LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
LOCAL GOVERNMENT ISSUES AND NEEDS IN EDUCATION (Output of ULAP Consultations)1 Narrative Support to Presentation A. OVERVIEW OF CONSULTATION PROCESS Based on the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines (ULAP) convergence framework in local governance (Leadership-Supply-Demand), and the policy reform direction of AusAID-The Asia Foundation-supported Coalitions for Change (CFC), ULAP took the following processes to prepare for the consultation with LGUs: 1. Knowledge Sharing Session on Successful Interventions (March 20, 2013) wherein awardees of DepEd Literacy Coordinating Council and Galing Pook Foundation presented their strategies and implementation issues. The presenters were mayors and/or representatives from: a. Balanga, Bataan b. Alimodian Iloilo c. San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte d. Laoac, Pangasinan e. Tuguegarao, Cagayan f. Pasay City Synergeia Foundation also presented their Local School Board (LSB) development approach following the strategy of former DILG Secretary and Naga City Mayor Jesse Robredo. The sharing session allowed the CFC to highlight common strategies among the successful models, such as the expansion of the LSB, and how partnerships and empowering policies enable local chief executives (LCEs) to implement outcome-oriented local education programs. 2. Mapping of the LGUs (by district) having the least performance scores in Luzon, Visayas, and Mindanao, and Initial review of expenditure items of the Special Education Fund of the least performing LGUs initially identified. The interactive map can be accessed through http://www.mapfab.com/map/CG8/Philippine-National-Education-Indicators-and-BestPractices-Map. The map shows the LGUs (by districts) that performed poorly in the BEIS in 2012, the location where groups implement their respective programs, and the LGUs awarded by DepEd LCC and Galing Pook Foundation.
1
Research led by Ms. Czarina Medina, M.A. (Head, Plans & Programs Unit, ULAP), under supervision of Ms. Sonia Lorenzo (Executive Director, ULAP). With assistance from Kevin dela Cruz (Program Officer, ULAP), Kenneth Turaray (IT Officer, ULAP), Merry Ann Sanchez (Office Secretary, ULAP). Report version 07 October 2013 for the LCE Education Policy Workshop. For queries regarding the report, please contact the Research Lead at czarinamedina@gmail.com.
Page 1 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
Furthermore, the mapping included a review of policies passed for an assessment of how LGUs respond to education needs in the local level. Based on the review, it was seen that policy measures in education focus mainly on the development of three specific stakeholders namely the educators, the students and the administrating body. Through the mapping exercise, the following were accomplished: Initial insight into the LGUs that underperform in education result areas, including variations of worst performing versus awardees around the same areas; and, Initial insight into prioritizing LGUs who may be invited for the consultations. 3. First Convergence Meeting (May 6, AIM). During this session the mapping results were shown and the initial alignments of the partners’ programs are identified based on ULAP’s framework. The results of the partners’ convergence map (as of October 8) in the table that follows. This allowed ULAP to determine the readiness of the partners to implement with LGUs, and to determine which partners offer different kinds of program initiatives.
4. LGU Consultations-proper. After the initial mapping on data and partners, ULAP proceeded with the consultations with LGUs – the LCEs or their representatives, and local DepEd officers. The objectives of the consultations are as follows:
Page 2 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
Three consultation sessions were held, with a total of 26 LGUs consulted. The LGUs were selected according to those who have existing partnerships with organizations ULAP are coordinating with, in which case the experiences of the LGUs show scenarios of vibrant efforts, but are not quite ‘perfect’ yet, according to models of, for instance, Robredo in Naga. The experiences therefore of the LGUs are rich for discussions in terms of enhancements in programs and policies to further enable their work, and sustain the gains that they have achieved. The consultations were held in these areas: a. Mindanao: Xavier University Ateneo de Cagayan, CDO City on July 18. Five (5) LGUs participated. b. Luzon: Bicol University, Legazpi City Albay on August 2. Eight (8) LGUs participated. c. Visayas: Ramon Aboitiz Foundation Inc, Cebu City, on August 16. Thirteen (13) LGUs participated. The table below summarizes the participating LGUs in the consultations: Luzon Session
Visayas Session
Provinces
1. 2. 3.
La Union Tarlac Masbate
1.
Bohol
Cities
4. 5. 6. 7. 8.
