education ph1

8/9/2019 Education Ph1

1/84

E DUCATION, P OVERTY AND DEVELOPMENTIN THE P HILIPPINES:

FROM Q UANTITY TO Q UALITY AND BEYOND

Backgroun !a!"r #or $%" Philippines Poverty Assessment 2004

Jose Garcia Montalvo


2/84

A&&r"'(a$(on) an Acron*+)

ADB Asian Development Bank APIS Annual Poverty Incidence SurveyCHED Commission of Hig er !ducation" Gov# of P ilippines#D"!E Department of !ducation" Gov# of P ilippines#LSF $a%or &orce SurveyPCER Presidential Commission on !ducation 'eform#HELM Hig er !ducation and $a%or Market Study#HEI Hig er !ducation Institution#FIES &amily Income and !(penditure SurveyTESDA )ec nical !ducation and Skills Development Aut orityNEDA *ational !conomic and Development Aut orityPIDS P ilippines Institute for Development StudiesTVET )ec nical and +ocational !ducation and )rainingPESS P ilippines !ducation Sector StudyPPA Previous P ilippines Poverty Assessment ,-../0SUC State 1niversity2CollegeLUC $ocal 1niversity2CollegeCSI CH!D Supervised InstitutionVAR +ector AutorregressionP%P P ilippines3 pesos


3/84

T ABLE OF C ONTENTS

/# Introduction

-# Inputs" outputs and t e 4uality of education-#/# International comparisons5 education and productivity

-#-# Basic indicators of education in P ilippines5 efficiency and effectiveness

-#-#/# Primary and secondary education

-#-#-# Hig er education

-#-#6# Inputs" outputs and efficiency5 t e regional dimension

6# !ducation and la%or market outcomes

7# 'egional s ocks and 8orkers education

7#/# Persistence of geograp ical differences in unemployment rates %y skill level#

7#-# Ho8 do 8orkers 8it different skill levels ad9ust to s ocks:

;# !4uity in t e access to education

;#/# Basic e(penditure indicators

;#-# !ducational attainment and enrolment

;#6# !4uity in t e access to ig er education

;#6#/# !ducation e(penditure and access

;#6#-# 'easons for not %eing enrolled in education

;#6#6# Benefit incidence analysis of pu%lic e(penditure in education


4/84

- INTRODUCTION

!ducation is a %asic factor in economic development# At t e microeconomic level

education as an important role in social mo%ility" e4uity" pu%lic ealt " %etter opportunities for employment ,lo8er unemployment and ig er 8ages0" etc# In t e case

of t e P ilippines t e previous Poverty Assessment ,>orld Bank -../0 s o8ed clearly

t at t e educational attainment of t e ead of t e ouse old 8as ?t e single most

important contri%utor to t e o%served variation in ouse old 8elfare#@

Ho8ever it is also 8ell kno8n t at t e 8orkers of P ilippines ave one of t e ig est

levels of education of Asia" specially 8 en considering its level of development#

Pro%a%ly P ilippines is t e most typical case of 8 at is called t e ?education pu le@#

) erefore t e level of poverty of t e P ilippines is difficult to %e e(plained %y t e level

of education of t eir 8orkers#

>e could summari e t e c aracteristics of t e education system in P ilippines as

follo8s5

a# Hig 4uantity" in terms of average level of education of t e population#

%# $o8 4uality of education and small contri%ution of t e 4uality of education to

t e gro8t of )&P#

c# Hig degree of mismatc and over4ualification in t e la%or market#

d# $ack of e4uity in t e access to ig er education#

) e o%9ective of t is report is to analy e and propose recommendations for t e situation

of t e educational system of P ilippines" specially 8it respect to t e sector of tertiary

education" digging into t e contri%ution of education to economic gro8t in t e

P ilippines as 8ell as t e factors t at can e(plain 8 y education is not translated into

development#

ur met odological approac is to deal analytically 8it all t e issues" trying to find t e

most recent evidence on t e diagnostic and trends# ) e o%9ective is to o%tain t e

relevant information to complement t e last P ilippines Poverty Assessment and cover

t e period of time since it 8as 8ritten / #/ In terms of statistical information t e previous Poverty Assessment stops in / = E#


5/84

) e organi ation of t e report is guided %y t e relevant issues and not %y t e level of

education# ) erefore" instead of dividing t e sections in primary" secondary and ig er

education 8e segment t e report %y issues and deal 8it t e relevance of t em for eac

level of education inside eac section# ) e plan of t e report is t e follo8ing# Section /

contains t is introduction# Section - presents an analysis of t e efficiency and

effectiveness of education in terms of inputs" outputs and 4uality# Section 6 considers

t e efficiency of education in terms of outcomes# Section 7 discusses t e likeli ood of a

preventive effect of education against negative s ocks# Section ; analy es t e e4uity of

t e education system# Section < presents an analysis of t e rate of return of education in

P ilippines and its recent evolution# &inally section = summari es t e %asic diagnostic

and recommendations offered %y t e report#


6/84

.- I NPUTS , O UTPUTS AND THE Q UALITY OF E DUCATION

In t is section 8e revie8 t e %asic indicators of inputs" outputs and 4uality of t eeducation system of P ilippines# &irst of all 8e present some international comparison

of inputs" outputs and 4uality of education for countries in Sout !ast and t e Pacific

area of Asia# Secondly" 8e discuss inputs" outputs and 4uality of education in

P ilippines %y level of education# ) irdly 8e present a preliminary discussion of t e

regional dimension of education in P ilippines#

.- - In$"rna$(ona/ co+!ar()on)-

) e level of education of population of t e P ilippines is muc ig er t an t e one t at

corresponds to its level of development# *ot only t at %ut 8ould score ig even in

comparison 8it many developed countries# )a%le -#/ s o8s as very ig gross

enrolment rates in secondary and tertiary education# It is interesting to notice t at t e

enrolment rate in tertiary education is very ig in P ilippines#

)a%le -#/# Gross enrolment rates ,-../0Primary Secondary Tertiary

Cambodia 123.4 22.2 2.5Korea 100.1 94.2 82.0China 113.9 68.2 12.7Indonesia 110.9 57.9 15.1Lao 114.8 40.6 4.3Malaysia 95.2 69.6 26.0Mongolia 98.7 76.1 34.7Myanmar 89.6 39.3 11.5Philippines 112.1 81.9 30.4

Thailand 97.7 82.8 36.8Vietnam 103.4 69.7 10.0Source5 !dStats" >orld%ank ,-..60#

&igure -#/ s o8s t at t e enrolment in secondary education in P ilippines is clearly

over t e regression line of enrolment on G*I per capita# ) is implies t at P ilippines

scores muc ig er t an countries in its geograp ical area 8it a similar level of

development#


7/84

F(gur" .- - Enro/+"n$ (n )"con ar* " uca$(on an 0NI !"r ca!($a-

PHI

CAM

IN !

"!#

CHI MA$

M!N

$A!

THA

%I&T

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

1 0 0

' r o ( ( e n r o

* * m e n

t ( e c o n

d a r y e

d + c a

t i o n

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000'NI ,er ca,ita - S/ 2001

(ec itted a*+e(

Source: Author’s calculations with Worldbank data.

) e same is true for t e gross enrolment in tertiary education as s o8n in figure -#-#

F(gur" .-.- Enro/+"n$ (n $"r$(ar* " uca$(on an 0NI !"r ca!($a-

PHI

CAM

IN !

"!#

CHI

MA$

M!N

$A!

THA

%I&T

0

2 0

4 0

6 0

8 0

' r o ( ( e n r o

* * m e n

t t e r t

i a r y e

d + c a

t i o n

0 2000 4000 6000 8000 10000'NI ,er ca,ita - S/ 2001

ter itted a*+e(

Source: Author’s calculations with Worldbank data.


8/84

%viously t e good educational indicators of P ilippines are supported" are least

partially" %y an important effort in pu%lic e(penditure in education# )a%le -#- s o8s t at

P ilippines is t e t ird country of t e region in terms of pu%lic e(penditure in education

over GDP reac ing a 7#-F in / # nly Malaysia and ) ailand ave a ig er

proportion of pu%lic e(penditure on education over GDP#

Ta&/" .-.: Pu&/(c "1!"n ($ur" on " uca$(on 2 3345.6667-

P+ . &d+c ' P P+ . &d+c ,+ . & ,.Malaysia 6.2 26.7Thailand 5.4 31.0Philippines 4.2 20.6Korea 3.8 17.4LAO 2.3 8.8China 2.1 Cambodia 1.9 10.1Indonesia 1.3 7.0Source: UNESCO (latest figure for eriod !""#$%&&&'.

E ce t )ndonesia (A*+'.

) e proportion of pu%lic e(penditure on education over total pu%lic e(penditure is also

ig reac ing -.#


9/84

F(gur" .-8- R"c"n$ "'o/u$(on o# !u&/(c "1!"n ($ur" on " uca$(on o'"r 0DP-

0%

1%

2%

3%

4%

5%

6%

7%

8%

9%

1998 1999 2000 2001 2002

Phil ippines

Thai land

Malaysia

Indonesia

Source: A*+ (%&&,' #

) erefore in recent years t e differences ave %een reduced %y t e improvement of

ot er countries in t e region and %y a certain stagnation in t e educational sector of

P ilippines# ) e latest data compile %y t e Asian Development Bank s o8s several

important trends5

a# Countries like Malaysia and ) ailand are catc ing up very 4uickly in terms of ig er education enrolment# In fact in / < only orea ad a ig er gross

enrolment in tertiary education# By -../ Mongolia" and specially" ) ailand"

ave overtaken P ilippines in gross enrolment in tertiary education# See also

ta%le - at t e end of t e document#

%# Hig er education in t e P ilippines stopped t e convergence process to8ards

developed economies %y t e middle of t e .3s#

Anot er important issue in t e international comparisons of pu%lic e(penditure on

education is its distri%ution across educational levels# >e 8ill see later t at t e inputs

involved in eac level of education are very different in P ilippines# )a%le -#6 compares

t e t ree countries 8it t e ig est level of pu%lic education e(penditure over GDP in

t e area# It is interesting to notice t at despite t e ig level of enrolment in tertiary

education in P ilippines t e pu%lic e(penditure is lo8 compare 8it t e ot er t8o

countries#


10/84

Ta&/" .-8 Pu&/(c " uca$(on "1!"n ($ur" &* /"'"/ o# " uca$(on

Primary Secondary Tertiary !t er(Malaysia 36.0 27.1 24.1 12.8

Thailand 34.4 19.9 31.9 13.8Philippines 57.9 20.9 15.4 5.8Source: A*+ (latest figures a-ailable !""#$%&&&'.Other includes -ocational and other e enditure not assigned b le-el.

