Philippine Institute for Development Studies Surian sa mga Pag-aaral Pangkaunlaran ng Pilipinas
Policy Notes ISSN 1656-5266
No. 2005-08 (December 2005)
Gender differentiated benefit incidence of the Department of Education: basic education for all? Rosario G. Manasan and Eden C. Villanueva
efit incidence analysis of education can reveal disparities in the extent to which males and females, boys and girls benefit from public spending in education.
Who benefits from public spending in education?
T
he problem of access to education for children used to be seen as just a matter of building more schools to expand the number of available places and of recruiting and training more teachers. Nonphysical barriers, whether economic, social, political or cultural, were, on the whole, not quite understood at that time. It was not until 1990 when an international conference on Education for All (EFA) was held in Jomtien, Thailand that the international community fully realized that Universal Primary Education could never be achieved until the issue of girls’ underrepresentation in education was addressed (Leach 2003). In view of this, it is important to get a sense of the gender-specific distribution of benefits from government expenditures in education. In order to assess how public spending is being targeted and who benefits from it, benefit incidence analysis is a useful technique. Although government financing in education is assumed to be gender neutral, ben-
Based on the sex-disaggregated data on public school enrolment, Table 1 shows that more girls benefit from public secondary schools than boys while the opposite is true in public elementary schools. Since a bigger proportion of the Department of Education’s (DepEd) budget goes to the elementary level, on the whole then, a slightly higher proportion of the benefits of spending of the DepEd accrues to boys than to girls. It should be stressed, however, that while benefit incidence would show the distribution of the benPIDS Policy Notes are observations/analyses written by PIDS researchers on certain policy issues. The treatise is holistic in approach and aims to provide useful inputs for decisionmaking. This Notes is based on PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2005-16 titled “The impact of fiscal restraint on budgetary allocations for women’s programs” by the same authors. The authors are Senior Research Fellow and Senior Research Specialist, respectively, at PIDS. The views expressed are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect those of PIDS or any of the study's sponsors.
2
eficiaries by sex, it does not necessarily indicate gender bias in service delivery. In the case of public schools, at least two factors have to be considered: the male-to-female ratio for the school age population and the gender difference in the school participation rate, both of which affect the maleto-female ratio in the number of children who are in school. The boy-to-girl ratio in public elementary school enrolment is skewed in favor of boys in 1997-2002 (Table 2). That is, there are more boy pupils than girl pupils in public elementary schools during the said period. A ratio greater than 1 means that there are more boys than girls while a ratio less than 1 means that there are more girls. This is true in all of the regions with the exception of the Autonomous Region of Muslim Mindanao (ARMM). In contrast, there are more female students than male students in public secondary schools in 19972002 (Table 3). The same is true in all of the regions with the exception of Central Mindanao (Region XII) and Western Visayas (Region VI) in 1997 and 1998 and Bicol (Region V) in 1997.
Table 4 shows that the male-to-female ratio for the school age population is from 1.043 to 1.048 in the 7-12 age group and 1.014 to 1.022 in the 13-16 age group in 1995/2000. A comparison of Table 2 with Table 4 shows that the boy-to-girl ratio in public elementary school enrollment is fairly close to the corresponding ratio for the 7-12 age group in 1997-2000, mitigating the apparent “bias” that one may perceive if such a comparison were not made. However, a small “bias” in favor of boys is still apparent in public elementary school enrollment in 2001 and 2002. On the other hand, a comparison of Table 3 with Table 4 shows that even if there were more boys in the 13-16 age group (the secondary school age level), more girls, however, were enrolled in the secondary school level in 1997-2002, thereby suggesting a gender nonparity in favor of females during said period. Meanwhile, Table 5 presents the male-to-female ratio for the population of students (i.e., school age population who are in school). A comparison of Table 2 with Table 5 suggests a “bias” in favor of boys in public elementary school enrollment