Legazpi City Tayabas City Navotas City Ligao City Daet, Camarines Norte
2.
Ormoc City, Leyte
3. 4.
Anilao, Iloilo Alburquerque, Bohol Dalaguete, Cebu Bantayan Cebu Asturias, Cebu
Municipalities
5. 6. 7.
Mindanao Session 1. Sarangggani 2. North Cotabato 3. South Cotabato 4. Tangub City
5. Dumingag, Zamboanga del Sur
Page 3 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
Luzon Session
Visayas Session
Mindanao Session
8. Tuburan Cebu 9. Mambusao, Capiz 10. Saint Bernard, Southern Leyte 11. San Jose Antique 12. Maribojoc, Bohol 13. Liloan, Cebu
The consultations focused on these areas of inquiry: Issues on education and the LGUs’ responses; Current programs and gains observed; and, Policy recommendations in terms of: o Enabling sustainability of current initiatives; o Incentivizing LCEs to improve on, and keep them committed as champions of inclusive local education governance; o Alignment of LGUs with DepEd programs and processes; and, o Possible functional difference between provincial LSBs and municipal LSBs. 5. Second Convergence Meeting (September 2). The preliminary results of the consultations were presented to partners of ULAP and the CFC, and representatives of DepEd (Usec. Mario Deriquito) and DILG (Ms. Virgie Clavel of BLGD). The issues were vetted and initial ideas on how to move forward through collaborative action were identified.
Page 4 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
B. DISCUSSION OF RESULTS In the consultations, the LGUs identified the issues and needs that they encounter in implementing their education programs. The LGUs were asked to match the issues with their particular program responses, and this is accounted for in a different interactive map as encoded by the ULAP team 2. However, for the purposes of the LCE policy workshop, the items presented here are only the issues and needs that emerged from the consultations. The issues and needs identified through the consultations are summarized in this table:
The General Context The general context of the LGU’s concerns with local education comes from two concerns:
2
The need to improve on education indicators. While the LGUs have had respective successes in addressing some indicators, they recognize that they are still falling behind the goals. K to 12 adjustments. The LGUs have expressed concern over their general unreadiness in addressing the increased demand for education services due to K to 12. The population of the students will grow and the supply side of education services would need to keep up, given though that the supply of manpower and resources are not enough even prior to K to 12.
Access to the detailed interactive map may be provided upon request to the ULAP secretariat.
Page 5 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
1. DEPED-LGU DYNAMICS The first category of issues falls under the difficulties with harmonizing the dynamics between the local DepEd and the LGUs. a. Convergence of Planning and Implementation i. Synchronization of Schedules and Plansi – The consultations revealed that the LCEs find difficulty in accounting for the needs of the schools into their agenda and budget because the plans and budget needs of the schools are not in sync with the planning schedule of the local governments. ii. Improved collaboration among LGU and DepEd levelsii - The concern is that it is usual for DepEd heads and supervisors and the LCEs not to collaborate because the local DepEd officers report to their DepEd superiors, and it is not necessary that the inputs of the DepEd are accounted for in policy making of the LCEs. This happens even if the LSB structure demands some collaboration between LGU and local DepEd. iii. Harmonization of local councils and participatory planningiii - The LSB structure and composition is specifically discussed in the Local Government Code. Hence it is usual that the LSBs follow the letter of the law, and LCEs are not able to make the LSBs an avenue for convergence and collaborative action. Some LGUs in the consultations indicated that the expansion of the composition/membership of LSBs is considered an innovation and output in itself because of the constraints posed by what the law specifies. However, the LGUs also maintain that the expansion of the LSB membership is the crucial step in improving stakeholder processes in the locality. This also means that the LSB may align/collaborate with other special bodies and local councils because of the connectedness of education with other local service delivery areas. Meanwhile, the issue of politics in appointments in the LSBs was also brought up. This, according to the discussions, poses threats on the sustainability of initiatives during local political transitions.
