The Need for BudgetaryThe Need for Budgetary

Reform in Local SchoolsReform in Local Schools

Ruel A. GrafilRuel A. Grafil

INTRODUCTION Public education in the Philippines is centrally managed

service delivered through the Department of Education which is the national government’s biggest bureaucracy. As of 2008, its almost 600,000 workforce represents 46% of the total. In terms of budget allocation, education has been getting the highest share in the national budget in recent years (around 18% of the total, exceeded only by debt servicing). Of that budget however, 83% pays for salaries; the balance is divided between maintenance and other operating expenses (or MOOE, 15%) and capital outlay (excluding school building construction, 2%). The Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education (GASTPE). A voucher program for the secondary level, is embedded in the MOOE, accounting for 12%.

At the local level, the DepEd maintains schools divisions and districts corresponding to the three biggest local government units – provinces, cities and municipalities. Schools divisions, headed by a superintendent, exist at the provincial and city levels. Depending on its size, a province can have more than one division, which in turn comprise of a cluster of school districts at the municipal level. Headed by a public school supervisor, a school district can exist in a town depending on its size, or cover two or more municipalities.

Problems Facing the Public School System

What problems ail the Philippine public school system? In a presentation before the cabinet sometime in 2003, then Education Secretary Edilberto de Jesus reduced these into two:

(1) underinvestment in education; and

(2) poor management of the public school system

Helped by the imposition of the 12% value added tax (VAT), the national government has been able to increase its education spending in recent years but it still falls short both in real terms and compared to its Asian neighbors. An analysis of the 2007 budget prepared by the Congressional Planning and Budgeting Department showed that the annual average growth rate of the DepEd budget from 2001-2006 actually shrank by 3.5% in real terms. And its total education spending as a percentage of GDP (2.9%) is lower than the average of developing countries worldwide (4.5%) and neighboring countries like Malaysia and Mongolia (both exceeding 8%), and Thailand and India (both exceeding 4%).

In a recent report of UNESCO, the Philippines ranked 74th in terms of the Education Development Index or EDI, falling bellow Mongolia (61st), Vietnam (65th), Indonesia (58th) and China (38th). The index is a composite measure that is based on enrollment ratio, literacy rate, and quality (survival rate up to grade 5).

The Roles of the Local School Board

A Local School Board (LSB) is a special body created by virtue of Republic Act No. 7160 popularly known as the Local Government Code of 1991. Its main duty is to allocate the Special Education Fund (SEF) to meet the supplementary needs of the local public school system. The SEF is an additional 1% levy that is collected together with real property taxes paid to the local government. It varies greatly depending on the locality - from as much as P1 billion in the richest cities in the national capital to as low as P500,000 in the poor , marginal towns. In Mindanao, it is not uncommon to find zero SEF as landowners hardly pay real property taxes to the municipal government.

Local Government Code of the Philippines Title Four. – Local School Boards

Section 98. Creation, Composition and Compensation. (a) There shall be established in every province, city, or municipality a provincial, city or municipal school board, respectively. (b) The composition of local school boards shall be as follows: (1) The provincial school board shall be composed of the governor

and the division superintendent of schools as co-chairmen; the chairman of the education committee of the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the Provincial Treasurer, the representative of the Pederesyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan in the Sangguniang Panlalawigan, the duly elected president of the provincial federation of Parents – Teachers Association, the duly elected representative of the teachers’ organization in the province, and the duly elected representative of the non-academic personnel of public schools in the province, as members.

(2) The city school board shall be composed of the City Mayor and the City Superintendent of schools as co-chairmen; the chairman of the education committee of the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the City Treasurer, the representative of the Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Kabataan in the Sangguniang Panlungsod, the duly elected president of the city federation of Parents-Teachers Association, the duly elected representative of the teachers’ organization in the city, and the duly elected representative of the non-academic personnel of public schools in the city, as members; and

(3) The municipal school board shall be composed of the Municipal Mayor and the District Supervisor of schools as co-chairmen, the chairman of the education committee of the Sangguniang Bayan, the municipal treasurer, the representative of Pederasyon ng mga Sangguniang Bayan in the Sangguniang Bayan, the duly elected president of the municipal federation of Parents-Teachers Association , the duly elected representative of the teachers’ organization in the municipality, and the duly elected representative of the non-academic personnel of public schools in the municipality, as members.

(c) In the event that a province or city has two (2) or more school superintendents, and in the event that a municipality has two (2) or more district supervisors, the co-chairman of the local school board shall be determined as follows:

(1) The Department of Education shall designate the co-chairman for the provincial and city school boards; and

(2) The division superintendent of schools shall designate the district supervisor who shall serve as co-chairman of the municipal school board.

Section 99. Functions of Local School Boards. - The provincial, city or municipal school board shall:

(a) Determine, in accordance with the criteria set by the Department of Education the annual supplementary budgetary needs for the operation and maintenance of public schools within the province, city or municipality, as the case may be, and the supplementary local cost of meeting such needs, which shall be reflected in the form of an annual school board budget corresponding to its share in the proceeds of the special levy on real property constituting the Special Education fund and such other sources of revenue as this Code and other laws or ordinances may provide.