Table 1. Incidence of DepEd spending
1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002
Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total Elementary Secondary Total
% Male
% Female
Budget In Thousand Pesos
51.31a 48.69a 50.66b 51.16a 48.79a 50.57b 51.12a 48.51a 50.43b 51.16a 48.67a 50.51b 51.39a 48.49a 50.63b 51.47a 48.48a 50.68b
48.69a 51.31a 49.34b 48.84a 51.21a 49.43b 48.88a 51.49a 49.57b 48.84a 51.33a 49.49b 48.61a 51.51a 49.37b 48.53a 51.52a 49.32b
50,749,523 16,647,356 67,396,879 61,203,618 20,073,311 81,276,929 64,451,347 22,988,220 87,439,568 63,197,319 22,443,717 85,641,036 71,979,363 25,266,307 97,245,671 76,138,776 27,716,973 103,855,750
Based on enrolment Based on enrolment and budget shares
Table 2. Ratio of boys to girls in public elementary schools, 1997-2002
Philippines NCR CAR I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII ARMM
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
1.05 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.07 1.06 1.07 1.08 1.06 1.03 1.12 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.04 0.91
1.05 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.04 1.06 1.06 1.04 1.09 1.06 1.03 1.03 1.04 1.04 1.02 1.04 0.93
1.05 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.05 1.06 1.06 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.03 1.03 1.05 1.04 1.02 1.03 0.90
1.05 1.05 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.06 1.05 1.07 1.07 1.06 1.02 1.03 1.05 1.03 1.06 1.03 0.91
1.06 1.06 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.07 1.06 1.07 1.07 1.07 1.04 1.05 1.07 1.05 1.03 1.06 0.93
1.06 1.06 1.09 1.08 1.07 1.08 1.07 1.07 1.08 1.08 1.05 1.06 1.07 1.06 1.05 1.07 0.91
a b
PN 2005-08
Policy Notes
Source of basic data: DepEd
since the boy-to-girl ratio in public school enrollment is slightly higher than the corresponding ratio for the population of students in 1997-2002. The same is true for all regions with the exception of Eastern Visayas or Region VIII (in 1998), Central Mindanao or Region XII (in 1998 and 1999), CARAGA (in 1999) and ARMM (in all years). Similarly, a comparison of Table 3 with Table 5 suggests that public secondary school enrollment is “biased” in favor of males. This result stands in sharp contrast to the apparent “bias” in favor of females when the boy-to-girl ratio in public school enrollments is simply compared with the boy-togirl ratio in the school age population. This finding holds true in all but a few regions although these regions change from year to year. How does one explain the difference between the boy-to-girl ratio for public school enrollment and the sex ratio for the school age population who are in school? The difference may be explained by the higher tendency of families to send their daughters to private schools relative to public schools while the opposite is true with respect to the sons.
Clarifying gender issues in basic education Gender analysis of school participation rates In general, females exhibit an advantage over males with respect to school attendance in both the elementary and secondary levels. The gender gap in participation rates is higher at the secondary level (11 percentage points) compared to that at the elementary level (1 percentage point). In addition, the gender difference in participation rates is higher in poor households than in nonpoor households in both the elementary and secondary levels of education (Table 6). At the secondary level, females exhibit an edge over males with respect to school participation rates in all regions (Table 7). This is also true at the elementary level in all but a few regions. For
3
Table 3. Ratio of boys to girls in public secondary schools, 1997-2002
Philippines NCR CAR I II III IV V VI VII VIII IX X XI XII XIII ARMM
1997
1998
1999
2000
2001
2002
0.95 0.95 0.93 0.98 0.92 0.96 0.95 1.00 1.05 0.92 0.91 0.90 0.90 0.86 1.03 0.88 0.97
0.95 0.96 0.93 0.99 0.95 0.98 0.95 0.93 1.03 0.94 0.90 0.91 0.90 0.91 1.03 0.90 0.92
0.94 0.97 0.94 1.00 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.92 0.89 0.94 0.91 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.94 0.91 0.84
0.95 0.97 0.94 0.99 0.95 0.99 0.97 0.93 0.96 0.95 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.91 0.86
0.94 0.96 0.92 0.98 0.93 0.98 0.97 0.92 0.96 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.90 0.83
0.94 0.96 0.91 0.99 0.93 0.98 0.96 0.93 0.96 0.94 0.92 0.91 0.91 0.92 0.92 0.91 0.75
Source of basic data: DepEd
instance, the school participation rate of boys at the elementary level is higher than that of girls in Central Visayas in 1998, Central Luzon and CARAGA in 1999 and Ilocos Region, Western Mindanao and NCR in 2002.