Page 6 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
b. Special Education Fund (SEF) issues i. Revised guidelines/Augmentation of the SEFiv - The LGUs are in concession that the SEF guidelines should be revised in order for the funds to be equitable among LGUs of different levels, and account for other education-related interventions (i.e., feeding in schools). For instance, poor municipalities have minimal SEF, but are the ones who are usually in dire need to invest for local education programs. Other common sentiment is that the SEF is too small for most LGUs, that once they spend for locally hired teachers, there is no more left to spend for other, equally important education programs. Moreover, the development of enhanced guidelines will avoid the spending of the SEF on “trivial” expenses more often associated with the politicization of education to support the interests of candidates. ii. Improved capacity for local resource mobilizationv - In support of the previous item, the LGUs also express the need to capacitate them in order to do resource mobilization for education. Since SEF comes from 1% of real property taxes, increased tax collection will enable LGUs to increase their resources. c. Data generation and Knowledge Management between DepEd and LGU for policy makingvi - The LGUs expressed concern about not receiving enough information from the local DepEd with regard to data on education indicators, especially in light of the impact of their education programs to the performance of their students. This concern is highlighted as LGUs say that the reason behind the under-spending of the SEF for some LGUs is the lack of information as to what successful interventions need further investments. The common scenario forwarded is that, after the LGU spends for counterpart for a program, it does not receive any feedback from the local DepEd if the program intervention works or not. Should the intervention show improvements, then the LGU is compelled to spend more on it, and put the SEF into meaningful use. This context ties back to the first category of issues on the harmonization of local DepEd and LGU planning, spending, and program implementation. 2. SUPPLY ISSUES A large category of issues forwarded by the LGUs pertain to the ‘supply’ side of local education service delivery. a. Teachers i. Lack of Teachersvii - Majority of the LGUs consulted identified the lack of teachers as a major need in their locality. The LGUs respond by hiring local teachers, which take up majority of the SEF spending.
Page 7 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
In the preliminary presentation of the results of the consultations to partners, representatives of DepEd included, the concern was that as per national DepEd’s accounting, the teacher items for the entire country should be addressed already. The issue of teacher supply becomes a mismatch and inefficiency of allocating teachers to the areas that need them. ii. Enhanced teachers’ training (number of; curriculum support; livelihood and incentives)viii – The number of teachers is one issue, while the quality of the teachers is another. Capacity-building for teachers is highlighted as a need for most of the LGUs consulted. Under this need, the discussion of teachers’ training is broken down into three subcategories:
Number of teachers’ training – Due to the limitation of resources, LGUs experience constraints with regard to providing enough training for all teachers. Most of the LGUs are reliant on partnerships with partners in the private and civil society sectors to provide and augment the need for teachers’ training. Curriculum support – The LGUs consulted expressed the further need for their teachers to be trained to more effectively teach the curriculum, especially with the changes brought about by K to 12. Livelihood and incentives – The LGUs expressed the need to offer teachers livelihood and incentive programs in order to continuously motivate them despite the small income they receive as teachers. Some LGUs consulted cited that they give livelihood trainings to teachers through TESDA partnerships, and develop public recognitions projects to highlight the achievements of high-performing teachers.
b. Other Human Resources i. School Administrators (Management, Resource Mobilization, Stakeholder Engagement, K12)ix – The consultations highlighted the need to capacitate the school administrators on areas of management, resource mobilization, and stakeholder engagement. The administrators’ trainings also need to cover K to 12 management responses and strategies.
Page 8 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
ii. More principals, more counsellorsx - The need for more principals and guidance counsellors to meet the population of students and number of schools was brought up by the LGUs. c. Classrooms i. Number of classroomsxi - Another major issue highlighted in the consultations is the need for more classrooms for the growing population of children in the public school system. The concern is urgent for LGUs because of the K to 12, since more children are expected to use the classrooms in the localities. ii. Rehabilitation and Repairsxii - Complementary to the need to increase the number of classrooms is the need to rehabilitate and repair existing schools. The common response of LGUs is to partner with private and civil society groups. iii. Supplies, Facilities, and Equipmentxiii - This issue comprises the need to build facilities in schools, including science laboratories, Home Economics rooms, and purchase supplies and equipment for the use of the students. d. Land titlingxiv - LGUs highlighted the need to secure land titles for school sites. In a preliminary presentation of the results to DepEd representatives, this issue was affirmed, with estimates of 60,000 schools all over the country without land titles. There were accounts in the consultations wherein family members/descendants of land donors claim land ownership, even when an entire school complex is built on the area. e. Curriculum Development and Instructional Materials i. Insufficient number of materialsxv - The LGUs highlighted the need to increase the number of books and learning materials to meet 1:1 ratio to students. ii. Funding Support for Purchase and Developmentxvi - While purchase of instructional materials is allowable in the SEF, the same constraints in the availability of SEF are cited by the LGUs. The LGUs depend on partnerships with private and civil society groups to access instructional materials. iii. Localization and upgrading of the curriculumxvii - The need to localize and upgrade the curriculum as used by schools is cited by the LGUs, especially with the K to 12 provision of using local languages and using local contexts to explain lessons to students. The concern is that public school teachers are (a) not able to concentrate on localizing the curriculum because of their teaching load; and/or (b) specializing in teaching and pedagogies, and they need assistance from specialists on curriculum development to be able to accomplish the task. LGUs are partnering with local universities, private and civil society groups for this need.
