997).
Some studies of the World Bank projects illustrated interesting elements necessary forsuccessful development (World Bank, 2000)5. These studies showed that government’s ownership ofprojects is essential and that measures of government credibility are closely correlated with returns
on the projects. “The role of social capital in project success has also been highlighted-indeed, it ishard to overemphasize the importance of networks of trust and association for sustainable
development (World Bank, 2000, p. 18).”
Reviewing the abovementioned key devices instilled under TEEP, it could be said that allthese devices were initiated by the stakeholders, with the strong ownership of DepEd, with practical
trials and errors during TEEP’s implementation. Ultimately, implementing TEEP itself was theopportunity of capacity development for all the stakeholders. In other words, TEEP provided
various opportunities of “on-the-job training” for the stakeholders, especially for the school heads,
teachers, and DepEd staff. They gradually became the “drivers for change” which led to institutionalchange or policy improvement.
TEEP covered about one-third of all the provinces in the Philippines, but like the case ofEvans and Bataille (1997); Isham, Narayan, and Pritchett (1994); and World Bank
(1991 and 1997)5317

School-Based Management, its impact was replicated to non-TEEP provinces, and it was sustainedby institutionalization as a policy.

Looking back the nine-year implementation period, an

implication is left that the stakeholders’ capacity gradually developed mainly through their own
struggles to participate in the project and to move things forward practically. Such field–level trials
made the grounded successful practices which led to the institutional change, and the bundle ofinstitutions lead to policy-level improvement.
In each development project, this kind of positive spiral should be considered carefully,
with medium- to long-term perspectives, to replicate and to sustain the valuable outcomes.
4.2 Philosophical Meaning
Philosophical implication is reminded from the case study of TEEP. Among various
philosophers who left profound thoughts on the roles of education, TEEP’s case reminds PauloFreire. The generative themes of Freire (2000) are liberation and literacy. According to Freire’s
philosophy, education is the key to revolution, to reversing relations between the oppressed and theoppressors, and to creating a radically new philosophy.

Freire puts importance on literacy in his

philosophy of education. He explains that reading the word is a reading of the world, and it canraise individual consciousness followed by revolution against the oppressed social structure.
His philosophy reflects his personal background. He experienced poverty as a youth in apoor region of Northern Brazil, and grew up in depression. He was influenced by critical anddialectical humanism such as the thoughts of Helgel, Marx, Che, and Fromm.

Freire (2000)

introduces the class structure as well as politics in thinking about pedagogy. Freire considers apedagogy and politics of the oppressed, revolution, and transformation of the world. Freire’scontribution is to provide the distinction between being a “subject” and an “object.”

He explains

how to become a “subject” in order to participate in one’s own development and socialtransformation and thus to realize the full humanity. The keys are to grasp and to overcome thecontradictions, and to gain conscientizacao. A “subject” is an actor and has consciousness. On
the other hand, an “object” is capital and is used or oppressed.
In this distinction, teacher-student structure is denied and equal dialect and form of
emancipation are recommended. “Consistent with the liberating purpose of dialogical education,
the object of the investigation is not persons, but rather the thought-language with which men andwomen refer to reality (pp. 77-78).”

The characteristic of Freire’s proposal is wholly dialectical sothat his pedagogy allows a range of interpretation and application.
In the context of TEEP, significant achievement could be seen in the “unit of subject.”
TEEP does not focus only on students and schools, but also on communities surrounding elementary
schools, recognizing that communities should have consciousness and act as a “subject” with its own
will for development.

This approach worked for improving the awareness of education amongcommunity members, and for sustainable model of school management, even without external
donors’ assistance.

318

References
Bray, Mark & W. O. Lee. ‘Education and Political Transitions in East Asia: Diversity andCommonality’ in Bray, Mark & W. O. Lee. (eds.), Education and Political Transition:
Themes and Experiences in East Asia. Hong Kong: Comparative Education Research Centre.
2001.
Evans, Alison and William Bataille. Annual review of development effectiveness. Washington D. C.:
The World Bank. 1997.
De Jesus, E. A Roadmap for Education. Manila: DepEd. 2004
Department of Education (DepEd), Philippines. Mid-Term Review Report of the Third Elementary
Education Project. Manila: DepEd. 2000.
_______. A Primer on School-Based Management and Its Support Systems. Manila: DepEd. 2005.
_______. School First Initiative Strategy Document. Manila: DepEd. 2005_______. Transforming Education On The Ground: Fifty Studies of School Based Management
under the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP). Manila: DepEd. 2006.
_______. Technical Report: NSBA 2005. Third Elementary Education Project. Manila: DepEd. 2006
Freire, Paulo. Pedagogy of the oppressed, 30th anniversary edition. New York: Continuum. 2000.
Government of the Philippines (GOP). The local government code 1990. Manila: GOP. 1990.
_______. Philippines Statistical Yearbook 2003. Manila: GOP. 2003.
Isham, Jonathan, Deepa Narayan, and Lant Pritchett. ‘Does participation improve performance?
Empirical evidence from project data.’ In Policy research working paper 1357. Washington
D. C.: The World Bank. 1994.
Japan Bank for International Cooperation. External Review of TEEP (Draft Final). Manila: not for
publication. 2006.
Kobayasi, Lin, Beyond the Numbers: An Analysis of the Effectiveness of the Filipino Education
Project. Monograph of School of Education. Stanford: not-published. 2005
Nolledo, Jose N. The Local Government Code with Basic Features. Manila: National Book Store.
1991.
Philippines ODA Task Force (Education Team). Position Paper on Primary and Secondary
Education. Manila: not-published. 2005