Profile of dropouts and their reasons for leaving school
Table 4. Ratio of boys to girls in school age population 1995
2000
Aged 7-12
1.048
1.043
Aged 13-16
1.014
1.022
Aged 7-16
1.035
1.035
The proportion of school leavers in any age cohort who are male is higher than that of females. This bias is magnified for older age cohorts as seen in the proportion of school leavers among males aged 13-16 at 22.0 percent, almost twice the corresponding proportion for females (Table 8). In comparison, the proportion of school leavers among males aged 7-12 is only 6.4 percent (1 percentage point higher than the corresponding proportion for females). The gender difference in the dropout rate is true among children from poor as well as nonpoor households although the gender gap is larger for children from poorer families.
Policy Notes
PN 2005-08
4
On the other hand, Table 9 presents the gradespecific dropout rate by sex and poverty status. It shows that a higher percentage of students leave school at the start of each cycle. Thus, the dropout rates are higher in the first year of high school and in the first year of college compared to the other years regardless of gender and poverty status except in the third year of high school. This is where dropout rate is highest because this is when children reach the age when they are legally allowed to work.
Table 5. Ratio of males to females for the school age population who are in school
1998
Aged 7-12 1999 2002
1998
Aged 13-16 1999 2002
Philippines
1.026
1.025
1.030
0.902
0.913
0.935
I Ilocos Region II Cagayan Valley III Central Luzon IV Southern Luzon V Bicol Region VI Western Visayas VII Central Visayas VIII Eastern Visayas IX Western Mindanao X Northern Mindanao XI Southern Mindanao XII Central Mindanao NCR CAR ARMM CARAGA
1.025 1.020 1.023 1.013 1.021 1.037 1.048 1.029 0.999 1.023 1.022 1.027 1.041 1.019 1.062 1.022
1.030 1.036 1.045 1.038 1.034 1.029 1.010 0.982 1.018 1.012 0.996 1.027 1.030 1.019 1.022 1.046
1.046 1.034 1.015 1.029 1.040 1.028 1.032 1.022 1.051 1.017 1.020 1.022 1.043 1.043 0.996 1.033
0.898 0.833 0.943 0.941 0.851 0.890 0.879 0.796 0.809 0.908 0.894 0.880 0.975 0.936 0.944 0.946
0.892 0.818 0.974 0.928 0.882 0.916 0.924 0.848 0.890 0.942 0.893 0.908 0.962 0.952 0.913 0.827
0.996 0.938 0.960 0.947 0.933 0.982 0.833 0.836 0.919 0.943 0.908 0.892 0.995 0.932 0.914 0.905
Children from poor households exhibit higher dropout rates than children from nonpoor households in all grade levels except in third year high school. Males also have a higher tendency to leave school than females in all grades except in grade 2, third year high school and first year college regardless of poverty status. Table 10 shows the reasons for not attending school for each age cohort. Lack of personal interest ranks first among the reasons given by children aged 7-12 and those aged 13-16. Thus, over 44 percent of children aged 7-12 who are not in school and some 37 percent of those in the 13-16 age bracket cite this reason. Many educators suggest that this reason is a catch-all answer given by respondents when asked why they did not send their children to school. Generally, however, this is associated with poor preparation due to lack of early childhood development (or lack of readiness for the high school level) or to poor nutrition. In this regard, it is notable that a higher proportion of boys than girls who are not in school in the 7-12 and the 13-16 age cohorts cite this reason for their leaving school. This situation suggests the need to explore better ways of preparing boys for school.
While education is provided free in public schools, out-of-pocket cost in sending children to schools is significant. Thus, high cost of education ranks second among the reasons given for leaving school. Eighteen percent of school leavers aged 7-12 and 33 percent of children aged 13-16 say Source of basic data: APIS they drop out from school because of this reason. A higher proportion of school Table 6. School participation rates by level, by gender and by poverty status, leavers from poor households 1999 (in percent) cite this reason relative to school leavers from nonpoor Male Female M/F Ratio households. This reason is also Poor Nonpoor All Poor Nonpoor All Poor Nonpoor All the most common reason given by students who leave Elementary 88.67 93.60 90.70 90.31 94.09 91.85 0.982 0.995 0.987 school at the end of each Secondary 47.44 74.19 60.30 62.26 81.09 71.51 0.762 0.915 0.843 Tertiary 9.08 28.51 20.94 14.97 35.23 28.29 0.607 0.809 0.740 cycle, in particular, those who TVET 0.80 1.52 1.24 0.85 1.00 0.95 0.941 1.520 1.305 drop out in first year high Higher Education 8.28 26.98 19.70 14.12 34.23 27.34 0.586 0.788 0.721 school. Source of basic data: APIS 1999
PN 2005-08
Policy Notes
It is also remarkable that a higher proportion of girls than boys who are not in school in both the 7-12 and the 13-16 age cohorts report that they have left school because of the higher cost of education. It, thus, appears that when families face financial difficulties, they tend to sacrifice the education of their female children more than their male children.