Page 9 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
3. RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATION WITH OTHER SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS As aptly put by one of the participants in the consultations, “Education cannot be solved by education alone.” This means that many of the pressing concerns in education are connected with other service delivery areas, which the LGUs are also trying to address. a. Poverty Incidencexviii - Poverty still presents itself as a major factor whether or not students can go to, or continue schooling. Some LGUs consulted provide scholarships to poor but deserving students, but these interventions are either not sustainable because of limited funds, or not enough to give scholarships to all students in need. Livelihood assistance to parents (and even the supposed-students themselves, in the case of the out-of-school youth) are given by LGUs to assist in addressing the poverty problem. b. Poor Health Conditions i. Poor Nutrition of Studentsxix - Malnutrition is identified by the LGUs as a crosscutting concern both in education and health. Under health programs, feeding interventions are packaged as “nutrition programs”, which allow the LGUs to spend their local budgets to implement feeding in schools3. However, in the current SEF guidelines, feeding projects are not allowed to be charged against the fund, even if, as expressed by the LGUs, the truth of the relationship of availability of meals in the schools encourage students to go and stay in school, aside from nutritional gains. Hence the LGUs continue seeking out innovative ways to be able to provide food in schools for children. ii. Poor Sanitationxx - This issue encompass the lack of health and sanitation supplies and facilities (i.e., toilet, clean water) in schools. While considered important, these are often side-streamed because of the importance given to spending for classrooms first. C. SUMMARY AND CONCLUDING NOTES The consultations were wrapped up by asking the LGUs on what factors would enable them to sustain the gains of their current education initiatives, and further their work in addressing the needs they identified. The diagram below shows the summary of the factors forwarded by the LGUs, which are reiterations of the issues discussed in the earlier section:
3
A joint memorandum circular has been issued by DILG, DepEd, and ULAP to provide guidance to LGUs and local DepEd units for implementing and sustaining nutrition and feeding programs using successful models implemented by private partners (i.e, Jollibee Group Foundation’s Busog Lusog Talino program).
Page 10 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
Pursuing the question of what would incentivize LCEs to become education champions and engage various stakeholders in the localities (through the LSB and beyond), the answers given by the consultation participants are summarized in the diagram below:
Page 11 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
Meanwhile, a pressing inquiry for ULAP and CFC as an emergent theme in the consultations is how the harmonization between LGUs and the local DepEd can be pursued. Based on the recommendations of the LGUs, the following table is drafted which merges the LGU structures and processes with elements of the DepEd School-Based Management System. This gives an initial approach to what may be done in the near future for LGUs to improve on their planning, budgeting, and program implementation for education service delivery.
As a last point of inquiry, the LGUs were asked for their suggestions on how to specialize the roles and responsibilities of the provincial school board and the component municipalities’ school boards. The context is that the Local Government Code does not explicitly differentiate what the provincial school board should do differently from the municipal school board, and this implies (a) replication of initiatives of the PLGU and the MLGU; or (b) non-provision of services if the Governor and the Mayor are not in good political terms. This is different compared to health – a devolved function – where there is general agreement among stakeholders that PLGUs take on tertiary health, while the MLGUs work on primary health. Such an understanding does not exist with regard to LSBs. The responses of the LGUs on this question are as follows:
Page 12 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
As a concluding note, the issue of reform and enhancement in local education service delivery is summarized by the diagram below, following ULAP’s Local Governance Approach of LeadershipSupply-Demand:
Meanwhile, the direction for the various policy areas identified in the consultations is to be developed in the Local Education Policy Workshop with Local Chief Executives on October 9-10, 2013.