319

Quijano, Yolanda S. Message Regarding TEEP for Publication in JBIC’s ODA Loan Project News.
Manila: (draft not for publication). 2008
World Bank. World development report 1991: the challenge of development. New York: Oxford
University Press. 1991_______. Staff Appraisal Report 1588-PH, Washington D.C.: The World Bank. 1996.
_______. World Development Report 1997: the state in a changing world. New York: Oxford
University Press. 1997.
_______. Country Assistance Strategy for the Republic of the Philippines 2006-2008. Washington
D.C.: The World Bank. 2005_______. Implementation Completion and Results Report (IBRD-41080) on a Loan to the Republicof the Philippines for a The Third Elementary Education Project. Washington D.C.: The
World Bank. 2007

320

Figure 1-1: TEEP Outline
1. Objectives: To contribute to the overall improvement of access and quality of elementary
education by improving the effectiveness of school in the poorest communities in the Provinces
related to the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) and by improving the institutional capacity of theeducation administrative machinery and assist decentralization to manage change.
2. Location: 23 Priority Provinces related to the Social Reform Agenda (SRA) Program of theGovernment of the Republic of the Philippines. 23 Target Provinces are divided into thefollowing 3 batches.
Batch

1

2

3

Provinces
Benguet
Guimaras
Surigao del Sur
Antique
Agusan del Sur
IfugaoBiliran
Leyte
MasbateNegros Oriental
RomblonNorth Cotabato
Southern Leyte
Zamboanga del Sur
Zamboanga Sibugay
Abra
ApayaoAuroraCapiz
Eastern Samar
Kalinga
Mountain Province
Batanes

RegionCAR
Region 6
CARAGA
Region 6
CARAGA
CAR
Region 8
Region 8
Region 5
Region 7
Region 4
Region 12
Region 8
Region 9
Region 9
Region 1
CAR
Region 1
Region 6
Region 8
CAR
CAR
Region 2

JBIC/WB Target
JBIC

WB

JBIC

WB

JBIC

3. Executing Agency: Department of Education (DepEd)
4. Scope of Work:(a) Construction and improvement of school buildings and procurement of furniture(b) Teacher training and procurement of equipment and instructional materials(c) Development of education management information system(d) School improvement and innovation fund (SIIF)(e) Consulting Services
5. Background and Concept of TEEP:The Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP) is co-financed with the World Bank (WB). It has

321

2 major components as follows:(1) Component 1: Capacity-building of DepEd to provide managerial and policy-oriented
professional support for elementary education at two (2) levels:(a) Central Level: Capacity-Building of DepEd Central Office for:(i) Preparation, appraisal and overall monitoring/evaluation of divisional education
development plan (DEDP) in TEEP provinces(ii) Planning and management of student assessment, advocacy/information, programs,
research programs, school improvement and innovation fund (SIIF), etc.
(b) Divisional Level: Capacity-Building of DepEd TEEP Divisional Offices for:(i) Preparation and implementation of DEDPs(ii) Student assessment, advocacy/information programs, SIIF management
Component 1 addresses TEEP’s objective of strengthening the institutional capacities andinitiating decentralization of the Department through the Provinces covered by the Project.
(2) Component 2: Divisional Educational Development Plans (DEDPs) which involves quality
improvement of public elementary education through:(i) Teacher training programs (in-service training: INSET): target about 60,000
teachers, especially in multigrade approach(ii) Equipment: facilitation of pedagogical equipment, pilot distance education(iii) Instructional materials: target textbook to pupil ratio from 1:4 to 1:2(iv) School building/furniture: construction/rehabilitation of classrooms in about 8,900
schools, additional 10% new school
Target: pupil to teacher ratio of 36 pupil/enrolment class ratio from 40
Component 2, on the other hand, addresses TEEP’s objective of improving the quality andaccess to elementary education through the provision of the inputs cited above.

