Reforming Philippine Education: The Imperative for a Cabinet Cluster for Education

The Philippine education system is currently grappling with a multitude of challenges that demand immediate attention and coordinated action from various government agencies. Recent proposals, including House Concurrent Resolution No. 28 dated July 16, 2024 and recommendations from the Second Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM II), advocate for the establishment of a Cabinet Cluster for Education as a potential solution to these pressing issues. This article examines the rationale behind this proposal, its potential impact on addressing the current educational crisis in the Philippines, and the broader context of educational reform in the country.

Historical Context: The Evolution of Philippine Education Governance

Pre-Trifocalization Era

Prior to the 1990s, the Philippine education system was primarily under the purview of a single agency, the Department of Education, Culture, and Sports (DECS). This centralized structure had both advantages and drawbacks:

Advantages:

• Unified decision-making process
• Streamlined implementation of policies
• Consistent standards across all levels of education

Drawbacks:

• Overwhelming responsibilities for a single agency
• Difficulty in addressing the unique needs of different educational subsectors
• Limited focus on higher education and technical-vocational training

The Trifocalization Process

In the 1990s, following recommendations from the First Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM I), the Philippine education system underwent a significant restructuring known as trifocalization. This process led to the creation of three separate agencies:

1. The Department of Education (DepEd): Responsible for basic education (K-12)
2. The Commission on Higher Education (CHED): Oversees tertiary education
3. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA): Manages technical-vocational education and training

Rationale for Trifocalization:

• Allow each agency to focus on its specific subsector
• Improve the quality of education at all levels
• Enhance the development of specialized skills and knowledge

Outcomes of Trifocalization:

• Increased attention to specific educational needs at different levels
• Development of specialized policies and programs for each subsector
• Improved responsiveness to the unique challenges of basic, higher, and technical-vocational education

While trifocalization addressed some of the issues present in the centralized system, it also created new challenges, particularly in terms of coordination and implementation of a cohesive education strategy.

Current Challenges in Philippine Education

The EDCOM II Year One Report, titled “Miseducation: The Failed System of Philippine Education,” highlights several critical issues across various sectors of the education system. These challenges demonstrate the need for a more coordinated approach to education governance.

Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD)

High prevalence of under-5 stunting

• 26.7% of children under 5 are stunted, compared to the global average of 22.3%
• Long-term consequences for cognitive development and educational outcomes

Fragmented implementation of nutrition interventions

• Lack of coordination between agencies responsible for nutrition programs
• Inefficient use of resources and inconsistent coverage of interventions

Inequitable access to early childhood education

• Only 36% of barangays have at least one child development center
• Significant disparities between urban and rural areas, and between income classes

Workforce issues in ECCD

• Aging and undertrained day care teachers and workers
• 89% of child development teachers hold non-permanent positions
• Low salaries (average of PHP 5,000 per month) compared to kindergarten teachers (PHP 27,000 per month)

Basic Education

Low learning outcomes

• Poor performance in international assessments (e.g., PISA, TIMSS)
• National Achievement Test results show low proficiency in core subjects

Inefficient textbook procurement and distribution

• Only 27 textbooks procured for Grades 1-10 since 2012, despite substantial budget allocations
• Low budget utilization rates for textbooks and instructional materials

Challenges in implementing the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual Education policy

• Difficulties in producing materials in multiple local languages
• Inconsistent implementation across regions

Inadequate assessment systems

• Delays and cancellations in national assessments
• Lack of timely and actionable data for policy-making and instructional improvement

Higher Education

High attrition rates

• Increase from 20% in 2019 to 41% in 2020
• Economic factors and academic challenges contributing to dropouts

Quality concerns

• Decline in the proportion of enrollment in autonomous and deregulated higher education institutions
• Slow increase in the number of Centers of Excellence and Development

Inequitable distribution of tertiary education subsidies

• Decline in the share of the poorest students receiving subsidies
• Misalignment with the prioritization prescribed by the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act

Technical-Vocational Education and Training (TVET)

Limited industry participation

• Only 40 TESDA-recognized industry boards across the country
• Concentration in a few sectors, leaving many industries underrepresented

Shortage of instructors, assessors, and certifiers

• Need for an additional 11,838 competency assessors for the Senior High School Technical-Vocational-Livelihood track
• Lack of assessors in certain geographical areas, impacting student certification