5 Table 7. Male-to-female ratio of school participation rates
Illness or disability ranks third among the reasons given for leaving school in the elementary level and accounts for 8.7 percent of school leavers in the 7-12 age group. On the other hand, employment is the third often-cited reason for leaving school among children aged 13-16, accounting for 12.6 percent of school leavers in that age group. A higher percentage of boys aged 13-16 (13.9%) left school for employment compared to girls (10%). However, another 10 percent of girls in this age group who drop out from school say they do so because they have to attend to housekeeping chores compared to 1 percent of boys in the same situation. Meanwhile, it is notable that a bigger proportion of nonpoor children aged 13-16 who drop out of school (14.8%) say they did seek employment compared to the poor (11.7%). It may be that the labor income of these children enable their families to escape poverty.
Aged 7-12 1999 2002
1998
1998
Aged 13-16 1999 2002
Philippines
0.984
0.983
0.987
0.883
0.893
0.915
Ilocos Region Cagayan Valley Central Luzon Southern Luzon Bicol Region Western Visayas Central Visayas Eastern Visayas Western Mindanao Northern Mindanao Southern Mindanao Central Mindanao NCR CAR ARMM CARAGA
0.983 0.978 0.981 0.971 0.979 0.994 1.004 0.987 0.957 0.981 0.980 0.985 0.998 0.977 1.019 0.980
0.987 0.994 1.002 0.995 0.991 0.987 0.968 0.942 0.976 0.970 0.955 0.985 0.988 0.977 0.980 1.003
1.003 0.992 0.973 0.987 0.997 0.985 0.989 0.980 1.008 0.975 0.978 0.980 1.000 1.000 0.955 0.990
0.879 0.815 0.922 0.921 0.833 0.871 0.860 0.779 0.792 0.888 0.875 0.861 0.954 0.916 0.923 0.925
0.872 0.800 0.953 0.908 0.863 0.896 0.904 0.829 0.871 0.922 0.874 0.888 0.941 0.932 0.893 0.809
0.974 0.917 0.939 0.927 0.912 0.961 0.815 0.818 0.899 0.923 0.889 0.873 0.974 0.912 0.894 0.885
Source of basic data: APIS
Table 8. School leavers as a percentage of all children in given age cohort, 1999 Male Poor Nonpoor All
Female Poor Nonpoor All
M/F Ratio Poor Nonpoor All
Age 7-12
8.93
6.45
6.73
1.97
4.80
1.33
1.47
1.34
Age 13-16
30.49
12.87 22.02
18.05
7.11
12.68
1.69
1.81
1.74
2.89
While a higher proportion of boys than girls Source of Basic Data: APIS who have stopped their schooling said that they did so Table 9. Drop-out rate by sex and poverty status because of the need to look for Male Female work, it is notable that a higher Poor Nonpoor All Poor Nonpoor All proportion of girls than boys who have left school said that Grade 2 0.58 0.33 0.48 1.20 0.35 0.88 they did so because of the Grade 3 0.84 0.31 0.63 0.61 0.22 0.45 Grade 4 0.79 0.45 0.64 0.65 0.13 0.43 need to help in housekeeping Grade 5 1.05 0.78 0.93 0.53 0.03 0.32 chores. When work outside Grade 6 1.42 0.47 0.96 0.54 0.23 0.40 the home is not differentiated 1st yr hs 5.67 1.97 3.83 3.73 2.22 2.99 from work inside the home, 2nd yr hs 2.23 1.14 1.60 1.89 0.69 1.27 3rd yr hs 34.52 40.96 38.51 36.07 39.66 38.20 the data indicate that there is 4th yr hs 6.14 3.09 4.21 3.85 2.97 3.32 a higher proportion of girls 1st yr post sec + College 35.74 15.96 21.65 30.45 18.84 22.00 than boys who left school be-
Both Sexes Poor Nonpoor All 0.87 0.73 0.72 0.80 0.97 4.72 2.05 35.35 4.89 33.00
0.34 0.27 0.30 0.43 0.35 2.09 0.93 40.30 3.03 17.51
0.67 0.55 0.54 0.63 0.68 3.42 1.44 38.35 3.75 21.83
Source of basic data: APIS 1999
Policy Notes
PN 2005-08
6 Table 10. Reasons for not attending school Male Poor Nonpoor
All
Female Poor Nonpoor All
Both Sexes Poor Nonpoor All