At first it seems difficult to make compati%le t e ig level of educational ac ievement

of P ilippines 8orkers 8it t eir lo8 level of income per capita and productivity# )a%le

/#- s o8s t e productivity of several countries of Asia calculated as gross domestic

product divided %y num%er of employed persons# ) e ta%le s o8s t at after t e crises

some countries like Singapore or orea ave returned slo8ly %ack to t e level of

productivity previous to t e crisis# Ho8ever in t e case of P ilippines t ere is at most a

very slo8 recovery pat # In addition t e comparison of t e levels s o8s P ilippines

lacking %e ind ot er Asian countries#

Ta&/" .-9- Pro uc$('($* co+!ar()on acro)) (##"r"n$ coun$r(")-

COUNTRY 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001 2002 Ave.

SINGAPORE(1990 prices) 44215 38409 39806 38720 37813 44 537 39 857

MALAYSIA(1987 prices) 8160

54005756 5910 5801no data 5 717

THAILAND(1988 prices) 2956 2064 2357 2255 2056 2190 2184

INDONESIA(199 prices) 1026 535 603 526 441 500 521

PHILIPPINES(198! prices) 1087 768 810 778 645 670 734

"OREA(199! prices) 21068 14087 18155 19990 17877 18918 17 805

Source: Asian *e-elo /ent +ank. )n US dollars.

%viously t e previous ta%le is a crude and simplistic approac to productivity %ut it

give us a preliminary indication# Cororaton ,-..-0 finds t at t e contri%ution of la%or

4uality to total factor productivity in t e period /


11/84

F(gur" .-9- Con$r(&u$(on o# /a&or ua/($* $o TFP gro;$%-

0

0.5

1

1.5

2

2.5

1967-72 1973-82 1983-85 1986-90 1991-93 1994-97 1998-2000

Source: Cororaton (%&&%'.

) e reason for t e decline in t e contri%ution of la%or 4uality to total factor productivity

are diverse and comple(# Ho8ever t ere are at least t8o sources of pro%lems5

a# $o8 and deteriorating 4uality of education#

%# Migration of ig ly 4ualified 8orkers#

) erefore t ere are several reason 8 y t e ig educational ac ievement of P ilippines3

la%orers as not %een translated into ig productivity and a large impact on total factor

productivity %eing t e 4uality of t e educational system in general and" in particular" t e

university sector" one of t e most prominent#

)a%le -#; present several indicators of t e 4uality of t e educational services in t e

P ilippines# )a%le -#; s o8s t at t e P ilippines ave t e second ig est ratio of pupils %y teac er in primary education ,only %elo8 Cam%odia0 and t e ig est ratio of pupils

%y teac er in secondary among t e Asian countries considered in ta%le 7# More

important t at t is fact 8e 8ill see in ne(t section t at %ot ratios are increasing in

P ilippines 8 ile in ot er countries like orea" Indonesia" C ina" Malaysia and +ietnam

t ese ratios are decreasing#

In addition t e proportion of students of science and tec nology is lo8 and t e

percentage of university students 8 o graduate is also lo8 compared 8it ot er countries#


12/84

Ta&/" .-


13/84

stands at t e last position in t e ranking of countries of Asia# In fact P ilippines is

ranked in t e position previous to t e last among all t e countries t at participated in

t is international survey ,6E0# nly Morocco and Sout Africa 8ere %elo8" alt oug

only t e second country ad a score significantly smaller t an t e one of t e students of

P ilippines# ) is is o%viously a %ad sign of t e 4uality of t e educational system#

Ta&/" .-=- Qua/($* (n (ca$or) II-

Mat ScienceSingapore 604 568Korea 587 549China 585 569Hong Kong 582 530Malaysia 519 492International average 487 488Thailand 466 482Indonesia 403 435Philippines 345 345Source: 0)1SS !""".

) ere are some ot er surprising results t at locate P ilippines in an e(treme 8it

respect to t e performance of t e students# )a%le -#E s o8s t at in general %oy

outperform girls" less in mat ematics t an in sciences 6# Ho8ever in t e case of t e

P ilippines girls outperform %oys %y a uge difference# *otice t at if t e averageadvantage of girls respect to %oys in mat s is /#-; in P ilippines t is differential score

reac es /; points# In t e case of science t e difference is even more evident# ) e

average of t e countries included in ta%le < is //#/ in favor of %oys# Ho8ever

P ilippines is t e only country 8ere girls outperform %oys in science and t e difference

is again uge#

Ta&/" .-4: D(##"r"nc" &"$;""n

0(r/) an &o*) (n )cor")-Mat Science

China 4 17Hong Kong 2 14Korea 5 21Indonesia 5 17Malaysia 5 9Philippines 15 12Thailand 4 3Singapore 2 20Source: 0)1SS !""".

6 A positive sign implies t at girls ave a ig er score t an %oys# A negative sign implies t e opposite#


14/84

Some ot er indicators also point to8ards pro%lems 8it t e 4uality of ig er education

in P ilippines5

a# ) e academic %ackground of t e faculty ,-../0# ) e ma9ority of t e faculty

,;EF0 as only a %accalaureate degree# nly EF of t e professor ave a P #D# It

seems t at t e lo8 4ualification of t e faculty may %e related 8it t e upgrade

of lo8 level institutions to t e university sector#

%# ) e average passing rate of t e professional %oar e(amination ,PB!0 as %een

over many years" around t e 7.F 7# ) is implies t at


15/84

Bo1 .L"ga/ )"$5u! an organ(>a$(on o# $%" " uca$(on )"c$or

/# Basic la8s#a# !ducation Act of / E-#

%# 'epu%lic Act ==-- of / 7# Creation of t e Commission of Hig er!ducation ,CH!0#

c# 'epu%lic Act == < of / 7# Creation of t e )ec nical !ducation andSkills Development Aut ority ,)!SDA0#

d# 'epu%lic Act E- - of / =# Hig er education moderni ation act#e# 'epu%lic Act /;; of -../# Governance of Basic education act# It

provides t e overall frame8ork for ,i0 sc ool ead empo8erment %ystrengt ening t eir leaders ip roles and ,ii0 sc ool %asedmanagement 8it in t e conte(t of transparency and localaccounta%ility# ) e goal of %asic education is to provide t e sc ool

age population and young adults 8it skills" kno8ledge" and valuesto %ecome caring" self reliant" productive and patriotic citi ens#-# $egal %odies governing education

a# *e art/ent of Education (*e Ed' # Pre primary" primary" secondaryand non formal education#

%# Co//ission of 4igher Education (C4E'. Hig er education#c# 0echnical Education and Skills *e-elo /ent Authorit (0ES*A'. In

c arge of post secondary" middle level manpo8er training andvocational education#

6# Structure of t e Department of !ducation# ) e Department operates 8itfour 1ndersecretaries in t e areas of5 ,/0 Programs and Pro9ectsK ,-0

'egional perationsK ,60 &inance and AdministrationK and ,70 $egal AffairsKfour Assistant Secretaries in t e areas of5 ,/0 Programs and Pro9ectsK ,-0Planning and DevelopmentK ,60 Budget and &inancial AffairsK and ,70 $egalAffairs# ) ree staff %ureaus provide assistance to formulate policy andstandards5 Bureau of !lementary !ducation ,B!!0" cont#


16/84

c# In recent year t e gro8t of private ig sc ools as %een similar to t e gro8t

of t e num%er of pu%lic ig sc ools

d# Ho8ever as a conse4uence of t e Asian crisis many student s8itc ed from

private ig sc ools to secondary ig sc ools# &or t is reason enrolment in

pu%lic ig sc ools is increasing fast 8 ile enrolment in private ig sc ools is

decreasing#

Ta&/" .-3- Sc%oo/), "nro/+"n$ an $"ac%"r): "/"+"n$ar* an )"con ar* " uca$(on-

&*ementary Secondary1997 98 2002 03 Crec. 1997 98 2002 03 Crec.

SCHOOLS 38 395 41 288 7.53 6 690 7 890 17.94P bli! 35 272 36 759 4.22 3 956 4 629 17.01Private 3 123 4 529 45.02 2 734 3 261 19.28"N#OLM"NT 12 225 038 12 979 628 6.17 5 022 830 6 077 851 21.00P bli! 11 295 982 12 050 450 6.68 3 616 612 4 793 511 32.54Private 929 056 929 178 0.01 1 406 218 1 284 340 8.67T"ACH"#S 354 063 337 082 4.80 144 662 119 235 17.58P bli! 324 039 337 082 4.03 105 240 119 235 13.30Private 30 024 39 422 Source: *e art/ent of Education of 2hili ines.

)a%le -#/. presents t e evolution over time of several performance indicator of t eP ilippines elementary and secondary system# ) e co ort survival rate is t e proportion

of enrolees at t e %eginning grade or year level 8 o reac t e final grade or year level

at t e end of t e re4uired num%er of years of study ; # >e can see in ta%le -#/. t at

around t8o t irds of students complete elementary sc ool in t e e(pected time period#

) e co ort survival is even ig er in secondary education# ) e completion rate captures

a similar indicator# It is t e percentage of first year entrants in a level of education 8 o

complete t e level in accordance 8it t e re4uired num%er of years of study# ) e proportions are similar to t e co ort survival rates# ) e drop out rate is t e proportion

of students 8 o leave sc ool during t e year as 8ell as t ose 8 o do not return to

sc ool t e follo8ing year to t e total num%er of students enrolled during t e previous

sc ool year# ) e trend of t e drop out rate is increasing over t ese years 8 ic is

8orrisome#

; ) e particular version presented in t e ta%le is from 1*!SC S3s !&A ,!ducation &or All0 program#


17/84

Ta&/" .- 6- E'o/u$(on o# $%" &a)(c !"r#or+anc" (n (ca$or #or "/"+"n$ar* an)"con ar* " uca$(on-

1997 98 1998 99 1999 00 2000 01 2001 02 2002 03Cohort s rvival rate $"%A &orm la' "lementary 64.96: 64.09: 69.48: 67.21: 67.13:

Se!ondary 70.31: 69.50: Completion rate "lementary 67.67: 68.99: 68.38: 66.13: 66.33: Se!ondary $based on %irst year' 69.09: 69.98: 69.89: 70.62: 71.01: (rop o t rate "lementary 7.39: 7.57: 7.72: 9.03: Se!ondary 9.93: 9.09: 9.55: 10.63: A!hievement rate "lementary) N"AT 50.78: 50.08: 49.19: 51.73: 40< Se!ondary) NSAT 48.66: 46.12: 54.34: 53.39: 28.5<P pil*tea!her ratio "lementary 34 35 35 36 36 36 Se!ondary 34 35 35 36 39 40No s!hools +arangays ,itho t p bli! elementarys!hool 4 231 4 819 4 710 4 569 M ni!ipalities ,itho t a high s!hool 26 13 5 3 6 6Source: Author’s co/ ilation fro/ the *e Ed. 5NEA0 and NSA0 were not ad/inistrated in %&&!$&%. )n%&&%$&6 there were two diagnostic tests: in grade )7 for ele/entar and in !st ear for secondar .