Page 13 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
ENDNOTES: ISSUES AND THE LGUS THAT CITED THEM: Note: In the consultations, each of the LGUs were asked to itemize their responses to the issues that they brought up. The mapping of the responses per issue is separately documented. You may request a copy of the link thru ULAP Head of Plans and Programs, Ms. Czarina Medina at czarinamedina@gmail.com. 1. DEPED-LGU DYNAMICS a. Convergence of Planning and Implementation i Synchronization of Schedules and Plans: Tayabas City; Alberquerque Bohol ii Improved collaboration among LGU and DepEd levels: La Union; Anilao, Iloilo; Alberquerque Bohol; Mambusao; Saint Bernard; Maribojoc; Liloan; Saranggani Province iii Harmonization of local councils and participatory planning: Tayabas City; Legazpi City; Dalaguete Cebu; Alberquerque Bohol; Maribojoc; Dumingag; South Cotabato province; Saranggani Province b. Special Education Fund Issues iv Revised guidelines/augmentation of the SEF: Navotas City, Legazpi City; Ormoc City Leyte; Alberquerque Bohol; Daet Municipality; Dalaguete, Cebu; Asturias; Tuburan; Mambusao; Bohol Province; Saint Bernard; Maribojoc; Dumingag; North Cotabato province; v Improved capacity for local resource mobilization: Tayabas City; Ormoc City, Leyte; Anilao, Iloilo; Alberquerque Bohol; Dalaguete Cebu vi c. Data generation and Knowledge Management between DepEd and LGU for policy making: Tarlac province; Daet; Alberquerque Bohol; Dalaguete, Cebu, Maribojoc; Saranggani province 2. SUPPLY ISSUES a. Teachers vii Lack of Teachers: La Union province; Masbate province; Legazpi City; Ormoc City Leyte; Anilao Iloilo; Dalaguete Cebu; Tayabas City; Asturias; Tuburan; Bohol province; Bantayan; Saint Bernard; Liloan; Dumingag; Saranggani province viii Enhanced teachers’ training: On curriculum and K to 12: La Union province; Tarlac province; Legazpi City; Ormoc City Leyte; Anilao Iloilo; Alberquerque Bohol; Dalaguete, Cebu; Daet; Bohol province; Asturias; Mambusao; San jose; Tangub City; Dumingag; South Cotabato province; North Cotabato province On incentives and rewards for teachers: Anilao Iloilo; Dalaguete Cebu; Mambusao Income and Livelihood assistance: Tarlac b. Other Human Resources ix School Administrators: La Union province; Tarlac province; Dalaguete Cebu; Daet; Alberquerque Bohol; Tuburan; Bohol province; San Jose; Tangub City; Dumingag; North Cotabato province x More principals, more counsellors: Legazpi City c. Classrooms xi Number of classrooms: La Union province; Tarlac province; Navotas City; Tayabas City; Legazpi city; Ormoc City; Anilao Iloilo; Ligao City; Dalaguete Cebu; Bantayan; Asturias; Tuburan; Mambusao; Bohol province; Saint Bernard; San Jose; Maribojoc; Dumingag; Tangub City; North Cotabato province; Saranggani Province xii Rehabilitation and Repairs: La Union province; Tarlac province; Anilao Iloilo; Legazpi City; Asturias; Mambusao; Bohol province; Bantayan; Tuburan; Saint Bernard; Maribojoc; North Cotabato province xiii Supplies, Facilities, and Equipment: La Union province; Tarlac province; Legazpi City; Tuburan; Ormoc City; Mambusao; Bohol province xiv d. Land Titling: Tarlac province; Ormoc City; Dumingag
Page 14 of 15
LOCAL EDUCATION POLICY WORKSHOP 09-10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel Ortigas Local Government Education Needs and Issues - Summary
e. Curriculum Development and instructional materials xv Insufficient number of materials: La Union province, Tarlac province; Tayabas City; Legazpi City; Daet Municipality; Anilao Iloilo; Alberquerque Bohol; Ligao City; Tuburan; Bohol province; Bantayan; San jose; Liloan; Dumigag; North Cotabato province; Saranggani province xvi Funding Support for Purchase and Development: La Union province; Alberquerque Bohol xvii Localization and Upgrading of Curriculum: Anilao Iloilo; San Jose; Liloan; Dumingag; Saranggani province 3. RELATIONSHIP OF EDUCATION WITH OTHER SERVICE DELIVERY AREAS xviii a. Poverty Incidence: Masbate province; Tarlac province; Legazpi City; Anilao Iloilo; Daet; Asturias; Mambusao; Bantayan; San Jose; Liloan; Dumingag; Tangub City; North Cotabato province b. Poor Health Conditions xix Poor Nutrition: La Union province; Tarlac province; Navotas City; Legazpi City; Ligao City; Anilao Iloilo; Daet; Dalaguete Cebu; Ormoc City; Asturias; Maribojoc; Tangub City; Tayabas City; Bohol province xx Poor Sanitation: Tarlac province; Legazpi City; Ormoc City; Mambusao; Dumingag