1) Age 7-12 School very far/no school w/in barangay No regular transportation High cost of education Illness/disability Housekeeping Employment/Looking for work Lack of personal interest Cannot cope w/ school work Finished schooling Others Total
6.1 0.7 16.4 6.1 1.3 1.3 49.9 8.1 0.0 10.2 100.0
1.2 0.5 13.7 13.8 1.9 3.1 44.9 7.2 0.0 13.8 100.0
5.2 6.3 0.7 1.2 15.9 23.2 7.5 8.5 1.4 3.8 1.6 1.1 49.0 36.7 7.9 6.0 0.0 0.0 10.8 13.3 100.0 100.0
1.4 5.5 6.2 0.0 1.0 0.9 11.7 21.3 19.2 21.2 10.6 7.0 4.7 4.0 2.4 1.2 1.1 1.2 40.4 37.3 44.5 6.3 6.0 7.2 0.0 0.0 0.0 13.3 13.3 11.5 100.0 100.0 100.0
1.3 0.3 12.9 16.6 3.0 2.3 43.2 6.8 0.0 13.6 100.0
5.3 0.8 18.1 8.7 2.5 1.4 44.2 7.1 0.0 11.8 100.0
2) Age 13-16 School very far/no school w/in barangay No regular transportation High cost of education Illness/disability Housekeeping Employment/Looking for work Lack of personal interest Cannot cope w/ school work Finished schooling Others Total
1.2 0.3 29.7 3.4 1.6 13.2 43.8 3.5 0.0 3.3 100.0
0.3 0.9 27.6 5.1 0.6 15.9 43.2 3.8 0.0 2.7 100.0
1.0 1.8 0.5 0.0 29.1 42.8 3.9 6.7 1.3 9.9 13.9 9.0 43.6 25.3 3.6 1.7 0.0 0.1 3.1 2.6 100.0 100.0
0.5 1.4 1.4 0.6 0.2 0.2 33.2 40.2 34.3 8.9 7.3 4.6 9.7 9.9 4.5 12.7 10.1 11.7 25.7 25.4 37.3 2.4 1.9 2.9 0.0 0.1 0.0 6.2 3.6 3.0 100.0 100.0 100.0
0.4 0.8 29.5 6.4 3.7 14.8 37.2 3.3 0.0 3.9 100.0
1.1 0.4 33.0 5.1 4.3 12.6 37.3 3.0 0.0 3.3 100.0
Source of basic data: APIS
cause of the need to look for work for both the 712 and 13-16 age cohorts.
Conclusion and recommendations
cation (although its Alternative Learning System does address the needs of children who have difficulty staying in the formal school system) but also that of the other agencies of government. In particular, improving the nutrition status, providing early childhood education and improving high school readiness are critical in this regard. Finally, it is evident that the overall socioeconomic situation of households greatly impact on their ability/ decision to send their children to school.
References
Leach, Fiona. 2003. Practising gender analysis in education. United Kingdom: Oxfam Publishing. Manasan, Rosario G. and Eden C. Villanueva. 2005 Impact of fiscal restraint on budgetary allocations for women’s programs. PIDS Discussion Paper Series No. 2005-16. Makati City: Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
The availability of sex-disaggregated data has deepened the gender analysis even at the regional level or according to poverty status. It has shed some light on existing gender disparities and inequalities in basic education in the Philippines. Moreover, the For further information, please contact underlying reasons for barriers The Research Information Staff, Philippine Institute for Development Studies faced in educational access are NEDA sa Makati Building, 106 Amorsolo Street, Legaspi Village, 1229 Makati City by some means presented. For Telephone Nos: 892-4059 and 893-5705 z Fax Nos: 893-9589 and 816-1091 instance, given the reasons for E-mail: rmanasan@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph; veden@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph; jliguton@pidsnet.pids.gov.ph dropping out of school, it is apThe Policy Notes series is available online at http://www.pids.gov.ph. Reentered as second parent that increasing school class mail at the Business Mail Service Office under Permit No. PS-570-04 NCR. Valid until participation rates is not only the December 31, 2005. task of the Department of Edu-
PN 2005-08
Policy Notes