) e ac ievement rate measures t e performance of student in regular tests# ) e *!A)

,*ational !lementary Assessment )est0 is t e national e(amination 8 ic aims to

measure learning outcomes in t e elementary level in response to t e need tof en ancing 4uality of education as recommended %y t e Congressional Commission in

!ducation# It is designed to assess a%ilitites and skill of grade +I students in all pu%lic

and private sc ools# ) e *SA) ,*ational Secondary Assessment )est0 is a national

e(amination to assess t e skills of fourt year ig sc ool students# ) ere are no clear

trends in terms of t e performance of t e students in t is tests


18/84

Ta&/" .- - Ba)(c !"r#or+anc" (n (ca$or): "/"+"n$ar* ? )"con ar* " uca$(on 26.5

687-

IN(ICATO#S&$&M&NTA#= S&C!N A#=

Tota* -M Ma*e -M ema*e - Tota* -M Ma*e -M ema*e -

-"# in "CC( 9.86: 9.60: 10.14:. o& -r/0 ,1 "C( "2p/ 51.95: 51.31: 52.68:App/ Inta3e #ate $AI#' 125.52: 131.26: 119.50:Net Inta3e #ate $NI#' 43.59: 41.90: 45.38:-ross "nro #atio $-"#' 100.41: 101.17: 99.61: 65.66: 62.96: 68.41:Net "nro #atio $N"#' 83.30: 82.58: 84.04: 45.56: 41.76: 49.44:CS# $-rade VI 1 4ear IV' 69.47: 65.49: 73.90: 63.88: 56.71: 71.22:Completion #ate 66.94: 62.77: 71.56: 58.62: 51.11: 66.38:Coe&&i!ient o& "&&i!ien!y 81.03: 77.75: 84.47: 70.69: 64.12: 77.04:

4ears Inp t Per -rad ate 7.41 7.72 7.10 5.66 6.24 5.19-rad ation #ate 95.89: 95.17: 96.58: 90.62: 88.41: 92.58:Ave/ Promotion #ate 93.42: 92.32: 94.58: 83.82: 78.49: 88.97:Ave/ #epetition #ate 2.25: 2.91: 1.56: 2.81: 4.35: 1.32:Ave/ S!hool Leaver #ate 7.45: 8.60: 6.21: 13.91: 17.14: 10.70:Transition #ate 97.58: 96.71: 98.48: 92.95: 96.80: 89.30:Ave/ %ail re #ate 5.24: 5.99: 4.44: 9.60: 12.59: 6.72:#etention #ate 93.82: 92.46: 95.27: 88.18: 84.39: 91.91:Ave/ (ropo t #ate 1.34: 1.69: 0.98: 6.58: 8.92: 4.31:

Source: +E)S (%&&,'.

) e most interesting fact from t is ta%le is t e consistent %etter situation of 8omen 8it

respect to men# >e already o%served %efore o8 t e performance of 8omen in t e

)IMSS 8as muc %etter t an t e performance of men of t e same age =# In ta%le -#// 8e

can see t at 8omen ave a ig er net enrolment rate" graduation rate" promotion rate"

completion rate and retention rate t an men# In addition 8omen ave a smaller

repetition rate" years input per graduate" sc ool leaver ratio" failure rate and dropout

rate# ) is is true for elementary and secondary education#

>it respect to t e 4uality of pu%lic and private sc ool t ere are not very many

indicator since most of t e !&A indicator distinguis %et8een men and 8omen %ut not

%y t e o8ners ip of t e sc ools# Indicator // presents t e calculation of t e

student2teac er ratio separating pu%lic and private sc ools# In elementary sc ools t e

ratio of pu%lic sc ools is 6;#= 8 ile in private sc ools is 6.#/# In ig sc ools t e ratio

is 6;# for pu%lic sc ools and 66#< for private sc ools E# ) erefore it seems t at in terms

of t e student2teac er ratio private sc ools are %etter e4uipped to produce ig 4uality

education t an pu%lic sc ools#

= $atter 8e 8ill s o8 t at t e return to education is also muc ig er for 8omen t an for men#E Ho8ever 8e s ould notice t at t ere is a very ig varia%ility across regions#


19/84

Anot er piece of information t at may %e important in rating pu%lic versus private

sc ools is t e level of satisfaction of t e users# In a recent report t e >orld Bank asked

&ilipino /. families for t eir level of satisfaction 8it pu%lic and private sc ools# verall

t e level of satisfaction 8it pu%lic and private sc ools 8as very similar even t oug t

rating 8ere ig er for private sc ools in t e 4uality items and for pu%lic sc ools in t e

costs items# ) e present rating of pu%lic sc ools 8as /#7 ,past rating /#;.0 8 ile for

private sc ools it 8as /#;/ ,past rating /#=/0#

) e ig est satisfaction 8it pu%lic sc ools 8as associated 8it its convenient location"

conse4uence of t e longstanding policy ?one %arangay" one pu%lic sc ool@# ) e rating

of pu%lic sc ools 8as lo8 in class si es" te(t%ooks and facilities# Class si es are larger

not %ecause of a simple s ortage of teac er %ut also %ecause of a poor policy of teac er

deployment caused %y t e restrictive regulation on deployment of teac er in P ilippines#

In addition real students to teac er ratios in pu%lic sc ools are ig er t an t e num%er

s o8n %y aggregate statistics due to many teac ers doing clerical or administrative

functions# 'eal ratios are close to 7;#

In private sc ools t e ig est degree of satisfaction corresponds to teac ers3 attendance

to sc ools" and availa%ility of %ooks# ) e lo8est satisfaction is associated 8it t e

tuition c arged %y private sc ools#

) e &ilipino 'ecord Card study provides also estimates for t e cost of pu%lic and

private sc ools# )a%le -#/- s o8s t ese findings#

Ta&/" .- .- Annua/ !"r )$u "n$ co)$ #or "/"+"n$ar* " uca$(on 2(n P%P7

&ees )e(t%ooks 1niforms )ransport MeanPu&/(c 77; 6E ;-- /"./= -".-6 Ur&an


20/84

ouse olds sending t eir c ildren to private sc ools rate t em %etter t an pu%lic

sc ools#

-#-#-# Hig er education#

) e ig er education sector of P ilippines is one of t e most interesting cases of ig er

education in t e 8orld# >it /"7= institutions of ig er education P ilippines ranks

second in t e a%solute num%er of H!Is# pposite to primary and secondary education in

t e ig er education sector t e large ma9ority of t e centers are private institutions# By

/


21/84

and lo8 tuition# ) e pu%lic institutions can %e divided in S1Cs ,state and university

colleges0" CHIs ,CH!D supervised institutions0 and $1Cs ,local universities2colleges0#

Pu%lic institutions c arge lo8 tuition fees " selective process of admission and very ig

unit costs# )a%le -#/6 presents t e recent evolution of t e num%er of H!I classified %y

groups#

Ta&/" .- 8- H(g%"r " uca$(on (n)$($u$(on) (n P%(/(!!(n")-

Se!tor1Instit tional Type 1998 991999 002000 012001 022002 03

PHILIPPIN"S $,itho t satellite !amp ses' 1 382 1 404 1 380 1 428 1 479PHILIPPIN"S $,ith satellite !amp ses' 1 495 1 563 1 603 1 665

P5+LIC $,itho t satellite !amp ses' 264 232 166 170 174P5+LIC $,ith satellite !amp ses' 377 391 389 407

State ni er(itie( Co**e;e( -S C(Main 106 107 107 111 111

Sate**ite Cam,+( 113 159 223 237CH& S+,er i(ed In(tit+tion( -CSI( 2

Main 102 71 3 1Sate**ite Cam,+(

$oca* ni er(itie( Co**e;e( -$ C( 39 37 40 42 44 !t er 'o ernment Sc oo*( 12 12 11 12 12 S,ecia* Hi; er &d+cation In(tit+tion( 5 5 5 4 5 P#IVAT" 1 118 1 172 1 214 1 258 1 305 Non Sectarian 818 866 902 938 980

Sectarian 300 306 312 320 325Source: C4E*.

) e total enrolment is 6..= student per /..#... population# ) is locates P ilippines

close to t e -. t position in t e 8orld in terms of ig er education student over

population# ) is ig num%er is t e result of an e(traordinary ig transition rate from

secondary to ig er education# Close to .F of t e ig sc ool graduates continue into

ig er education#

)a%le -#/7 presents t e distri%ution of students %y disciplines# ) e largest proportion

corresponds to %usiness administration and related disciplines ,-;# F0 follo8ed %y

education and teac ing ,/=#EF0 and engineering and tec nology ,/;#6F0# Mat ematics

and computer sciences is t e c oice for /.#


22/84

Ta&/" .- 9- D()$r(&u$(on o# )$u "n$) &* ()c(!/(n"-

(is!ipline -ro p 1998 1999 1999 2000 2000 2001 2001 2002 : 01 02Agri! lt ral6 %orestry6

%isheries6 Vet Med/ 75 47

585 26

687 49

294 90

0 3.85Ar!hite!t ral and To,n

Planning

23 34

6

22 39

4

23 45

9

25 20

5 1.02

+ siness Admin/ and #elated 635 39

8632 76

0645 97

0640 31

52

5.97

"d !ation and Tea!her Training 407 96

6447 18

3469 01

9439 54

91

7.82

"ngineering and Te!hnology 344 03

9359 31

3369 17

5377 40

91

5.30

%ine and Applied Arts 9 778 9 809 10 13

8 8 967

0.36

-eneral 55 63

055 89

068 22

343 62

7 1.77

Home "!onomi!s 7 167 7 513 10 06

0 6 460

0.26

H manities 21 61

721 34

321 67

129 66

5 1.20

La, and 7 rispr den!e 18 62

920 09

920 09

719 64

6 0.80Mass Comm ni!ation and

(o! mentation 24 20

645 42

121 62

230 63

8 1.24Mathemati!s and Comp ter

S!ien!e 221 66

0220 86

0239 93

1262 13

41

0.63

Medi!al and Allied 155 86

8150 63

4141 77

1164 00

0 6.65

Nat ral S!ien!e 25 93

228 85

629 21

530 45

1 1.23

#eligion and Theology 10 53

810 85

6 9 507 7 828

0.32

Servi!e Trades 12 53

213 36

914 48

615 42

1 0.63

So!ial and +ehavioral S!ien!e 63 18

462 11

362 86

080 07

7 3.25

Trade6 Cra&t and Ind strial 982 640 988 4 651

0.19

Other (is!iplines 165 36

7179 16

7185 15

8185 11

3 7.51

-rand Total 2 279 3142 373 48

62 430 84

22 466 05

6Source: C4E*.