Confusing policies related to enterprise-based training

• Multiple policies covering six different forms of enterprise-based training
• Need for simplification and tailoring to industry and learner needs

Governance and Finance

Insufficient staffing levels in education agencies

• CHED’s budget increased by 633% from 2013 to 2023, but staffing only increased by 22.7%
• Lean staffing in regional and provincial offices of CHED and TESDA

Lack of effective coordination between agencies

• Absence of a high-level coordinating mechanism
• Proliferation of at least 68 interagency bodies to address various concerns

Misalignment in performance management systems

• Failure to hold individuals accountable and incentivize enhanced performance
• Need for outcome-oriented and holistic performance targets

Disparities in Special Education Fund (SEF) income among local government units

• Municipalities at a severe disadvantage compared to cities and provinces
• Significant gaps even between municipalities of different income classes

The Need for a Coordinating Body

The absence of a high-level coordinating mechanism has resulted in several systemic issues:

Lack of a coherent plan or vision for the education sector

• Each agency operates independently, leading to fragmented strategies
• Difficulty in addressing cross-cutting issues that span multiple subsectors

Long-standing coordination issues between education agencies

• Duplication of efforts and resources
• Inconsistent policies and standards across subsectors

Inefficient use of resources

• Overlapping programs and initiatives
• Difficulty in tracking overall education spending and outcomes

Challenges in implementing comprehensive reforms

• Inability to address issues that require multi-agency collaboration
• Slow progress on critical initiatives that span the entire education system

These factors have hindered the sector’s ability to address challenges posed by extensive reforms and increased responsibilities effectively.

Proposed Solution: Cabinet Cluster for Education

House Concurrent Resolution No. 28 urges the President to create a Cabinet Cluster for Education to address the coordination challenges and improve the overall effectiveness of the education system.

Key Objectives of the Proposed Cabinet Cluster

1. Ensure cohesive and coherent implementation of education laws, policies, reforms, and regulations
2. Formulate a long-term integrated national education and workforce development plan
3. Provide strong oversight on all education agencies under the Executive Department
4. Facilitate rapid and coordinated responses to education challenges

Proposed Structure and Composition

1. Leadership: Headed by an existing cabinet member with a direct stake in education or a Presidential adviser with the rank of secretary
2. Core Members:

• Secretary of the Department of Education (DepEd)
• Chairperson of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
• Director-General of the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA)
• Executive Director of the Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) Council
• Secretary of the Department of Labor and Employment (DOLE)

3. Support Agency:

• Department of Budget and Management (DBM) to ensure operational funding

4. Additional Stakeholders:

• Representatives from the private education sector
• Industry leaders
• Education experts and researchers

Potential Functions and Responsibilities

1. Policy Coordination:

• Align policies across all levels of education
• Ensure consistency in standards and qualifications frameworks

2. Strategic Planning:

• Develop a comprehensive, long-term education strategy
• Set national targets and key performance indicators

3. Resource Allocation:

• Optimize budget allocation across education agencies
• Identify and address funding gaps in critical areas

4. Monitoring and Evaluation:

• Establish a unified system for tracking education outcomes
• Conduct regular assessments of education programs and initiatives

5. Interagency Collaboration:

• Facilitate joint projects and initiatives
• Streamline communication between education agencies

6. Stakeholder Engagement:

• Coordinate with industry, civil society, and international partners
• Ensure that education policies are responsive to societal and economic needs

Potential Benefits

1. Improved coordination among education agencies

• Reduced duplication of efforts
• More efficient use of resources

2. Streamlined policymaking across the education lifecycle

• Coherent policies from early childhood to higher education and workforce development
• Easier implementation of system-wide reforms

3. More efficient resource allocation

• Better targeting of funds to priority areas
• Improved budget utilization rates

4. Enhanced monitoring and evaluation of education programs

• Comprehensive data collection and analysis
• Evidence-based decision-making

5. Faster response to educational challenges

• Coordinated action on cross-cutting issues
• Rapid mobilization of resources during crises (e.g., pandemic response)

6. Improved alignment with national development goals

• Better integration of education policies with economic and social development strategies
• Enhanced responsiveness to labor market needs

EDCOM II Recommendations

In addition to the creation of a Cabinet Cluster, EDCOM II has proposed several recommendations to address specific challenges in various education subsectors. These recommendations complement the proposed Cabinet Cluster and provide a roadmap for comprehensive education reform.