Page 15 of 15
“Developing Local Capacity for Institutionalizing Education Reforms – Preliminary Phase” OVERVIEW OF RESULTS OF LGU CONSULTATIONS
ISSUES AND NEEDS IN LOCAL EDUCATION (1) Need to improve on education indicators
"Supply" Issues
DepEd-LGU Dynamics Convergence of Planning and Implementation Synchronization of Schedules and Plans Improved collaboration among LGU & DepEd Levels Harmonization of local councils and participatory planning
Special Education Fund Issues Revised guidelines/ Augmentation of SEF Improved capacity for local resource mobilization
(2) K+12 Adjustments
Data Generation and Knowledge Management between DepEd and LGU for policy making
Capacity Building
Teachers
Lack of teachers Enhanced teachers' training (number of; curriculum support; livelihood and incentives)
Classrooms
Other Human Resources School Administrators (Management, Resmob, Stakeholder Engagement, K+12)
Land titling
Number of classrooms Rehabilitation/ Repairs Supplies, Facilities, and Equipment
More principals, more guidance counselors
Version 05 October 2013; Contact Czarina Medina, Head of Plans & Programs Unit, ULAP (czarinamedina@gmail.com)
Curriculum Development and Instructional Materials
Relationship of Education with other service delivery areas Poverty Incidence
Poor health conditions
Insufficient number of
Poor nutrition
Funding support for purchase/ development
Poor sanitation
Localization and upgrading of the curriculum
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Developing Local Capacity to Institutionalize Education Reforms [Preparatory Phase] Local Government Education Needs and Issues (Output of ULAP Consultations) LCE Education Policy Workshop 10 October 2013, Crowne Plaza Hotel
Ms. Czarina Medina; Head of Plans and Programs, ULAP
Today’s Policy Workshop: Validate
Discuss
Move Forward
• Present and validate the needs and issues in local education governance output from the ULAP consultations with LGUs;
• Gather the inputs of Local Chief Executives for the policy proposal being drafted by the Coalitions for Change;
• Gather the commitments of the LCEs as champions of the local education reform for the proposed policy initiative.
1
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES
ULAP Composition Member Leagues League of Provinces (LPP) League of Cities (LCP) League of Municipalities (LMP) Liga ng mga Barangay (LnB) League of Vice Governors (LVGP) Vice Mayors League (VMLP) Provincial Board Members League (PBMLP) Councilors’ League (PCL) Lady Local Legislators League (4L) National Movement of Young Legislators (NMYL) Sangguniang Kabataan (SK)
Associate Members
Phil. Int’l Sisterhood and Twinning Association Phil. League of Secretaries of the Sanggunian Metro Manila Mayors League Phil. Association of Civil Registrars National League of Phil. Government Nurses League of Local Planning and Devt Coordinators Phil. League of Government Midwives
2
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
ULAP’s Role National Government
•Policy Support •Building capacities and systems for LGUs •Mainstreaming, Upscaling, Replication of Practices
Partners (Private, CSOs, NGOs, Academe)
Local Governments
Local Governance Model Leadership
Supply
Demand
Developed with the 162-52 Coalition for Health
3
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Convergence Roadmap Partnership Development
Planning and Strategizing
Implementation and Follow-through
Identification of Need
Mapping of Needs (LGUs)
Implementation of Program and Policy
Creation of TWG / Partners Consultations
Mapping of Partners’ Initiatives
Monitoring and Evaluation
Mapping of Policy
Mainstreaming and Replication
Creation of Convergence Plan
ULAP and Health 162 to 52 Coalition for Accelerating Convergence to Achieve Maternal and Child Health
With Zuellig Family Foundation, DOH, PhilHealth, Sanofi Philippines, Access Health International – Philippines, PBSP, and 40 organizations from all over the country
http://www.162to52.org/
4
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
ULAP and Health Disability Inclusive Elections Program AusAID, TAF; with Phil. Alliance of Patient Organizations
PWD participation in elections Development of LGU Guide for Setting up PDAO (with NCDA and PAPO) Dialogues for setting up/enhancement of PDAOs in six areas in the Philippines
ULAP and Health
Representation in the PhilHealth Board Dialogue with DOH and DF regarding the Sin Tax Funds and program allocations SAVE THE DATE!
