Transcript Improving education outcomes

Reinventing the
Naga City School Board
Improving education
outcomes
Outline
Our journey to improve basic
education
Where we are 3 years hence
Getting there: 3-Year Local
Education Plan Highlights
Lessons Learned
Reinventing the
Naga City School Board
Conceived to make the local school
board a vehicle for improving the
public school system by promoting
governance reforms and building
stakeholdership at the local level
Guiding Principle No. 1
Education is a shared community
responsibility
– Impelled by reality that our nation
cannot depend on a central
government agency alone to revive
the basic public education system
– DepEd must partner with local
communities, led by their respective
local governments, to address this
task
Guiding Principle No. 2
 Shared responsibility must be twinned
with shared accountability among
public school stakeholders
– Means (a) defining roles in the effort to
improve the quality of basic education, and (b)
consistently reviewing performance of these
roles
– Implies the need for provincial, city and
municipal schools divisions and districts to be
more open towards engaging with its partners
– Calls for creating mechanisms that will support
more meaningful engagement and allow these
partnerships to flourish
Problems facing Public Schools
 Deteriorating quality of basic education
 General lack of awareness about the current state of
public education among stakeholders
 Weak mechanisms for meaningful parent
participation in the education of their children
 Weak “soft infrastructure” support (textbooks,
reference materials, continuing professional
development, etc.) to facilitate the learning process
 Underperforming City School Board that has been
reduced to a mere budgeting agency for local education
funds
 Weak local involvement and participation in the
delivery of public education services
 Weak planning and budgeting practices and
processes that contribute to inefficient and ineffective
use of local education funds, and
 Lack of transparency and accountability in the
administration of the public school system.
Comparative Performance
2005 National Achievement Test (Bicol Region)
ELEMENTARY (Grade VI)
Division
Iriga City
Naga City
Catanduanes
Camarines Norte
Sorsogon
Masbate
Tabaco City
Camarines Sur
Sorsogon City
Albay
Masbate City
Legaspi City
Ligao City
English
71.33%
62.15%
61.35%
60.78%
58.19%
54.86%
56.34%
51.80%
52.18%
51.71%
52.39%
50.13%
45.10%
Science
64.56%
57.12%
56.97%
55.75%
53.65%
50.08%
49.58%
48.01%
47.90%
46.67%
46.38%
45.68%
40.83%
Math
69.41%
61.01%
61.44%
61.49%
55.30%
56.56%
50.62%
51.43%
50.01%
49.66%
47.77%
45.94%
40.81%
Total
68.43%
60.10%
59.92%
59.34%
55.71%
53.83%
52.18%
50.41%
50.03%
49.35%
48.85%
47.25%
42.25%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
Science
44.28%
42.87%
48.31%
34.85%
32.06%
34.04%
35.68%
33.63%
34.20%
33.24%
31.17%
31.98%
29.61%
Math
58.79%
59.70%
53.85%
45.51%
45.26%
43.81%
44.80%
44.07%
37.92%
41.50%
40.93%
40.11%
38.43%
Total
54.56%
52.73%
52.05%
42.54%
42.28%
41.89%
41.87%
41.50%
39.90%
39.81%
39.43%
38.30%
37.16%
Rank
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
SECONDARY (4th Year)
Division
Naga City
Catanduanes
Sorsogon City
Masbate
Tabaco City
Masbate City
Sorsogon
Camarines Norte
Legaspi City
Albay
Iriga City
Camarines Sur
Ligao City
English
60.61%
55.63%
54.00%
47.26%
49.53%
47.82%
45.12%
46.79%
47.59%
44.69%
46.20%
42.82%
43.45%
TIMSS* Results, 1999
*Trends in International Math and Science Survey
71.12
75.50
60.88
61.00
43.12
43.12
TIMSS* Results, 2003
*Trends in International Math and Science Survey
58.25
59.12
72.25
75.62
47.25
47.12
The Naga City School Board
JESSE M. ROBREDO
NENITA L. RAMOS
City Mayor - Chairman
Superintendent – Co-Chairman
MILA RAQUID S. ARROYO
SOLOMON SALES
SP EdCom Chair - Member
NACITEA President – Member
ALLEN L. REONDANGA
ABNER PARDIÑAS