)a%le -#/; presents t e recent evolution of graduates from eac discipline# Half of t e

graduates ave ma9ored in %usiness administration or education#

Ta&/" .-


23/84

Ar!hite!t ral and To,nPlanning 2 235 2 541 2 542 2 570

+ siness Admin/ and #elated 104 55

5106 55

9106 92

4 108 117

"d !ation and Tea!her Training 60 41

571 34

971 48

0 72 277

"ngineering and Te!hnology 44 558 45 041 45 263 45 768%ine and Applied Arts 1 560 1 323 1 326 1 340-eneral 5 970 5 238 5 494 5 556Home "!onomi!s 820 957 960 970H manities 3 953 4 236 4 243 4 290La, and 7 rispr den!e 2 134 2 214 2 204 2 229Mass Comm ni!ation and

(o! mentation 4 747 5 140 5 152 5 210Mathemati!s and Comp ter

S!ien!e 34 01

533 05

932 95

3 33 320

Medi!al and Allied 30 05

327 29

627 38

0 27 686Nat ral S!ien!e 4 283 4 770 4 824 4 878#eligion and Theology 1 435 1 052 1 056 1 068Servi!e Trades 2 369 2 342 2 366 2 392

So!ial and +ehavioral S!ien!e 12 26

613 39

513 42

8 13 578Trade6 Cra&t and Ind strial 391 712 714 722

Other (is!iplines 22 84

523 24

423 04

3 23 300

TOTAL 350 818363 65

1364 56

3 368 628Source: C4E*.

As in many ot er countries t ere as %een an important de%ate in P ilippines over t eneed to forecast t e demand for ig er education graduates %y fields and favour t ose

discipline from t e pu%lic sector# Ho8ever t e international e(perience on manpo8er

needs forecasting as %een very disappointing# In addition is seems t at in P ilippines

t e signal from t e market are understood %y potential students ,see t e recent surge in

tec nology and computer science students0 even t oug t t e speed of t is

transformation may%e too slo8#

)a%le -#/< present several indicators of t e intensity of graduation over num%er of

students %y disciplines# ) e ig est proportion of graduates over students is found in

%usiness administration" mass communication" medical disciplines and social and

%e avioural sciences# Arc itecture and la8 ave t e lo8est ratios#

Ta&/" .- - Ba)(c !ro!or$(on) an ra$(o) &* ()c(!/(n") 2.66 5.66.7-

(is!ipline -ro p : (t+dent( : ;rad+ate( ratio ;rad (t+dAgri! lt ral6 %orestry6 %isheries6 Vet

Med/ 3.85 3.62 0.14Ar!hite!t ral and To,n Planning 1.02 0.70 0.10+ siness Admin/ and #elated 25.97 29.33 0.17


24/84

"d !ation and Tea!her Training 17.82 19.61 0.16"ngineering and Te!hnology 15.30 12.42 0.12%ine and Applied Arts 0.36 0.36 0.15-eneral 1.77 1.51 0.13Home "!onomi!s 0.26 0.26 0.15H manities 1.20 1.16 0.14La, and 7 rispr den!e 0.80 0.60 0.11Mass Comm ni!ation and

(o! mentation 1.24 1.41 0.17Mathemati!s and Comp ter S!ien!e 10.63 9.04 0.13Medi!al and Allied 6.65 7.51 0.17Nat ral S!ien!e 1.23 1.32 0.16#eligion and Theology 0.32 0.29 0.13Servi!e Trades 0.63 0.65 0.15So!ial and +ehavioral S!ien!e 3.25 3.68 0.17Trade6 Cra&t and Ind strial 0.19 0.20 0.15Other (is!iplines 7.51 6.32 0.12

Source: Author’s calculations using C4E* data.) e ratios in t e previous ta%le are affected %y t e differential gro8t in t e num%er of

student in eac discipline and" t erefore" it is difficult to interpret outside a steady state#

)a%le -#/= presents aggregated indicators not su%9ect to t is pro%lem#

Ta&/" .- =- Ou$!u$ (n (ca$or) o# $%" %(g%"r " uca$(on )"c$or-

A!ademi! 4ear Indicator

'ro(( &nro**ment #atioPartici,ation #ate 'ro(( S+r i a* #ate 'rad+ation #ate

0889*088: 19.95: 66.18: 45.70:088:*088; 19.53: 70.15: 45.90:

088;*088< 18.64: 71.68: 45.98:

088>> 21.22: 63.79: 46.69:

=>>>*=>>0 21.63: 67.72: 46.48:

=>>0*=>>= 21.94: 65.18: N ASource: C4E*. 9ross Enrol/ent atio32artici ation ate $ ; of re$baccalaureate and baccalaureate

students o-er the schooling age o ulation of !th ear and $ earsago= res ecti-el . 9raduation ate $ ; of !st ear baccalaureate students who were able to graduate.

As 8e s o8n %efore t e gross enrolment in ig er education as continue to gro8

during recent years reac ing --F of t e relevant group age# Ho8ever t e survival rates

and" specially" t e graduation rates are very disappointing# nly 7


25/84

8 ic covers most of t e fields of study# Among t e large discipline t e only e(ception

is %usiness and commerce# >e s ould also notice t at not all graduates take t e e(am

,t e 8eakest graduates do not take t e e(am0 8 ic means t at t e effectiveness of t e

ig er education system of P ilippines is even 8orse t an 8 at nominal rates of failure

in t e e(am 8ould suggest#

&igure -#< s o8s t e recent evolution of t e percentage of graduates passing t e e(am#

!ven t oug t in recent years t e proportion of graduates failing t e e(am as %een

slo8ly decreasing t ere is a suspicion t at t e difficulty of t e e(am is going do8n#

F(gur" .- - E'o/u$(on o# $%" !a))(ng !"rc"n$ag" o# /(c"n)ur" "1a+(na$(on-

0%

10%

20%

30%

40%

50%

60%

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000 2001

Source: 2rofessional egulation Co//ission and C4E* 0ask 8orce !"">

Anot er interesting source of information is t e passing percentage %y disciplines# )a%le

-#/E presents t e average of t ese percentages %y periods# It is distur%ing to see t e lo8

passing rate in accountancy ,/EF0 or la8 ,-=#;F0#

Ta&/" .- 4- Pa))(ng ra$") &* ()c(!/(n")-

(is!ipline A er. 85 89 A er. 92 97 A er. 98 01A!!o ntan!y 21.50: 15.91: 18.61:Aerona ti!al "ngineering 22.52: 26.28:Agri! lt ral "ngineering 42.90: 52.76:

Ar!hite!t re 30.49: 35.71:Chemi!al "ngineering 38.84: 40.45:


26/84

Chemistry 27.30: 37.58: 41.22:Civil "ngineering 31.60: 30.75: 30.62:Criminology 43.90: 46.87:C stoms Administration 11.26: 9.10:(entistry 45.30: 25.07: 33.84:"le!tri!al "ngineering 52.60: 35.85: 40.50:"le!troni!s ? Comms "ng@g 43.80: 45.09: 47.43:"nvironmental Planning 77.78: 68.23:%orestry 35.44: 43.75:-eodeti! "ngineering 45.74: 41.05:-eology 53.43: 72.73:Interior (esign 37.45: 50.75:Lands!ape Ar!hite!t re 67.06: 59.60:Library S!ien!e 50.12: 52.39:La, 24.89: 27.49:Marine Transportation 23.62: 44.59:Marine "ngineering 34.91: 50.28:Me!hani!al "ngineering 55.90: 30.45: 44.41:Medi!al Te!hnology 44.16: 51.53:Medi!ine 69.00: 77.80: 65.04:Metall rgi!al "ngineering 56.93: 60.96:Mid,i&ery 51.65: 49.61:Mining "ngineering 38.21: 76.50:Naval Ar!hi/ ? Marine "ng@g/ 40.11: 51.67:N rsing 59.40: 57.99: 52.20:N trition and (ieteti!s 41.66: 53.46:Optometry 49.51: 26.25:Pharma!y 57.90: 65.41: 65.98:

O!! pational Therapy 39.43:Physi!al Therapy 24.59:Physi!al and O!! p/

Therapy 67.00: 39.12: 23.30:"lementary1Se!ondary

"d !/ 27.06: 31.56:Tea!her*"lementary 34.33:Tea!her*Se!ondary 35.40:#adiologi!1 *#ay

Te!hnology 42.77: 39.87:#adiologi! Te!hnology 32.69:Sanitary "ngineering 52.08: 50.87:

So!ial Bor3 49.99: 55.64:Veterinary Medi!ine 44.81: 48.90: Source: C4E* and 2rofessional egulation Co//ission


27/84

-#-#6# Inputs" outputs and efficiency5 t e regional dimension#

) e previous sections present a unifying vie8 of inputs" outputs and efficiency in t e

educational system of P ilippines# Ho8ever t ere are large regional differences in

inputs and outputs# In t is section 8e only scratc t e surface of t is pro%lem# )a%le

-#/ presents t e %asic data on inputs %y regions# As e(pected net enrolment is

negatively correlated 8it t e level of development of eac region# ) is effect is more

evident in secondary education t an in primary education#

) e relations ip %et8een inputs ratios ,pupil2teac er ratio" pupil2seats ratio" etc0 and

poverty is more comple(# In t e less developed regions t ose ratios are ig %ut t ey are

also 4uite ig in t e most developed areas of t e country ,like *C'0" at least in

elementary sc ool# In ig sc ool t e correlation %et8een average poverty and inputs

ratios is again 4uite clear# &igure -#/ present a map 8it t e ratio students2teac er in

secondary education %y region# >e s ould again emp asi e t at t ese are nominal ratios

in t e sense t at t e denominator included all t e teac ers# Since many of t em are

doing clerical 9o%s t e real ratios are suspected to %e ig er t an t ose in t e map#

)a%le -#-. contains t e outcomes of t e primary and secondary education system %y

regions# As e(pected dropout rates" survival rates and scores are positively correlated