(b) Authorize the provincial, city or municipal treasurer, as

the case may be, to disburse funds from the Special Education Fund pursuant to the budget prepared and in accordance with existing rules and regulations;

(c) Serve as an advisory committee to the sanggunian concerned on educational matters such as, but not limited to, the necessity for and the uses of local appropriations for educational purposes; and

(d) Recommend changes in the names of public schools within the territorial jurisdiction of the local government unit for enactment by the sanggunian concerned.

The Department of Education shall consult the local school board on the appointment of division superintendents, district supervisors, school principals, and other school officials.

Section 100. Meetings and Quorum; Budget.

(a) The local school board shall meet at least once a month or as often as may be necessary.

(b) Any of the co-chairmen may call a meeting. A majority of all its members shall constitute a quorum. However, when both co-chairmen are present in the meeting, the local chief executive concerned, as a matter of protocol, shall be given preference to preside over the meeting. The division superintendent, city superintendent or district supervisor, as the case may be, shall prepare the budget of the school board concerned. Such budget shall be supported by programs, projects and activities of the school board for the ensuing fiscal year. The affirmative vote of the majority of all its members shall be necessary to approve the budget.

　

(c) The annual school board budget shall give priority to the following:

(1) Construction, repair, and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities of public elementary and secondary school;

(2) Establishment and maintenance of extension classes where necessary; and

(3) Sports activities at the division, district, municipal and barangay levels.

LSB: The True Picture On paper, the LSB seems well represented; but in reality most of them are

not functioning well. Decision making has been confined to the eight-person board where most often, “educational priorities” are being defined by its most powerful members: the local chief executive and the division superintendent.

The following are the other common problems with regards to the Local School Boards:

1. The Local Government Code of 1991 identified local officials and school officers as part of the LSB , but the law narrowly discussed their responsibilities.

2. While the law reserves for the LSB the power to determine the needed

budget for the operations and maintenance of public schools, there is no uniform procedure in budget preparation. Since the law is silent about it, some LSBs plan the budget early quarter of the year ; while others make plan from October to December.

3. The law should be clear on the percentage share of cities, provinces, and municipalities in the SEF because it has no criteria on how much should be shared to LSBs that cover more than one school district. The LGC doesn’t specify either if component cities are also entitled to receive SEF from their respective provinces, since all their SEF tax collections is retained within their cities.

4. LSBs have different interpretations of the allowable expenses or of projects where they can pour the SEF. Since the law only names three priorities (school buildings and facilities, extension classes, and sports activities), the LSBs become cautious to finance other projects, which they deem necessary because it is not in the code.

5. Since priorities are confined to corruption-prone infrastructure projects and sports events, most LSBs fail to address other pressing problems such as lack of textbooks, workbooks, and teacher training

programs.

6. Most LSBs disregard the School Improvement Plan (SIP) in preparing the budget. The SIP, a 3 to 5-year education development plan that contains the vision and mission of the school including its profile, problems, needs and targets.

Naga City : Model Local School Board in the Philippines

Key Strategies: 1. Home Rule or “Half-full glass” Philosophy – This liberating

perspective anchored Naga’s LSB reengineering process. It enabled LSBs to become empowered entities that went beyond the traditional function - laid down in the basic decentralization law – of providing budgetary support to local public schools. This, in itself is a controversial proposition. One school of thought held that the board can only operate within the limits prescribed by the Code. But Naga deliberately embraced the opposite – that what the law does not expressly prohibit, it allows.

Innovative Actions: The Naga City School Board’s organizational structure was expanded to ensure quality multi-sectoral representation. Representatives from the academe, business, religious, alumni associations and non-government organizations now sit in a community advisory council.

The participatory development process has largely helped redefine the directions of the school board. For one, the school level and sectoral consultations brought to its attention the stakeholders overwhelming preference for “soft infrastructure” – in the form of textbooks, instructional materials, desks and armchair – over school buildings, as well as the need for staff development in terms of teacher training and performance-based incentives.

To replicate the school board advisory council, there are local governance councils now in place in each of the 29 elementary schools to more fully involve local communities in the management of the public school system.

Conclusions and Recommendations

1. Because of the Department of Education’s meager budget, the Local School Board has indispensable role in providing the financial needs and empowering the local schools’ stakeholders in finding out solutions to their unique educational needs and problems.

2. The Local Government Code of 1991 should be reviewed for amendment particularly on the ambiguities that confuse Local School Boards in carrying administrative functions, in preparing budget proposals, and in disbursing their supplementary funds.

3. Because the needs of schools differ in each locality LSB fund should not be limited to construction and maintenance of infrastructure and ports events but also in other pressing educational problems such as lack of teacher training, textbooks and other instructional materials.

4. Command responsibility and the principle of transparency and accountability should be the central force

in the management of public schools particularly the Local School Boards.

References:

- Local Government Code of 1991

- Jesse M. Robredo, Reinventing Local School Board in the Philippines

- http://www.abs-cbnnews.com/-depth/06/11/10

- Wilfredo B. Prilles, Jr., NPM and Public Education in the Philippines

- Alecks P. Pabico, iReport. A school Board Makeover

Thank You!Thank You!