City SKF President - Member
City PTA League President – Member
RODRIGO C. BELLEZA
MA. FELICITAS SANTIAGO
City Treasurer - Member
Non-teaching Personnel President – Member
Legal basis:
Sections 98-101, Title IV, Book I
Republic Act No. 7160
(The Local Government Code of the Philippines)
Traditional vs. Empowered School Board
TRADITIONAL
EMPOWERED
Functions:
 Budgeting
 Authorized SEF
disbursement
 Advisory, i.e. change in
name of public schools
 Endorse promotion of
education officials
Functions:
 Capacity building
 Performance measurement
 Resource mobilization and
allocation
 Procurement of SEF-funded
services (teachers, instructional
materials)
 Promoting participation
 Policymaking
Organization & Membership
 Eight-man board loaded in
favor of LGU
Organization & Membership
 Eight-man board (with voting
rights)
 Non-voting representatives
(NCPC, private schools, business
chamber, media)
Naga Governance Model
 a function of leadership which
local administration must provide.
Seeks to build prosperity for the
community at large
Progressiv
eperspectiv
e
 enables city to tap
community resources,
multiplying capability
and enabling it to
overcome resources
constraints
Partnership
Good Urban
Governance
 ensures long-term
sustainability by
generating broad-based
stakeholdership and
community ownership
over local undertakings
Participatio
n
Broad Strategies
PRINCIPLE
Progressive
perspective
STRATEGY
OUTCOME(S)
“HOME RULE” A proactive school board that
aka THE
functions beyond merely
HALF-FULL
providing additional budgeting
GLASS
support to DepEd:
 What the law
does not
expressly
prohibits, it
allows
 Participative planning and budgeting
 Divisionwide achievement testing
 Performance-based teacher
incentives
 More transparent teacher
recruitment
THE BUDGET
IS KEY
 2002-05 budgets were crafted with
strong stakeholder participation
 Budgetary provision for hiring locallyfunded high school teachers paved
way for teacher recruitment reforms
 School board budgets authorize
conduct of divisionwide pre-testing
and post-testing. Results serve as
basis for additional teacher
incentives
 The School
Board budget
provides basis
for activities that
go beyond
current laws on
the LSB
Partnerships
ROLE
DEFINITION
Setting of rules of
engagement
minimizes
potential conflicts
Operating principles:
DepEd has mandate to provide
basic education
City Hall gets involved because
it is accountable for the Special
Education Fund (SEF)
As taxpayers, local communities
have right to demand quality
basic education
RESOURCE
COMPLEMENTATION
Attains synergy:
“The whole is
greater than the
sum of its parts”
City Hall: augmentation funding
for public schools, expertise in
governance
DepEd: operating funds for
public schools, expertise in
education
Local communities:
o Additional funding for school
and class-based projects
and activities
o NGOs provide specialized
services, particularly in
alternative learning systems
Partnerships
SPECIALIZATION
Moving towards
one’s core
competencies
DepEd, partner academic
institutions: core competency
is education
City Hall: core competency is
governance
Key is for City Hall to
influence DepEd to embrace
governance reforms in
o Transparency and
accountability
o Planning and budgeting, and
o Teacher recruitment
Participation
GREATER
More accurate needs
STAKEHOLDERassessment
SHIP
More reliable, updated data
In all key aspect of
More responsive budget,
project management programs, projects and
o SA – situation
activities (PPAs)
analysis
Multi-level, multi-stakeholder
o PI – planning and
performance review
implementation
o ME – monitoring and
evaluation
o By school, at city level
o By sector (teacher, principal,
parents)
Key Accomplishments, 2002-04
INVESTED MORE THAN P100 MILLION TO PROMOTE:
 QUALITY
 1:1 textbook, workbook-student ratio in core subjects bridging
DepEd shortfall
 Standardization of quality instruction through printed lesson
plans.