8it t e level of development of t e regions#


28/84


29/84

F(gur" .-=- Ra$(o !u!(/?$"ac%"r &* r"g(on)- S"con ar* " uca$(on-

$e;end

24.9925.00 29.9930.00 34.9935.00 39.9940.00 44.9945.00 49.9950.00 >No Teac er(

No ata

A#MMST# ? 53.25

CA#ST# ? 34.95

NC#ST# ? 35.88

#e;ion IST# ? 36.78 #e;ion II

ST# ? 41.06

#e;ion IIIST# ? 44.59

#e;ion I% AST# ? 48.84

#e;ion %ST# ? 38.49

#e;ion %IST# ? 37.29

#e;ion %II

ST# ? 52.03

#e;ion %IIIST# ? 40.84

#e;ion I@ST# ? 40.1

#e;ion @ST# ? 43.33

#e;ion @IST# ? 42.15

#e;ion @IIST# ? 45.08

CA#A'AST# ? 44.25

#e;ion I%ST# ? 40.01


30/84

Ta&/" .-.6- Ba)(c ou$!u$ (n (ca$or) &* r"g(on)-

,rop out rate Sur i al rate Scores Scores ScoresREGION in in in tests

tests tests ran/in0 NEAT NEAT NEAT

ELEMENTAR 1995 1999 1999 Re0ion I 3.84 76.84 48.10 44.91 13Re0ion II 6.07 70.26 45.50 47.43 8Re0ion III 4.90 75.48 44.80 45.43 12Re0ion I1 6.29 68.78 49.20 48.06 7Re0ion 1 6.87 66.09 42.30 50.77 3Re0ion 1I 8.09 65.40 44.80 44.26 14Re0ion 1II 5.32 73.12 45.80 40.24 16Re0ion 1III 9.51 57.79 52.90 62.78 1Re0ion I2 12.03 49.37 42.70 49.39 4

Re0ion 2 8.51 60.59 45.50 48.63 5Re0ion 2I 9.85 55.36 43.80 46.51 11Re0ion 2II 10.67 55.04 42.00 42.54 15+ARAGA 9.47 56.57 47.36 10ARMM 20.34 26.05 48.80 47.38 9+AR 9.31 56.90 49.40 48.23 6N+R 6.79 66.66 52.80 55.64 2

SE+ON,AR N AT N AT N AT1995 1999 1999

Re0ion I 6.40 78.47 47.10 54.59 8Re0ion II 7.77 74.76 44.70 53.51 9Re0ion III 9.61 69.50 46.60 54.92 5Re0ion I1 8.47 71.61 46.40 55.83 3Re0ion 1 9.26 70.80 40.70 52.54 11Re0ion 1I 10.31 69.71 41.40 50.25 14Re0ion 1II 9.16 70.61 43.00 50.10 15Re0ion 1III 12.52 61.04 45.60 62.65 1Re0ion I2 10.38 65.25 43.90 54.84 6Re0ion 2 10.43 66.38 45.00 53.12 10Re0ion 2I 11.96 62.26 40.70 51.25 12Re0ion 2II 12.34 65.05 42.20 48.63 16+ARAGA 12.44 62.18 41.00 54.77 7ARMM 13.61 69.98 47.30 58.69 2+AR 7.52 76.31 47.50 55.28 4N+R 8.71 69.98 49.30 51.22 13 Source: +E)S and author’s calculations.

http://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR02.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR03.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR04-A.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR05.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR06.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR07.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR08.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR09.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR10.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR11.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR12.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR14%20CARAGA.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR15%20ARMM.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR16%20CAR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR17%20NCR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR01.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR02.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR03.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR04-A.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR05.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR06.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR07.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR08.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR09.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR10.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR11.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR12.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR14%20CARAGA.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR15%20ARMM.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR16%20CAR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR17%20NCR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR02.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR03.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR04-A.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR05.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR06.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR07.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR08.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR09.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR10.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR11.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR12.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR14%20CARAGA.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR15%20ARMM.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR16%20CAR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR17%20NCR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR01.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR02.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR03.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR04-A.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR05.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR06.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR07.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR08.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR09.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR10.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR11.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR12.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR14%20CARAGA.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR15%20ARMM.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR16%20CAR.xlshttp://www.deped.gov.ph/BEIS/Data/SY%202003/BEIS-QC-TOTR17%20NCR.xls


31/84


32/84


33/84

1sing t e )racer Study /- of t e CH!D ,/ 0 8e can understand a little %etter t e

reasons for t e unemployment of t e college educated active population#

Ta&/" 8- - R"a)on) #or un"+!/o*+"n$ o# co//"g" " uca$" !o!u/a$(on-

:No ob opening in my &ield o& spe!ialiDation 10.9:No ob opening &or anyone 9.6:No !onne!tion to get a ob 9.6:La!3 o& pro&essional eligibility $e/g/ board e2ams' 10.7:No ob opening in the area o& residen!y 9.1:La!3 o& e2perien!e 9.1:%amily sit ation prevents me &rom ,or3ing 9.8:Starting salary is too lo, 10.5:No interest in having a ob 10.6:The !ollege ,here I st dies is not prestigio s 10.2:Source: 0racer Stud .

Some interpretations of t is ta%le point out t at as muc as 7.F of t e unemployment

of t e college educated population is due to voluntary unemployment# *evert eless 8e

ave to %e careful in accepting suc an interpretation since t e items of t is 4uestion are

not properly constructed to e(tract precise conclusions a%out t e voluntary or

involuntary nature of college unemployment# It is clear" for instance" t at t e /.#;F of

college educated individuals t at are unemployed %ecause t e starting salary is too lo8

can %e considered as voluntary unemployed# Ho8ever t e individuals 8 o recogni e

t ey are not interested in aving a 9o% or t at family situation prevent t em from

8orking are not part of t e unemployed since t ey do not participate in t e la%or force#

) e alternative e(planation for t e ig unemployment of university graduates is t at

t e supply of university graduates increases muc faster t an its demand and" in

addition" t e 4uality of education is lo8 8 ic does not elp in spurring demand for

university graduates# ) e ans8ers of t e investment climate 4uestionnaire ,see report on

investment climate0 seems to favour t is second interpretation#

In terms of t e 4uarterly volatility of t e indicators 8e can see in figure 6#7 t at again

t e undergraduates of ig sc ool and college are t e ones 8it t e ig est degree of

%et8een 4uarter volatility# ) e rest of t e levels of education present a very narro8

difference across 4uarters#

/- ) e )race study is a continuous survey on t e situation of graduates from ig er education institutions#

Alt oug t e representativeness of t e sample is not clear ,students can fill t e 4uestionnaires usingInternet 8it all t e sampling pro%lems t at t is strategy generates0# *otice also t at t is study refers

%asically to recent college graduates and undergraduates#


34/84


35/84

appear in t e ISC it all t is precautions taken and reclassifying t e / < occupations according to t e

ISC EE 8e s o8 in ta%le 6#6 t e result of t e distri%ution of college educated 8orkers

%y occupations# It is also noticea%le" like in -..-" t e ig proportion of college

educated 8orkers in clerical occupations" sales and services as 8ell as elementary

occupations# ) e fact t e proportion of over4ualified college educated 8orkers in / <

8as ;=#E7F" very similar to t e proportion found in -..-# ) is means t at t e

P ilippines la%or marker is not a%le to create 4uality 9o%s at t e same rate at 8 ic t e

ig er education sector produce graduates# Ho8ever t is fact could also %e interpreted

as t e effect of lo8 4uality college educated 8orkers not %eing a%le to get a 9o% 8it

appropriate c aracteristics for t eir nominal level of education#

Ta&/" 8-8- Pr(+ar* occu!a$(on o# co//"g" " uca$" ;ork"r)- 33 -:

Pro&essional6 te!hni!al and related ,or3ers 23.89Administrative and managerial ,or3ers 18.27Cleri!al and related ,or3ers 13.03Sales ,or3ers 10.20Servi!e ,or3ers 7.21Agri! lt ral6 animal h sbandry6 &orestry 11.05Prod !tion ,or3ers 2.57Cra&t and related ,or3ers 4.97"lementary o!! pations 8.82Source: Author’s calculations using the ?8S !""


36/84

. 5

. 6

. 7

. 8

. 5

. 6

. 7

. 8

1996 1998 2000 20021996 1998 2000 20021996 1998 2000 2002

&*ementary nder;rad+ate &*ementary 'rad+ate Hi; Sc oo* nder;rad+ate

Hi; Sc oo* 'rad+ate Co**e;e nder;rad+ate Co**e;e ' rad+ate

* a 3 o r

B o r c e , a r t

i c i , a

t i o n

year 'ra, ( y ;rade

F(gur" .-9- Par$(c(!a$(on ra$") &* gra " an uar$"r-

. 5

. 6

. 7

. 8

. 9

. 5

. 6

. 7

. 8

. 9

1996 1998 2000 20021996 1998 2000 20021996 1998 2000 2002

&*ementary nder;rad+ate &*ementary 'rad+ate Hi; Sc oo* nder;rad+ate

Hi; Sc oo* 'rad+ate Co**e;e nder;rad+ate Co**e;e ' rad+ate * B ,

year 'ra, ( y ;rade


37/84

9- R E0IONAL SHOC S AND OR ERS E DUCATION-

) is section investigates differences in responses to regional s ocks in la%or market

%et8een groups 8it different levels of education# ) e met odology is %ased on Mauro,/ 0" 8 ic in turn takes as reference frame8ork t e model developed %y Blanc ard

and at ,/ -0# ) e main result from t is e(ercise is t at 8orkers 8it ig sc ool

education take more time to adapt to a negative s ock to employment t en college

educated 8orkers and t eir response is stronger# ) e surprising result is t e %e aviour in

t e group of 8orkers 8it primary education" 8 o recover from t e s ock faster t an

college educated 8orkers and t eir response magnitudes are muc lo8er# ) e analysis is

%ased on 4uarterly data from t e $a%our &orce Survey" %et8een / - and -..-#

9- - P"r)()$"nc" o# 0"ogra!%(c D(##"r"nc") (n Un"+!/o*+"n$ Ra$") &* Sk(// L"'"/

) e analysis splits t e population of 8orkers into t ree groups5 8orkers 8it education up

to primary graduatesK 8orkers 8it ig sc ool education and finally t e t ird group are

8orkers 8it college education#

) ere is evidence t at t e pattern of unemployment across groups as persisted for manyyears# Scatter plots of t e unemployment rates in first 4uarter of / 6 and last 4uarter of