Early Childhood Care and Development

1. Develop a universal ECCD database

• Consolidate data from multiple agencies
• Improve targeting and monitoring of ECCD interventions

2. Expand ECCD provisions

• Include private, community-based, and home-based programs
• Increase access to quality early childhood education

3. Professionalize the ECCD workforce

• Create plantilla positions for child development workers and teachers
• Develop education pathways through TESDA and CHED programs

4. Enhance ECCD governance

• Strengthen the ECCD Council Governing Board
• Include ECCD representation on local school boards

Basic Education

1. Review textbook procurement strategies

• Consider procuring existing market-available books
• Streamline the procurement process to ensure timely delivery

2. Streamline the assessment landscape

• Develop a cohesive, unified assessment framework
• Invest in infrastructure and training for computer-based assessments

3. Address instructional quality issues

• Provide comprehensive teacher training on the revised curriculum
• Ensure timely development and distribution of learning resources

4. Enhance learning recovery programs

• Conduct regular and timely assessments of learner progress
• Prioritize foundational skills in reading, writing, and numeracy

Higher Education

1. Improve targeting of tertiary education subsidies

• Prioritize the poorest students for financial assistance
• Reassess the definition of “access” in higher education policies

2. Strengthen quality assurance mechanisms

• Fast-track the reconstitution of technical panels
• Enhance the relationship between CHED and accreditation agencies

3. Address the consequences of Free Higher Education

• Provide rationalized support to public higher education institutions
• Explore alternative financing models to support private institutions

Technical-Vocational Education and Training

1. Enhance industry involvement

• Rationalize policies on enterprise-based training
• Develop an industry-driven incentive framework

2. Improve data collection and analysis

• Develop a centralized management information system
• Align TVET graduate employment data with national labor force surveys

3. Address workforce shortages

• Increase funding for training programs
• Expand scholarship opportunities for TVET learners

Governance and Finance

1. Strengthen oversight mechanisms

• Enhance the capacity of both the Office of the President and the Legislature
• Develop long-term tracking systems for education targets

2. Review resource allocation formulas

• Update the Boncodin Formula for School MOOE budgets
• Develop a framework for equitable allocation of the Special Education Fund

3. Sustain and optimize education investments

• Ensure equitable allocation of resources
• Focus on investments with strategic impact on learning outcomes

Implementation Challenges and Considerations

While the creation of a Cabinet Cluster for Education presents a promising solution to many of the coordination challenges in the Philippine education system, several factors must be considered for successful implementation:

1. Political will and support

• Securing commitment from the executive branch
• Navigating potential resistance from existing power structures

2. Legal and administrative hurdles

• Potential need for legislative action to formalize the cluster
• Aligning the cluster’s functions with existing laws and regulations

3. Capacity building

• Developing the necessary skills and knowledge within agencies to participate effectively in the cluster
• Creating systems and processes for inter-agency collaboration

4. Resource allocation

• Securing funding for the establishment and operation of the cluster
• Balancing resource distribution among existing agencies and the new coordinating body

5. Stakeholder buy-in

• Engaging educators, administrators, and other stakeholders in the reform process
• Communicating the benefits of the new structure to the public

6. Measuring success

• Developing clear metrics to evaluate the cluster’s effectiveness
• Establishing mechanisms for continuous improvement and adaptation

Conclusion

The proposal to create a Cabinet Cluster for Education represents a significant step towards addressing the complex challenges facing the Philippine education system. By providing a mechanism for improved coordination, policy alignment, and resource allocation, this initiative has the potential to drive meaningful reforms across all levels of education.

The success of this approach will depend on strong leadership, sustained commitment from all stakeholders, and a willingness to embrace systemic changes. As the Philippines strives to improve its education outcomes and prepare its workforce for the future, the establishment of a Cabinet Cluster for Education may prove to be a crucial element in achieving these goals.

However, it is important to recognize that the creation of a coordinating body is not a panacea for all educational challenges. It must be accompanied by targeted interventions at all levels of the education system, sustained investment in educational resources and infrastructure, and a commitment to evidence-based policymaking.

The road to comprehensive education reform in the Philippines is long and complex, but the proposed Cabinet Cluster for Education offers a promising starting point for addressing the systemic issues that have hindered progress for decades. By fostering collaboration, streamlining decision-making, and promoting a holistic approach to education policy, this initiative has the potential to transform the Philippine education system and create better opportunities for millions of learners across the country.