EDUCATION REFORM

IN THE PHILIPPINES:

Does it really take

a village to raise a child?

Maria Consuelo DobleUniversity of the Philippines Baguio

FACT # 1: In 2002, only 4.5% of family income went

to education. In 2004, it went down to 3%. (Source:

Albert and Maligalig, 2008).

FAMILY EXPENSES IN 2002

FOOD (50.7%)

UTILITIES (7.3%)

EDUCATION (4.5%)

HEALTH (2.5%)

OTHERS (35%)

FACT # 2: For every 10 children who start their

primary education, only 6 go on to continue with their

secondary education. Only 4 out of those 6 will

manage to enter college. (Source: Squidoo, 2010).

FACT # 3: Learning achievement continues to be low.

0 20 40 60

ARMM Results (0%)

National Results (55%)

School Divisions scoring 66% and above

at the National Achievement Test (2009)

School Divisions scoring

66% and above at the

National Achievement

Test (2009)

SOURCE: Arcibal, 2012

FACT # 4:

� <1% of students qualify for HS or college.

� Only 19 out of 100 public school teachers are

competent enough to teach English.

(Source: Araneta, 2005).

FACT # 5: Special Education Fund has items

containing “lump sum expenditure” and “others”.

(Source: Synergeia Foundation, 2008).

What are we doing wrong?

What are we doingright?

Multi-sectoral

Integrative

Participative

ProjectABCAmeliorating Burgos Children

National Achievement Test (national average): MPS for Grade 6 (SY 2009-2010)

(Sources: Department of Education in Burgos, La Union and the National Education Testing and

Research Center, Department of Education, 2012)

School YearNational

Average

Burgos

Average

SY 2007-2008 64.81 70.20

SY 2008-2009 65.55 73.42

SY 2009-2010 68.01 74.00

AVERAGE 66.12 72.54

Philippine Informal Reading Inventory for Burgos from Grades 1 to 6 (SY 2007-2010)(Source: Department of Education in Burgos, La Union)

School YearTotal Number

of Pupils

Non-readers Frustration Instructional Independent

# % # % # % # %

SY 2007-2008 1194 14 1.2 409 34 489 41 282 24

SY 2008-2009 1204 9 0.7 356 30 550 46 289 24

SY 2009-2010 1210 4 0.3 473 39 430 36 303 25

RESEARCH QUESTIONS

1. What is the Project ABC implementers and beneficiaries’ perceived level of program impact, in terms of the students’ attitude towards reading, school governance, local governance, and public participation?

2. Is there a significant relationship between the respondents’ sector and educational attainment and their perceptions of the impact of the program?

3. Is there a difference in the perceptions of the program implementers and beneficiaries?

THEORETICAL FRAMEWORK

Appreciative Inquiry in Education Reform

Department of Education

School Administration

Students’

Learning in Math, Science

& English

Local

Government Unit

Parents

Community Culture and Context

Source: Project K (2002)

PRIMARY DATA (survey questionnaire & interview) - 70 respondents

A. Implementers:

1. Municipal mayor

2. Local School Board representatives

3. Local government employees

4. DepEd La Union 2nd District supervisor

5. School Heads of the eight public elementary schools;

B. Project ABC beneficiaries:

1. Public elementary school teachers

2. Public elementary school parents

SECONDARY DATA

1. Synergeia Foundation

2. Department of Education

3. Municipality of Burgos in La Union

4. Other relevant agencies and reference materials

METHODOLOGY

1. Frequency and percentage distribution

- sector and educational attainment

2. Mean

- respondents’ perceived level of program impact

3. Correlation analysis

- presence of significant relationships between

the respondents’ profile and the perceived level

of program impact

4. T-test

- difference in the perception of program

implementers and beneficiaries on program

impact

DATA ANALYSIS AND INTERPRETATION

FREQUENCY DISTRIBUTION OF RESPONDENTS

ACCORDING TO SECTOR

SECTOR FREQUENCYPERCENTAGE

(%)

IMPLEMENTERS

· Municipal Mayor ( LGU) 1 1

· School Board Representative (LGU) 2 3

· Municipal hall employee (LGU) 3 4

· School heads 7 10

BENEFICIARIES

· Teachers 42 60

· PTA officers (parents) 3 4

· PTA members (parents) 12 17

TOTAL 70 100

Program

Impact

Perception of

Implementers

Perception of

Beneficiaries

Composite

Mean

Verbal

Interpretation

Composite

Mean

Verbal

Interpretation

Student attitude

towards reading

3.44 Moderate 4.13 High

School

governance

3.45 Moderate 4.19 High

Local

governance

3.45 Moderate 4.04 High

Parent

participation

3.45 Moderate 3.88 High

AVERAGE 3.447 Moderate 4.06 High

SUMMARY OF PERCEPTIONS ON PROGRAM IMPACT

IMPACT

INDICATORS

r-Value INTERPRETATION P-Value INTERPRETATION

Sector Educ.

Level

Sector Educ.

Level

Sector Educ.

Level

Sector Educ. Level

Student’

attitude

towards

reading

-0.02 0.18 Negligible Low 0.88 0.14 Not

significant

Not significant

School

governance-0.05 0.13 Negligible Low 0.71 0.29 Not

significant

Not significant

Local

government

involvement

0.02 0.01 Negligible Negligible 0.90 0.92 Not

significant

Not significant

Parent

participation-0.02 0.22 Negligible Low 0.85 0.08 Not

significant

Significant

RELATIONSHIP BETWEEN RESPONDENT PROFILE

AND PROGRAM IMPACT

IMPACT

INDICATORS

Mean Perceptions t-Test

value

Probabi-

lity

Interpret-

ationImplem-

enters

V.I. Beneficia-

ries

V.I.

Student

performance 3.02 Moderate 4.70 High 1.2455 0.2255 Not

significant

School

governance 4.02 Moderate 4.70 High 0.2413 0.8115 Not

significant

Local

governance 3.88 Moderate 4.00 High 1.1257 0.2751 Not

significant

Public

participation 3.86 Moderate 3.84 High 0.2715 0.7893 Not

significant

DIFFERENCE IN PERCEPTION ON PROGRAM IMPACT

It does take a village to raise a child.

We want to see less of this…

What we want to see more of is this…

End of

Presentation