-..- for t e /7 regions in P ilippines reveal a remarka%le correlation %et8een t e

provinces t at ave ig er unemployment rates in t e -..- and t ose t at ad ig er

unemployment rates in t e / 6 ,&igure 6#/ &igure 6#70# ) e degree of persistence of

geograp ical differences in unemployment varies depending on t e la%or force

participants skill levels# >orkers 8it primary and ig sc ool education display ig er

unemployment persistence t en college educated 8orkers" as can %e seen in t e scatter

plots of t e unemployment rate in / 6 and -..-#

> at is a %it surprising is t at t e primary education 8orkers display lo8er persistence of

unemployment t en t ose ig sc ool educated" alt oug t e difference is small# )a%le 6#/

reports" for eac educational group" t e coefficient of correlation %et8een unemployment in

/ 6 and unemployment in -..-#


38/84

)a%le 7#/# 1nemployment Persistence %y !ducational Group" / 6 .-

!ducation Coefficient ofCorrelation

PopulationS are / 6

PopulationS are -..-

All groups .#E6 /..F /..FPrimary!ducation

.#E/ 7.F 6-F

Hig sc ool .#E 6=F 6 FCollege .#;/ -6F - F

Sources5 estimates %y aut or#

F(gur" 9- - P"r)()$"nc" o# r"/a$('" un"+!/o*+"n$ acro)) r"g(on)-

F(gur" 9-.- P"r)()$"nc" o# un"+!/o*+"n$ ra$") &* " uca$(on: !r(+ar*-


39/84

F(gur" 9-8- P"r)()$"nc" o# un"+!/o*+"n$ ra$") &* " uca$(on: )"con ar*-

F(gur" 9-8- P"r)()$"nc" o# un"+!/o*+"n$ ra$") &* " uca$(on: un('"r)($*-


40/84

1sual picture /7 is t at t e ig er educated group t e lo8er persistence in unemployment#

) us t e results reported in t e )a%le 7#/ are t e first indicator t at t ings look a %itdifferent in P ilippines# ) e ne(t section analy es o8 8orkers 8it different skill levels

ad9ust to s ocks#

9-.- Ho; Do ork"r) ;($% D(##"r"n$ Sk(// L"'"/) A u)$ $o S%ock)

> en la%or market e(periences a negative employment s ock" 8orkers in a given region

can %asically react in t ree 8ays5 t ey can remain unemployed" drop out of t e la%or force

,%ecome discouraged 8orkers0" or migrate# ) ere are several reasons /; to e(pect different

responses 8it in groups 8it different level of education# In t e follo8 up 8e investigate

t ose differences estimating a +A' system and confront t em 8it t ose t at usually

e(ist in developed countries#

) e relative speed and strengt of t e ad9ustment mec anisms descri%ed a%ove is

estimated using a panel vector autoregression ,+A'0 system of employment gro8t " t e

employment rate" and la%or force participation" for t e /7 regions in P ilippines / 6 -..-#) e frame8ork adopted is identical to t at developed %y Blanc ard and at ,/ -0# ) e

system is t e follo8ing5

8 ere all varia%les are differences %et8een province i and t e national average" in order to

focus on developments at t e provincial level t at are not due to nation8ide developments#

ie∆ /< is t e first difference of t e logarit m of employmentK ile is t e logarit m of t e

ratio of employment to t e la%or forceK and il is t e logarit m of t e ratio of t e la%or force

/7 Compare Mauro ,/ 0/; &or e(ample opportunity cost of not 8orking is ig er for t e ig ly skilledK more discussion in Mauro,/ 0/< Given t at 8e don3t ave t e level of unemployment 8e o%tained t is varia%le in t e follo8ing 8ay5

i t t iit iit iiiit

iut t iit iit iiiit

iet t iit iit iiiit

l ?le ?e ?l

l ?le ?e ?le

l ?le ?e ?e

ε α α α α

ε α α α α

ε α α α α

+++∆+=

+++∆+=

+++∆+=∆

−−

−−

−−−

/"66/"6-"6/6.

/"-6/"--"-/-.

/"/6/"/-/"///.

0,0,0,

0,0,0,

0,0,0,


41/84

to t e 8orking age population# ) ere is one lag for eac rig t and side varia%le" to allo8

for feed%ack effects from la%or force participation and t e employment rate to employment

gro8t # ) e system is estimated %y pooling all o%servations" t oug allo8ing for different

province specific constant terms in eac e4uation" using t e data for eac educational

group#

As 8e can see in t e impulse response grap s ,&igures 7#; 7#=0 %ased upon t e

estimated parameters of t e system a%ove" in general a negative s ock to la%or demand

produces t e follo8ing effects5 immediately after t e s ock t e participation rate decreases"

unemployment increases and t e level of employment drops#

F(gur" 9-


42/84

F(gur" 9-=- D*na+(c r")!on)" $o a n"ga$('" )%ock: un('"r)($* " uca$" ;ork"r)-


43/84

) ere are differences in t e immediate responses among t e various groups"

particularly 8it respect to t e participation rate and migration# In response to a .#.;

percentage point fall in employment" t e unemployment rate practically does not react#

*otice also t at in case of all t ree education groups t e effect on employment is permanent5

t e employment level does not return to its pres ock level even after /- 4uarters# It sta%ili es

o8ever on a different level for eac of t e education groups 8it t e %iggest negative

permanent effect in t e case of college educated 8orkers# ) e participation rate drops %y

.#..; percentage point in t e case of ig sc ool and college graduates or a%out alf of t at

num%er in t e case of primary educated 8orkers# Participation rate returns to it3s pres ock

level after four 4uarters in t e case of ig sc ool educated 8orkers and slig tly a%ove t ree

4uarters in t e case of college educated 8orkers# ) is part of t e results is consistent 8it t evie8 t at t e less educated are more likely to %ecome Ldiscouraged 8orkers#L

Ho8ever t e %e aviour in t e group of primary educated 8orkers is not consistent

8it 8 at 8ould usually %e o%served in developed country# Mauro reports for Spain" t at

t e responses 8it in t e least educated group 8ould %e muc stronger and t e process of

returning to t e pres ock levels 8ould take far more time in t is case ,compared to ig er

educated groups0# > at 8e o%serve in t e case of P ilippines3 least educated group of

8orkers is" t at reaction in terms of unemployment increase or participation rate decreaseis muc milderK at t e same time t e pace at 8 ic systems returns to it3s pres ock level

is muc 4uicker t en %ot 5 ig sc ool and college educated 8orkers# ) is result could %e

interpreted as greater mo%ility of t e least skilled 8orking force in P ilippines or a ig er

pro%a%ility of accepting underemployment#

n t e ot er and t e reduction on t e employment of college educated 8orkers

caused %y t e s ock is larger t an t e o%served in t e ot er educational levels#


44/84

Ta&/" 9-.- I+!u/)" r")!on)" #unc$(on) &* /"'"/ o# " uca$(on-Impulse 'esponses to an !(ogenous !mployment S ock

+aria%le !mployment Participation 'ate 1nemployment 'ateGrade Step 'esponse S#!# 'esponse S#!# 'esponse S#!#Primary / #.6=;


45/84


46/84

in t e / 6 1* System of *ational Accounts" adopted %y t e P ilippines System of

*ational Accounts# ) e institutional units distinguis five resident institutional sectors5

general government" ouse olds" financial corporations" non financial corporations and

non profit institutions serving ouse olds ,*PISH0#

Ta&/"


47/84

%illions of Pesos /E 0 and t e value of t e ouse old e(penditure in education t at appears

in t e *!NA education accounting , 7"- %illions0# Ho8ever 8e s ould notice t at t e

accounting of *!NA includes many levels of education and items of e(penditure t at

are not considered in t e &amily Income and !(penditure Survey#

Ta&/"


48/84

)a%le ;#< present t e average ouse old e(penditure in education and t e average

proportion over total e(penditure for families t at e(pend any positive amount on

education# House olds are classified in function of t eir decile in income per capita#

Since education is a normal good 8e see t at t e average proportion of e(penditure on

education increases 8it income per capita#

Ta&/"


49/84

"d !ational attainment/ Age 09*08/ -eneral/

0

0.1

0.2

0.3

0.4

0.5

0.6

0.7

0.8

0.9

1

I II III I% % %I %II S&C I S&C II S&C III S&C I%

-rade

P r o p o r t i o n

Source: Author’s calculations using A2)S %&&%.

&igure ;#- s o8s t e educational attainment of t e same age group %y income per capita

of t e family# >e can see t at t e educational attainment of t e individuals coming from

t e poorest 7.F families is muc lo8er t an t e attainment of t e ric est -.F#

F(gur"


50/84

gender# As 8it many ot er education indicators 8omen perform muc %etter t an men

aving ig er educational attainment at all t e levels#

F(gur"


51/84


52/84


53/84

F(gur"


54/84

&igure ;#/. considers t e evolution over time of t e educational attainment of t e /; /

age group# ) e calculations for / 6 and / E are taken from t e educational

attainment pro9ect of t e >orld Bank -. # ) e improvement %et8een / E and -..- is

small %ut noticea%le# &igure ;#// s o8s t e same evolution over time of educational

attainment %ut dividing %y decile in income per capita# ) e c ange %et8een / 6 and

/ E 8as very small in t e gap %et8een t e educational attainment of t e c ildren of

t e poorest and t e ric es families# In -..- t e gap as gone do8n very muc despite

t e fact t at t e c ildren from poor families ave still a muc lo8er level of educational

attainment t an t eir ric est counterparts#

F(gur"


55/84

Proportion o& : to 0E years olds in s!hoolProportion ! rrently enrolled

0.5

0.55

0.6

0.65

0.7

0.75

0.8

0.85

0.9

0.95

1

6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14

Age

P r o p o r t i o n

F(gur"


56/84

>e can also o%serve significant differences in t e enrolment rate of c ildren < to /7

years old if 8e divide t em %y gender or ur%an2rural location as s o8n in figures ;#/7

and ;#/;# In %ot cases t e effect corresponds 8it results already o%served in t e

educational attainment# Girls present ig er levels of enrolment t an %oys" specially in

t e latest grades of secondary education# ) e difference" as 8e 8ill see" is kept in ig er

education enrolment#

F(gur"


57/84

F(gur"


58/84

&igure ;#/< s o8s an ama ing improvement in t e enrolment rate of < and = years old

from / 6 to -..-# In only /. years t e enrolment rate of < years old ave gro8n from

;F to =


59/84


60/84

1970 1975 1980 1985 1990 1995China 0.45 0.452 0.447 0.442 0.411 0.379Korea 0.439 0.382 0.351 0.296 0.242 0.189Malaysia 0.445 0.439 0.426 0.413 0.398 0.383Philippines 0.368 0.32 0.314 0.313 0.309 0.305