DOH – ULAP – AIM Zuellig Center HEALTH SHAPERS FORUM: Local Governments and Universal Health Care 05 November 2013
5
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
ULAP and Local Economic Development OFW Pinoy Worldwide Initiative on Investments, Savings, and Entrepreneurship With ATIKHA, OWWA, DA-AMAS, DILG
http://www.pinoywise.org/
• 6 provinces, 2 Cooperatives in UAE, Nov 2012 •Generated around Php 1.2M worth of investments •Set-up of One-Stop Migration Centers – financial literacy, psycho-social support, investment and savings opportunities •Recognized as a global best practice by World Bank and IFAD, May 2013, Bangkok (through Atikha) •Expansion program for mainstreaming
ULAP Research Partnerships
INASP, Ateneo de Manila – Department of Political Science, ULAP, LMP: “EvidenceInformed Policy Making and Local Elections in the Philippines”
Does the use of evidence in policy-making help municipal mayors win elections? Yes, significantly in the field of education, and in the transition from 1st to 2nd term of mayor
Research Lead: Prof. Anne Candelaria, PhD Department of Political Science Ateneo de Manila University
6
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
ULAP and Policy Engagements
Philippine Development Plan Planning Technical Working Groups National Disaster Risk Reduction & Management Council Mining Industry Coordinating Council Early Childhood Care & Development Council Council for Migration and Development IV-A among others
ULAP and Education Ayala Foundation Inc.
Jollibee Group Foundation
• Text2Teach • Expansion to LGUs • Completed 850 schools in 2012 • 2014-2016: 20,000 schools
• Busog Lusog Talino • Co-completed est. 1200 schools • Passed JMC with DepEd and DILG
Other Programs • DepEd-NYC Abot Alam program for out-of-school youth mapping • ANSA-EAP Check my School
7
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
“
ISSUES IN LOCAL EDUCATION GOVERNANCE AND SERVICE DELIVERY
Context of Inquiry
Incoming LCEs will encompass the MDG deadline in 2015
K+12 affects needs and demands on the ground
8
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Knowledge Sharing Session: Successful Interventions (March 20, 2013)
Balanga, Bataan, Alimodian, Iloilo San Nicolas, Ilocos Norte Laoac, Pangasinan Tuguegarao, Cagayan Pasay City Synergeia Foundation
Mapping Results
http://www.mapfab.com/map/CG8/Philippine-National-EducationIndicators-and-Best-Practices-Map
9
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
First Convergence Meeting – May 6, 2013 in AIM
Partners Program Mapping (according to ULAP Framework) LEADERSHIP Awards/Monitoring & Policy •DILG; DepEd (with LCC) •PSPA (re SEF) •Galing Pook •DLSU-RIG •RMAF
SUPPLY National/Regional Programs •DepEd (with NYC) •Ayala Foundation Text2Teach •RAFI
Capacity Development •Synergeia Foundation; ACED •Pamulaan (IP) •PBEd •Local academic (Bicol University, Xavier University) •Trainers networks (E-net Philippines) (ULAP for national/local policy support)
DEMAND Commitment from LGUs •ULAP •LPP •LMP •LCP Community Level Demand • ANSA - Check my School •ASOG Gwatch
Information/Research •Bayan Academy/ Knowledge Channel •FOCI
Individuals: Ateneo PoS (Candelaria);
10
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
LGU Consultations Mapping of the needs of the LGUs/districts • ULAP to help convene according to convergence strategy • LeadershipDemand-Supply Framework
To convene a group of LCEs and multisectoral partners for policy development to sustain gains in education • Including long-term capacity-building program to be funded by national agencies
Institutionalization of current education innovations • In support of DepEd’s Education Change Management Program
Composition of LGU participants
Selection:
Partnerships with networks (based on mapping) DepEd indicators
TOTAL LGUs attended = 26
Luzon = 8 Visayas = 13 Mindanao = 5