 Annual localized pre-testing and post-testing.
 Transparent recruitment for the best teachers (close to 80 locally
funded teachers)
 Manageable class size (45) IT Programs (CLICK, Youth Tech
ACCESS, PCs for Public H/S, Computer Achievement Test,
Teachers Training)
 Significant improvements in achievement levels
 ACCESS
 Standardization of school fees
 Sanggawadan extends assistance to 1,281 children and 1,281
parents to ensure stay of children in classrooms
 STAKEHOLDERSHIP
 School Empowerment Fund
 PTCA – School Governance Boards
CAN IT WORK?
Naga’s Academic Achievement Gains
COMPARATIVE NATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT TEST
Naga City Schools Division, 1999-2005
Level
Elementary
% Point Improvement
Secondary
% Point Improvement
1999
32.07
37.26
2000
38.10
6.03
47.09
9.83
2004
50.58
12.48
48.31
1.22
2005
60.10
9.51
54.56
6.25
 Improvements are in line with “Low” (6%)
and “High” (9%) annual target under the
city’s education plan for the next 3 years
 A qualified “yes” – depending on validity
and reliability of testing. Cross-referencing
with third-party testing. To be negotiated
with DepEd
Our short-term directions
 Quality public education as a
partnership between
– Parents (individual and PTCA)
– Students
– School and community (incl DepEd, City Hall,
Barangay Council, other community
stakeholders
 One hour study time at home every day
– after school hours
 Homeroom PTA meetings to discuss
students’ academic progress, not
school contributions
 “Brigada Basa” reading program
 Focused feeding program to address
nutrition problems of those in need
Sustaining gains
for the long term
 Bring governance reforms to the
community level
 Deepen gains at the city level
 Reduce class size
 Optimize use of education investments,
assets and resources
 Pursue other measures:
– Strengthen local capability for testing
– Assess teacher proficiency as basis for
continuing professional development
– Establish high schools close to urban poor
communities, i.e. Pacol, Del Rosario
Community governance
 Anchored on proposed school
governance board that will be
established in each school
 The board will
– Formulate 3-year school development plan
– Assess resources, validate needs and
approve annual school budget
– Review annual school performance
– Monitor progress of school programs,
projects activities
 Its establishment may be legislated by
the Sangguniang Panlungsod
Composition
• Barangay captain
• School head
• Faculty and Employees Association president
• PTCA president
• PTCA treasurer
• PTCA parent representative
• Barangay committee on education chair
• Sangguniang Kabataan chair
• Barangay People’s Council representative
• Student council president
Board to elect its chairman from its members
School head – chief executive officer
Potential fund sources
(Per annum)
School
P100,000 per
empowerment school
fund
DepEd MOOE Around
P95,000 per
school
P3.5 million
citywide
Barangay SK
Fund
Around
P163,000 per
barangay
P4.4 million
citywide
Barangay
Development
Fund
Around
P327,000 per
barangay
P8.8 million
citywide
P3.3 million
citywide
Deepening gains
 School-level targeting anchors the
proposed 3-year local education plan
 City schools divided into five subgroups according to achievement
level. Annual target decreases as
achievement level increases
 Has four scenarios:
– “Do-nothing” adopts the 2% annual percentage
point increase being targeted by the Naga schools
division
– “Low” targets a 6% average increase annually
– “Medium” targets a 7.5% average increase
annually
– “High” targets a 9% average increase annually
A story of timelines
 This journey (to eventually raise average
achievement to 75%) will take a number
of years
 But “doing nothing” is not an
acceptable option
85.00
Achievement Level
80.00
75.00
70.00
65.00
60.00
55.00
50.00
45.00
40.00
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
Year
Do-Nothing
Low
Medium
High
13
14
15
Reduce class size
 Class sizes, and the corresponding cost, differ
under each scenario
– Teacher requirement is based on actual sections formed
– Cost of each additional teacher is assumed at
P50,000/school year (current budget for a para-teacher)
– E/S enrolment is projected to increase 2% annually, H/S
by 5%
ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOS Proposed Class Size
Additional Teacher Requirement
E/S
H/S
Year 1
Year 2
Year 3
Total Average/Year
Do-Nothing
42
48
(9)
29
31
51
17
Cost (P000'000)
(0.46)
1.45
1.55
2.54
0.85
Low
40
45
44
31
32
107
36
Cost (P000'000)
2.18
1.57
1.62
5.37
1.79
Medium
35
40
178
36
36
250
83
Cost (P000'000)
8.92
1.80
1.78
12.50
4.17
High
30
35
356
40
43
439
146
Cost (P000'000)
17.78
2.00
2.17
21.95
7.32
Resource optimization
 Increased budget on teacher hiring means
reducing spending in other mandated and
priority areas of the school board
–
–
–
–
Instructional materials
Funding support for Palaro and similar activities
Capital outlay
Teachers’ COLA (?)