Thailand 0.378 0.369 0.268 0.327 0.348 0.37Source: ?o e = 0ho/as and Wang (!""#'

) e coefficient of varia%ility s o8s very similar trends in education ine4uality ,see

ta%le /#/.0#

Ta&/"


61/84

Ta&/"


62/84


63/84

;#6#6# Benefit incidence analysis of pu%lic e(penditure in education#

Anot er 8ay of looking at t e relations ip %et8een poverty and education is to look at

t e %enefit incidence of pu%lic e(penditure in education -/ # &rom t e previous indications

it seems clear t at e(penditure in elementary and secondary sc ooling at least is not

regressive# ) e previous PPA s o8ed t at overall pu%lic e(penditure in education 8as

mildly progressive# Ho8ever it 8as noticed t at 8 ile e(penditure in elementary

education 8as pro poor" e(penditure in secondary education 8as neutral and

e(penditure in ig er education 8as 4uite regressive# ) e data in t e APIS -..- do no

allo8 to make t ese calculations since it as eliminated t e 4uestion on t e type of

sc ool from t e individual 4uestionnaire# ) e calculation using t e APIS / lead to

t e same conclusions as t e previous PPA5 tertiary education is ig ly regressive# &igure

;#/E s o8s t e cumulative num%er of %eneficiaries of pu%lic e(penditure %y income per

capita decile#

F(gur"


64/84

- T HE R ETURN T O E DUCATION IN P HILIPPINES-

- - Pr"'(ou) )$u (") on $%" r"$urn $o " uca$(on (n P%(/(!!(n")-

) e return of education is one of t e %asic indicators of any analysis t at deals 8it t e

economics of education# ) e previous P ilippines Poverty Assessment calculates" using

t e / E APIS" an average rate of return ranging from //#7F up to /6#6F" %eing t e

return of 8omen ig er t an t e returns of men# ) e estimation t at separates t e return

of education %y levels s o8s t at t e lo8est return ,=#-F0 is associated 8it primary

education" ig er is secondary education ,/.#7F0 and t e ig est is for college

education ,/ #6F0# ) ese results are similar %ut not totally consistent 8it t e resultsusing also t e / E APIS in Ouim%o ,-..-0 and Sc ady ,-...0#

Ta&/" - - Ra$" o# r"$urn ")$(+a$") I-

!lementary Secondary )ertiaryQu(+&o 2.66.7 /


65/84


66/84

Bo1 8Da$a /(+($a$(on) on ;ag")-

) e study of t e return of education re4uires" as a %asic input" information a%out8ages and ours of 8ork# It is 8ell kno8n t at usually t e $&S do not include4uestions on salaries 8 ile &amily Income and !(penditure Surveys do not consider

ours of 8ork as relevant information# In t e case of t e statistical information of P ilippines t e situation is more comple( %ecause of t8o factors5

) e e(cessive c ange in t e 4uestionnaires of ot er8ise identical statisticaloperations#

) e special nature of some varia%les in surveys t at" for most of t e varia%les"are pu%licly availa%le#>e s ould notice t e follo8ing points5

By complementary information it is clear t at t ere is information on 8ages,%asic pay0 in t e cto%er 8age of t e $&S of P ilippines# ) e files t at 8e

ave do not provide t at information#In addition" from January -../ on8ards t ere s ould %e information on 8agesfor all t e 8aves# ) e files 8e ave for -../ -..- do not contain sucinformation#) e ot er recent sources of information on 8ages and salaries are5

o &I!S / =

o APIS / Eo APIS /o &I!S -...o APIS -..-

1nfortunately t e APIS -..- do not contain information on ours 8orked# ) ere aresome cases in 8 ic a panel data can %e constructed# ) is is t e case of t e APIS -..-and t e cto%er -..- $&S# Ho8ever t e matc ing is less t an perfect ,see appendi(for details on t e matc in of t ese t8o surve s #


67/84

) e literature as proposed many different estimators and corrections to calculate t e

return to educations# Ho8ever in t is section 8e are not going to present an academic

discussion on t e advantage and disadvantages of different met ods of estimations# In

fact" and in order to esta%lis reasona%le comparison 8it previous results -6 " 8e plan to

use t e simple Mincerian e4uation for alternative samples of t e individuals in t e APIS

-..-# >e interpret t e results are descriptive statistics instead of given an structural

interpretation of t e coefficients# >e restrict t e sample to individuals %et8een -; years

old and


68/84

&orce Survey# >e use t e varia%le normal 8orking ours from t e $&S as t e

denominator for t e salaries in order to o%tain t e salary per our#

)a%le


69/84

>e can also %reak t e sample in function of education levels# ) e results of t ose

regression are presented in ta%le


70/84

Ho8ever t ese results do not correspond to t e ones o%tained using t e APIS E . ) e

APIS / E sample reveals a # F of advantage" in terms of 8ages" of elementary

graduates versus non graduatesK a /6#7F in t e case of ig er education graduates and a

/ #6F for ig er education graduates#


71/84

=- C ONCLUSIONS-

During t e last /. years t ere ave %een many compre ensive analysis of t e situation

of education in P ilippines# &ive of t em are particularly relevant5 t e CongressionalCommission on !ducation ,/ -0K t e versig t Committee of t e Congressional

versig t Committee on !ducation ,/ ;0K t e )ask &orce on Hig er !ducation of t e

CH!D ,/ ;0K t e ADB >orld Bank report on P ilippines !ducation for t e -/ st

Century ,/ 0K and t e Presidential Commission on !ducation 'eform ,-...0# Most of

t ese studies present a similar diagnostic of t e pro%lems of education in P ilippines"

and in particular" ig er education# ) e even proposed similar ideas to try to solve t ose

pro%lems# Ho8ever" as 8e 8ill s o8 in t is section" most of t e proposal ave not %eendeveloped and" in fact" many of t e pro%lems identified %y t ese studies ave 8orsen in

recent years# ) ere are %asically t8o reasons for t e failure of t ese proposals5

a# ) e political economy of t e education sector in P ilippines is particularly

difficult# ) is implies t at institutional inertia as a very important 8eig t ,)an

-../0#

%# ) ere are too many proposals# Alt oug finding a silver %ullet for t e pro%lems

of education in P ilippines seems an over8 elming endeavour t ere is need for

simple and applica%le proposals t at can generate political consensus" since t e

institutional constrains and t e effect of inertia are very important#

In t e follo8ing sections 8e present" under separate epigrap s" a summary of t e

diagnostic and recommendations derived from previous sections#

General trends5 inputs and outputs

*iagnostic:

• ) e P ilippines3 population as a ig level of ?nominal@ education in comparison

8it t e countries in t e region# Ho8ever t e recent trends ,reduction of government

e(penditure on education over GDP" increasing pupil to teac er ratio in elementary and

secondary" etc0 endanger today3s privileged position of P ilippines in term of t e

education of its population#

• In fact during / " -../ and -..6 pu%lic enrolment gre8 %y -"


72/84

In per capita terms in -..6 t e decline of per capita allocation in real terms 8as F#

fficial sources claim t at t e reasons for t e 8orsening of t e %udget of %asic

education is t e continuation of ig population gro8t and t e transfer of students

from private sc ools to pu%lic sc ools as a conse4uence of t e Asian crisis#

• !ven 8orse" t e operations %udget as fallen to


73/84

eco//endations:

'everse t e recent trends in pu%lic e(penditure on %asic education#

As 8e s o8 previously" t e private enrolment in secondary education as decrease

E"


74/84

pu%lic universities# ) is means t ey ave to go to lo8 4uality lo8 fee private

universities if t ey 8an to continue t eir education#

• Due to %udget limitations t e num%er of grants for ig er education as decreased

,more t an /.F from -../ to -..-0#

eco//endations.

Increase t e num%er of grants for poor people to study ig er education#

Implement pro poor systems to admission to t e good pu%lic universities ,8 ere

re9ections rate range %et8een =. and .F0# Ho8ever" avoid using income as %asis

for admission ,income s ould only %e used for concession of grants" conditional on

admission0# It is more efficient to grant automatic admission to t eir preferred

ig er education institution to students in t e top /.F of t eir ig sc ool class

,ranked %y t e ig sc ools t emselves or in function of a national e(am %ut ranked

%y sc ools0#

'evert t e trend in t e reduction of sc olars ips#

'egional issues

• In t is report 8e ave emp asi e t e issue of regional differences in education inputs"

outputs and outcomes# Poor regions" in particular Mindanao" ave very lo8 levels of

participation in education and ig drop out rates# In addition regional co ort survival is

ig ly negatively correlated 8it poverty incidence# ) e regional dimension of poverty

is very important in educational issues#

Hig er education#

• ) e performance of ig er education graduates in t e 9o% market is" in general"

disappointing# ) ey s o8 ig unemployment rates , ig er t an lo8er levels of

education0 and" even t oug t t eir underemployment rate is lo8" t ey 8ork in 9o%s not

ade4uate for t eir level of education ,over4ualified0#

• ) ere are at least to reason for t e ig rate of unemployment rate among ig er

education graduates5 it could %e voluntary unemployment , ig er education graduates

from 8ealt y families can afford to 8ait a long time until t ey find a 9o% t ey 8ant to

accept0 or it could %e due to lo8 demand for university graduates %ecause of t e lo8


75/84

average 4uality of t eir education# ) e ICS of P ilippines s o8s t at firms %elieve

tertiary graduates do not ave t e necessary skills for t e 9o%s t ey demand#

• It is %y no8 a common place to argue t at t e lo8 level of skills and kno8ledge of t e

average graduate from ig er education as to do 8it t e num%er of years of education

prior to reac t at last level# In many countries students accumulate /- years of

education %efore gaining access to t e university# In P ilippines t ey only need to study

for /. years ,< years of elementary sc ool and 7 years of ig sc ool0# &or t is reason

some reports argue t at t e first t8o years of t e university are used to rise t e

kno8ledge of students to t e level t ey s ould ave ad prior to enter in t e university#

• ) e num%er of ig er education institutions continues to gro8#

• ) e proportion of graduates %y disciplines is not ade4uate for t e ne8 era of

glo%ali ation#

• Given t e lo8 enrolment rate of t e poor in tertiary education t ere s ould %e an

increasing amount of sc olars ips# Ho8ever" t e num%er of %eneficiaries of t e CH!D

student financial assistance program 8ent do8n /."-F from -../ ,77"E=


76/84

'ate of return of education

• Since graduation from eac level of education ,e(cept elementary0 as a ig return

t e ig rate of drop outs in secondary and university education as a large social cost#