11
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Schedule of consultations
Luzon Visayas
Mindanao
• Bicol University • Legazpi City, August 2
• Ramon Aboitiz Foundation Inc. • Cebu City, August 16 • Xavier University-Ateneo de Cagayan • CDO, July 18
Luzon Session
12
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Visayas Session
Mindanao Session
13
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Discussion Guidelines Needs and Issues
Input to CfC Policy Direction
Grouped mapping of needs and responses
How can your initiatives be sustained? What would incentivize your LCEs to engage DepEd/other members of LSBs/other members of the community – NGO/CSO? How can SBM be included in SEF? What can the provincial LSB do that the city/municipal LSB cannot do?
14
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Sustainability of Initiatives
LGUs – province, municipal; city Different local development councils
Integration of various units
Local Deped-LGU harmonization
Sustainability of Initiatives
Resource Mobilization; SEF Supply Support PPPs Knowledge Management and M&E systems
K12 Implementation concerns
Commitment of LCEs
(Refer to next slide)
Incentivizing LCES Supportive National & local level Policies
Awards and Incentives for performance
Capacity-building 1: harmonization; 2 : resource mgt
Commitment of LCEs
Research; monitoring and evaluation support
Program Support (PPPs)
15
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Harmonization of DepEd SBMS with LGU: Local Education Governance Framework Leadership and Governance
Curriculum and Instruction
Accountability and Continuous Improvement
Management of Resources Annual Investment Plans & Budget (Provincial, City, Municipal, Brgy)
Functional, Expanded Local School Board
Convergence of Local Dev’t Councils & Local Special Bodies
Program Partnerships on Curriculum Development
Achievement of Education Indicators; DILG and DepEd accountability metrics
Resource mobilization; SEF Augmentation and guidelines revisions
EvidenceInformed Policy Making (KM, M&E)
Capacity Building for Educators and Local Leaders
Reporting and Monitoring of SEF
Infrastructure and technology investments
Working draft – As of October 7, 2013
Province vis-à-vis Municipality LSB Province Infrastructure investments and spending (requiring larger sums) Convergence function Collection of funds from sources (i.e., power generating industry) Provision of emergency education funds Provision of PPP counterparts
Municipality Focus on in-school and on-the-ground programs and needs •Teachers •Program and status M&E •Local stakeholder partnerships •Children needs (i.e., nutrition) Resource mobilization (i.e., tax collection campaigns)
16
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only
Second Convergence Meeting
Initial Presentation to partners; September 2
DepEd DILG CfC Partners LPP, LCP, LMP Galing Pook ULAP education partners
SUMMARY AND RECOMMENDATIONS
17
UNION OF LOCAL AUTHORITIES OF THE PHILIPPINES - For presentation purposes only Local Education Governance Approach, based on ULAP’s engagement framework (Leadership, Supply, Demand)
Leadership - Awards and incentives - Local LGU and DepEd plans & policy , and systems convergence - Knowledge Mgt and M&E systems and capacity
Quality Local Education Service-Delivery
Supply
Improved Education Indicators
- SEF augmentation and revised guidelines - ResMob capacity building - PPPs with private, NGOs
Entitlement Education
Demand - Functional, expanded LSB - Participatory Planning, Implementation, and Monitoring
Increased Access
ULAP Draft – September 2013
Contact us
Unit 2803 Summit One Tower 530 Shaw Boulevard, Mandaluyong City Tel. nos.: 718-1812, 534-6789, 534-6787 Telefax: 717-1810 Email: ulapnatsec@gmail.com Website: www.ulap.net.ph Facebook: https://www.facebook.com/ulap.org.ph
18