322

Figure 1-2: TEEP Project Map

Source: World Bank, 2006

323

Table 2-2. Current Status and Issues of Basic Education in the Philippines
Factors Affecting Problems

Status and Issues

1) Access to Education Opportunity(1) Survival rate improvement
Net enrolment rates for elementary and secondary There exist compound factors both fromeducation are as high as 96.4% and 72.3% respectively; supply side (access, quality, management)
however, survival rates are as low as 69.8% and 66% in and demand side (household’s economic
2000-01.
hardship, values toward education).
(2) Quantitative expansion of facilities, desks and chairs
There lack in 13,527 classrooms and 2,241,643 desks Construction and distribution are notand chairs for elementary schools, 38,420 classrooms carried out based on accurate data andand 2,319,906 desks and chairs for high schools, 109 statistics.
barangays without elementary schools, especially in Education budget is not enough forCentral and Southern Luzon including NCR and in construction and purchase.
Mindanao including ARMM. On the other hand, there
exist excesses of 75,682 classrooms and 684,340 desks
and chairs for elementary schools, and 3,999 classrooms
and 48,377 desks and chairs for high schools.
In big cities, an average student-classroom ratio is morethan 60, and classes are operated in two/three shifts
from early in the morning to late at night.
2) Education Quality
Quality of teachers, teaching skills and curriculum, etc(1) Quality improvement of teaching skills
Eighty percent of questions asked by teachers during Training
withhighlyeconomiclessons and of lesson objectives are related to dependency
onassistancefrom
confirmation of simple knowledge. Teachers tend to international organizations and training
conduct lessons in transmissive approach due to lack of which participants need to shoulder own
basic knowledge on subject matter and teaching skills, expenses are prevalent, and a nationwide
although they realize the necessities of student-centered training
systemwhichteachers
inquiry approach.
continuously attend (such as induction
training and training for functional
development) has not been established.
Training sessions tend to focus on review
of subject matter contents rather than onteaching skills to facilitate students toacquire subject contents.
Inpre-service
teacher
education
curriculum, only 24 units and 40 units areallocated for knowledge on subject
content and teaching skills (especially for
science and mathematics) respectively forprimary and secondary teacher education
curricula (around 70 units in Japan).
(2) Analysis and improvement of curriculum324Curriculum is so congested that a heavy burden is put
on teachers and students.
Curriculum does not respond to actual education
situation.
An array of subject units (organization and sequence ofprimary and secondary education) and correlation
among subjects are not well considered.
Academic performance on science and mathematics isbadly scored (39 and 38 for elementary and 28 and 27
for secondary in Diagnostic Test 2002-03).

An enrolment period for elementary andsecondary education in the Philippines is
10 years (elementary for 6 years andsecondary for 4 years), which is two-year
shorter than that of neighboring countries;
however, the volume of curriculum
content is equivalent to that ofneighboring countries.
Curriculum development is commissioned
to researchers and professors who are notfamiliar with actual education conditions,and there is no established system to grasp
education needs in the field.
Medium of instruction for science andmathematics is English. (Other subjects
are taught in Filipino.)(3) Quantity expansion and quality improvement of textbooks and materials
Although an average student-textbook ratio is one to Educationbudgetischronicallyone at national procurement level, textbooks and insufficient.
materials lack in the field.
A delivery system is not transparent.
Textbooks contain misconceptions, especially for A process for textbook authorization is notscience and mathematics and too much content with few systematized.
charts.
3) Education Management
Administrative and financial capacity of education administration units(1) Administrative capacity improvement
The Department of Education implements various A decision-making system is centralized,
programs for education development based on the not reflected with education needs in thenational development plan, “Medium-Term Philippine field.
Development Plan,” and no specific plan for the There is lack of training opportunities foreducation sector exists.
education administrators and school
Although Basic Education Information System (BEIS) administrators (school principals).
has been almost established, monitoring and evaluation Coordination of projects led by external
capacity is not sufficient at central, region, division, agencies is not done effectively.
district and school levels.
Basic administrative capacity (budget utilization) lacks
such as in teacher deployment and teacher development
planning, in consideration of the fact that a
student-teacher ratio varies to a large extent among andwithin regions. A national average ratio is appropriate,35.73 for elementary and 41.65 for high school;
however, in calculating an appropriate student-teacher
ratio of 50, 17,962 teachers in total (8,254 elementary
and 9,708 high school teachers) are in shortage,
especially in Southern Luzon and ARMM.
The duplication of project components occurs, andvarious kinds of projects do not seem to be implemented
effectively.
(2) Insufficient budget and improvement of budget allocation

325

Although education budget (Php. 112 billion) is The total amount of national budget isallocated for the biggest share of national budget (Php. small.
907.6 billion in 2005), personnel costs amount to 90% Budget allocation to education sector inof share and little development expenses.
local government units has low priority.
The Local Government Code of 1991 defined to allocate Budget is not allocated based on statistics
one percent of real estate tax for Special Education and workloads.
Fund (SEF), but in reality, many municipalities do notallocate that amount.
Budget allocation for primary education is too small in
consideration of the number of beneficiaries.
Department of Education Regional Offices are far fromschool sites, but spend 30% of development budget.
Source: Philippines ODA Task Force (Education Sector) (2005)
Figure 3-2: Education Quality Improvement Model: Assessment, Standards, Strategies, andAccountability (ASSA)

Source: DepEd 2005

326