• ) e large num%er of university graduates unemployed or underemployed imply an

important 8aste or pu%lic resources#

• ) e poor ave a lo8er c ance to get t e large return to ig er education" conditional

on finding an ade4uate 9o%#

eco//endations

> en t e unemployment rate is factor in t e rate of return of ig er education

graduates and ig sc ool graduates is not so different# Given t e lo8 level of

kno8ledge s o8ed in international test" t e e(pensive pu%lic ig er education system

and t e return of education of ig sc ool graduates t e allocation of funds s ould gro8

faster in secondary education t an in ig er education#


77/84

R EFERENCES

Ace%o" C# ,-...0" )ec nical %ackground paper no / for t e P!SS" Statistical Anne(#

ADB ,-..60" ey Indicators -..65 education for glo%al participation#

Asian Development Bank and ) e >orld Bank ,/ E0" P ilippines education for t e -/ st

century5 t e / E P ilippines education sector study#

Blanc ard" livier" and $a8rence at " / -" L'egional !volutions"L +rookings

2a ers on Econo/ic Acti-it : != Brookings Institution" pp# / orld Bank#

!sguerra" J#" Balisican" A# and *# Confesor ,-...0" ?) e Asian Crisis and te la%or

market5 P ilippines case study"@ mimeo#

Government of P ilippines ,-...0" !ducation for all5 P ilippines Assessment 'eport#Gulosino" C# ,-..-0" ?!valuating private ig er education in t e P ilippines5 t e case

for c oice" e4uity and efficiency"@ ccasional Paper n#


78/84

$Rpe " '#" ) omas" +# and # >ang ,/ E0" ?Addressing t e education pu le5 t e

distri%ution of education and economic reform"@ Policy 'esearc >orking Paper

-.6/" ) e >orld Bank#

Mauro" Paolo" and Spilim%ergo Antonio" / " ?Ho8 Do t e Skilled and 1nskilled'espond to 'egional S ocks: ) e Case of Spain"@ )18 Staff 2a ers= +ol# 7orld Bank ,-../0" &ilipino report cards on pro poor services#

) e >orld Bank ,-..70" Implementing recent policy recommendations in education5 a

revie8 of progress" mimeo#


79/84

T"c%n(ca/ no$" I-Ma$c%(ng $%" APIS .66. an $%" Oc$o&"r LSF .66.

) e matc ing is done on t e %asis of five %asic varia%les5 t e ouse old code ,noticeyou cannot use only t is code since it is repeated in eac regionK for instance t ere isone cnQ/.-/ in eac region0" region" province" %arangany and line num%er ,identifiest e individual line num%er" 8 ic is t e num%er assign to t e individual in t e family#) e varia%les in t e $&S are called hcn region prov bgy ln0.

*otice o8ever t at t e num%er of o%servations is not e(actly t e same5 t e $&S as/


80/84

32. | 1 9 7 0051 1 | 33. | 1 9 7 0051 2 | 34. | 1 9 7 0051 3 | 35. | 1 9 7 0051 4 | |----------------------------------| 36. | 1 9 7 0051 5 |

37. | 1 10 13 0231 1 | 38. | 1 10 13 0231 2 | 39. | 1 10 13 0231 3 | 40. | 1 10 13 0231 4 | |----------------------------------| 41. | 1 11 23 0114 1 | 42. | 1 11 23 0114 2 | 43. | 1 11 23 0114 3 | 44. | 1 11 23 0114 4 | 45. | 1 11 23 0114 5 | |----------------------------------| 46. | 1 11 23 0114 6 | 47. | 1 12 35 0154 1 | 48. | 1 12 35 0154 2 | 49. | 1 12 35 0154 3 | 50. | 1 12 35 0154 4 | |----------------------------------| 51. | 1 12 35 0154 5 | 52. | 1 12 35 0154 6 | 53. | 1 12 35 0154 7 | 54. | 1 12 35 0154 8 | 55. | 1 13 39 0293 1 | |----------------------------------| 56. | 1 13 39 0293 2 | 57. | 1 14 1 0251 1 | 58. | 1 15 36 0691 1 | 59. | 1 15 36 0691 2 | 60. | 1 15 36 0691 3 | |----------------------------------| 61. | 1 15 36 0691 4 | 62. | 1 15 36 0691 5 | 63. | 1 16 2 0151 1 | 64. | 1 16 2 0151 2 | 65. | 1 16 2 0151 3 | |----------------------------------| 66. | 1 16 2 0151 4 | 67. | 1 16 2 0151 5 | 68. | 1 16 2 0151 6 | 69. | 1 16 2 0151 7 | 70. | 1 16 2 0151 8 | |----------------------------------| 71. | 1 16 2 0151 9 | 72. | 2 1 28 0381 1 | 73. | 2 1 28 0381 2 | 74. | 2 1 28 0381 3 | 75. | 2 1 28 0381 4 | |----------------------------------| 76. | 2 1 28 0381 5 | 77. | 2 1 28 0381 6 | 78. | 2 2 9 0011 1 | 79. | 2 2 9 0011 2 | 80. | 2 2 9 0011 3 | |----------------------------------| 81. | 2 2 9 0011 4 | 82. | 2 3 8 0252 1 |


81/84

83. | 2 3 8 0252 2 | 84. | 2 3 8 0252 3 | 85. | 2 3 8 0252 4 | |----------------------------------| 86. | 2 4 10 0041 1 | 87. | 2 4 10 0041 2 |

88. | 2 4 10 0041 3 | 89. | 2 4 10 0041 4 | 90. | 2 4 10 0041 5 | |----------------------------------| 91. | 2 4 10 0041 6 | 92. | 2 6 4 0111 1 | 93. | 2 6 4 0111 2 | 94. | 2 6 4 0111 3 | 95. | 2 7 12 0451 1 | |----------------------------------| 96. | 2 7 12 0451 2 | 97. | 2 7 12 0451 3 | 98. | 2 8 26 0221 1 | 99. | 2 8 26 0221 2 |100. | 2 8 26 0221 3 | +----------------------------------+

.en o! o-!ile

) e same /.. o%servations for t e APIS -..- are ,in %old missing in $&S -..-0

. list hcn reg prov bgy lno in 1/100

+---------------------------------------------------------+

| hcn reg prov bgy lno | |---------------------------------------------------------| 1. | 1 "locos #egion "locos $orte 0381 1 | 2. | 1 "locos #egion "locos $orte 0381 2 | 3. | 1 %&g&y&n '&lley (&t&nes 0011 1 | 4. | 1 %entr&l )* on (&t&&n 0252 1 | 5. | 1 %entr&l )* on (&t&&n 0252 2 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 6. | 1 %entr&l )* on (&t&&n 0252 3 | 7. | 1 %entr&l )* on (&t&&n 0252 4 | 8. | 1 %entr&l )* on (&t&&n 0252 5 | 9. | 1 ,o*thern &g&log (&t&ng&s 0041 1 | 10. | 1 ,o*thern &g&log (&t&ng&s 0041 2 |

|---------------------------------------------------------| 11. | 1 ,o*thern &g&log (&t&ng&s 0041 3 | 12. | 1 (icol #egion lb&y 0061 1 | 13. | 1 (icol #egion lb&y 0061 2 | 14. | 1 (icol #egion lb&y 0061 3 |

15. | 1 (icol #egion lb&y 0061 4 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 16. | 1 (icol #egion lb&y 0061 5 | 17. | 1 Bicol Region Albay 0061 6 | 18. | 1 Bicol Region Albay 0061 7 | 19. | 1 Bicol Region Albay 0061 8 | 20. | 1 estern 'is&y&s l&n 0111 1 |

|---------------------------------------------------------| 21. | 1 estern 'is&y&s l&n 0111 2 | 22. | 1 %entr&l 'is&y&s (ohol 0451 1 |


82/84

23. | 1 %entr&l 'is&y&s (ohol 0451 2 | 24. | 1 %entr&l 'is&y&s (ohol 0451 3 | 25. | 1 %entr&l 'is&y&s (ohol 0451 4 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 26. | 1 %entr&l 'is&y&s (ohol 0451 5 | 27. | 1 %entr&l 'is&y&s (ohol 0451 6 |

28. | 1 Central Visayas Bohol 0 51 7 | 29. | 1 Central Visayas Bohol 0 51 8 | 30. | 1 &stern 'is&y&s &stern ,& &r 0221 1 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 31. | 1 &stern 'is&y&s &stern ,& &r 0221 2 | 32. | 1 &stern 'is&y&s &stern ,& &r 0221 3 | 33. | 1 &stern 'is&y&s &stern ,& &r 0221 4 | 34. | 1 &stern 'is&y&s &stern ,& &r 0221 5 | 35. | 1 estern in &n&o (&sil&n 0051 1 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 36. | 1 estern in &n&o (&sil&n 0051 2 | 37. | 1 estern in &n&o (&sil&n 0051 3 | 38. | 1 estern in &n&o (&sil&n 0051 4 | 39. | 1 estern in &n&o (&sil&n 0051 5 | 40. | 1 $orthern in &n&o (* i non 0231 1 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 41. | 1 $orthern in &n&o (* i non 0231 2 | 42. | 1 $orthern in &n&o (* i non 0231 3 | 43. | 1 $orthern in &n&o (* i non 0231 4 | 44. | 1 ,o*thern in &n&o &v&o 0114 1 | 45. | 1 ,o*thern in &n&o &v&o 0114 2 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 46. | 1 ,o*thern in &n&o &v&o 0114 3 | 47. | 1 ,o*thern in &n&o &v&o 0114 4 | 48. | 1 ,o*thern in &n&o &v&o 0114 5 | 49. | 1 ,o*thern in &n&o &v&o 0114 6 | 50. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 1 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 51. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 2 | 52. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 3 | 53. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 4 | 54. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 5 | 55. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 6 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 56. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 7 | 57. | 1 %entr&l in &n&o )&n&o el $orte 0154 8 | 58. | 1 $ % # &nil& 0293 1 | 59. | 1 $ % # &nil& 0293 2 | 60. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 3 | |#########################################################| 61. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 | 62. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 5 | 63. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 6 | 6 . | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 7 | 65. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 8 | |#########################################################| 66. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 9 | 67. | 1 ! C R "anila 0293 10 | 68. | 1 % # br& 0251 1 | 69. | 1 # )&n&o el ,*r 0691 1 | 70. | 1 # )&n&o el ,*r 0691 2 | |---------------------------------------------------------| 71. | 1 # )&n&o el ,*r 0691 3 | 72. | 1 # )&n&o el ,*r 0691 4 | 73. | 1 % # g*s&n el $orte 0151 1 |


83/84

education ph1

Documents