In the column “PISA and quality education” (BusinessWorld, July 8, 2024, https://tinyurl.com/26cfz8dg), I wrote that high economic growth predicts high performance in education. Specifically, the report of the Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development (OECD) on PISA (Programme for International Student Assessment) points out that “some 62% of the difference in countries’/economies’ mean scores is related to per capita GDP.”
At the same time, says the OECD, “some 31% of differences in student performance are due to differences in countries’ education systems — mainly in how they are organized, financed and use their resources.” So even as economic policy or growth policy does the heavy lifting, the education system, including the Department of Education (DepEd), must contribute a significant share to attain quality education.
The OECD findings give us a distinct frame to re-examine the education system. My own reflections follow.
1. Dramatic outcomes don’t happen instantly. Have clear and realistic targets.
That means achieving rapid high growth that translates into higher incomes for the people explains vastly improved education outcomes.
Given education quality’s highly dependent relationship with the country’s economic performance, DepEd by itself cannot catapult education quality so high overnight. But there can be ambitious yet clear and realistic targets to accelerate quality improvements that can substantially outpace economic growth and development.
Improvements in quality outcomes must be a centerpiece of the targeting, monitoring and evaluation of performance. If we look at the historical planning and monitoring parameters of DepEd, they are heavy on physical input targets, such as the number of classrooms built, the number of teachers covered by professional development programs, the number of computer units provided, and so on. Their impact on quality outcomes is assumed to follow automatically, and there are no measurable links between education inputs and target quality outcomes.
Results of large-scale assessments, both national and international, should be an integral component of the planning, monitoring and evaluation standards of DepEd. National targets must be understood and brought down to the operational levels, at the level of regions, divisions and ultimately, the schools.
In terms of timeline, one full cohort corresponding to the rollout of the updated Matatag curriculum, from Grade 1 to Grade 12, will be a good planning horizon for decisive quality improvements, with the current baseline clearly set and fighting targets set and monitored for the key stages of this cohort and succeeding cohorts. The Matatag curriculum is the revised K to 10 curriculum resulting from a review, and introduces changes including decongestion, focus on foundational skills, balanced cognitive demands, clearer articulation of 21st century skills, reduced learning areas, intensified values and peace education, and parity with international standards. Of course, this does not mean that the present older student population will be ignored. There must be a catch-up plan for them as well.
2. Strategic and monitored decentralization is indispensable.
As targets are brought down and monitored at the level of regions, divisions and schools, so too must they be empowered to find solutions. Regional, divisional and school-based approaches and interventions are as important as centralized evidenced-based policies.
The problems and capabilities at the frontlines are highly contextualized, and there is no one-size-fits-all solution.
In this connection, I believe that the DepEd practice of periodically rotating regional directors and division superintendents is better abandoned. It must give way to assignment movements that are for clear causes. Stability in local leadership will be needed for program continuity and better monitoring, evaluation and cross-comparison of approaches, best practices and outcomes. School-based management will be a decisive component to how successful the quality drive will be.
Greater local reliance will require reviewing the distribution of general appropriations between centrally and locally managed funds, towards making sure that local units are given a commensurate increase in resources. Caution should be taken, however, that redistribution will have administrative consequences such as new challenges in procurement and fiscal management and accountability.
3. Quality outcomes will need quality inputs.
A great transformation in quality outcomes will not be realized without a great transformation in the quality of inputs. While new resources for education will be much needed but which we also know will be highly constrained, much can be done to improve the quality of inputs all around. Internal efficiencies will have to be generated from better planning, targeting, operations, monitoring and evaluation. Two inputs where transformation must be palpable are in the quality of learning resources, particularly textbooks, and teaching, particularly through teacher professional development.
4. Mitigating internal inequalities will unlock rigidities.
The international economic disparity as it relates to PISA results is as much reflected in national socioeconomic disparity as it relates to student performance.
The OECD report derives a composite indicator for economic, social and cultural status (ESCS) from three variables related to family background of the learners — parents’ highest level of education in years, their highest occupational status, and home possessions. Within countries, 25% of students with the lowest values on the ESCS are categorized as socioeconomically disadvantaged students, while 25% of students with the highest values on ESCS are categorized as socioeconomically advantaged students. Generally, the mean score of socioeconomically advantaged students is significantly higher than socioeconomically disadvantaged students in varying degrees across participating countries and economies.
For the Philippines, the disadvantaged students scored an average of 339 in mathematics versus 375 for advantaged students, 324 versus 376 in reading, and 335 versus 386 in science. The internal disparity is also visible in the regional distribution of results, with the National Capital Region (NCR) being the best performer, and Regions IVA and III performing above the national average. There is a region, however, that defied the trend — the Cordillera Autonomous Region, whose performance was close to NCR’s. The internal disparity is likewise manifested in the significantly better performance of private schools over public schools.
Thus, targeted internal redistribution of resources for more support to disadvantaged areas will lift performance and give our disadvantaged learners fairer education opportunities. The interventions will have to address multiple underlying dimensions of inequality, including equity in home and community resources, equity in school resources, equity in instruction and equity in nutrition.
5. Leverage private and other non-DepEd resources for the public good.
The acceleration of quality improvements will require more resources than the economy can afford through government appropriations. There is a high level of goodwill and broad support for education that can be further harnessed through existing partnership programs, such as Brigada Eskwela,the annual community and multi-stakeholder effort to assist schools in their pre-school opening preparations.
But bolder and more innovative initiatives are needed. One untapped big potential is leveraging DepEd’s prime real properties for development projects that directly serve its needs and programs (such as teacher professional development facilities) while allowing commercial purposes to attract private investments. Viable options may be explored under the various arrangements allowed by Republic Act No. 11966 or the Public-Private Partnership Code of the Philippines. While this may invite controversy and opposition from some quarters, the key will be in providing a compelling case for proposed projects.
6. Embrace lessons, continuity and further reforms.
Learning lessons from trailblazing education programs and initiatives both here and abroad should be a feature of the quality transformation. Also, while any new leadership can be expected to introduce reforms with a unique stamp, there is also value in the continuity of programs that are shown to be working.
DepEd is a resilient institution. For all the criticisms leveled against it, it is still the institution that the country relies on for support during natural calamities, public health emergencies and elections.
With open, inclusive and visionary leadership, the great transformation of education quality can be done. We wish incoming Secretary Angara, his team and the DepEd family all the best, for our learners’ and country’s present and future.
Nepomuceno Malaluan is a founding trustee of Action for Economic Reforms and a former DepEd undersecretary.
