1. The Need for BudgetaryThe Need for Budgetary
Reform in Local SchoolsReform in Local Schools
Ruel A. GrafilRuel A. Grafil
2. 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%.
3. 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.
4. 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%).
5. 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).
6. 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.
7. 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.
8. (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.
9. (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.
10. (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.
11. 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.
12.
(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.
13. 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.
14. 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.
15. 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.
16. 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.
17. 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.
18. 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.
19. 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.
20. 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.
21. 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.
22. 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