 Maximize use of current textbooks,
workbooks, lesson plans, etc.
 Conduct A.M. and P.M. classes in
congested schools to optimize current
classroom capacity
– There is also need for a DepEd policy statement
supporting the setting of enrolment limit based
on the locally adopted target class size
Resource sharing
Factor/Scenario Do-Nothing
Low
Medium
High
• DepEd (20, P2M)
• City Schl Board
(32, P1.6M)
• Schl Gov Boards
(16, P0.8M)
• Bgys (11,
P0.55M)
• SKs (5, P0.25M)
DepEd (8)
• DepEd (30, P3M)
• City Schl Board
(58, P2.9M)
• Schl Gov Boards
(29, P1.45M)
• Bgys (19,
P0.95M)
• SKs (10, P0.5M)
DepEd (10)
Additional
teachers
• DepEd (7,
P0.7M)
• City Schl Board
(10, P0.5M)
• DepEd (10, P1M)
• City Schl Board
(13, P0.65M)
• Schl Gov Boards
(6, P0.3M)
• Bgys (4, P0.2M)
• SKs (2, P0.1M)
New
Classrooms
(New
Elementary and
High Schools)
Repair and
Maintenance
Capability
Building on
Testing
Staff
Development
DepEd (4)
DepEd (6)
City Schl Board
(P2M)
Tap local academic
institutions
City Schl Board (P1M)
Schl Gov Boards (P1M)
DepEd-NERTC
Local academic institutions
Subject to
availability of
training
opportunities
Maintenance
City School Board
and Operations (P1M)
DepEd
Local academic institutions
Private training institutions
Division of City Schools (P3.3M)
Schl Gov Boards (P1.1M)
Summing up
 We cannot improve what we do not
measure. This impels the need for
– setting higher but doable targets, and
– developing local testing capabilities to
accurately measure progress
 To increase ROI, we need to
– optimize use of existing education
resources
– refocus use of available funding towards
high-impact initiatives, e.g. reduction of
class size
 Share resources, responsibility and
accountability with other
stakeholders, particularly at the
community level
An Emerging Paradigm Shift
The push towards decentralization
Reinventing the
Naga City
School Board
Highly
centralized
structure
for delivery
of public
education
DECS
Less
centralized
structure
for delivery
of public
education
DepEd
 “Principal empowerment”
 School-based management
Decentralized
delivery of
public
education
services
 Greater community
involvement
 Bigger LGU role in
service delivery
Lessons Learned
 Local education reform can be done in
the context of current legal framework
 LSBs are the most logical vehicle for
local education reform owing to its
legal mandate under the Code
 Shared responsibility goes together
with shared accountability
 Broad-based stakeholdership
enhances outcomes by serving as entry
points for greater and more meaningful
stakeholder participation