Educational service contracting

6,560 views
6,168 views

Published on

Published in: Education, Economy & Finance
1 Comment
4 Likes
Statistics
Notes
No Downloads
Views
Total views
6,560
On SlideShare
0
From Embeds
0
Number of Embeds
2
Actions
Shares
0
Downloads
151
Comments
1
Likes
4
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Educational service contracting

  1. 1. Educational ServiceContractingAbraham Felipe
  2. 2. Dr. Abraham I. Felipe• an educator and social psychologist, is the president of the Fund for Assistance to Private Education.
  3. 3. Scholarship• award of financial aid for a student to further education.• awarded on various criteria usually reflecting the values and purposes of the donor or founder of the award.
  4. 4. Types of Scholarships• Merit-based• Need-based• Student-specific
  5. 5. GASTPE (GovernmentAssistance to Student andTeachers in Private Education) • The Government through the Education Service Contracting (ESC) Scheme and the Tuition Fee Supplement (TFS) has entered into a contract with the private schools in order to accommodate those who otherwise will not be able to avail of free public secondary education. As of January 15, 1999, the ESC has 374,918 student beneficiaries in 1,122 participating schools, while the TSF has 162,966 grantees in 638 participating schools.
  6. 6. What is ESC?• Unlike other scholarships, there is no grade requirement other than the grade required to pass in the public schools.• It is just like when a public school student in a private school setting.• It has 4 regular players: • Government- sponsor • Student-recipient • Public School • Private school
  7. 7. Why the need for it?• Public Schools • Congestion • Quality • Not being cost-effective• Private Schools • Liquidity problem
  8. 8. Congestion• During the Marcos era, the budget had been blamed for the lagging infrastructure.• It was also during this time that public secondary education was made free- thus, resulting in a surge in the student population.
  9. 9. Quality• Studies of the NCEE confirmed that private schools were academically far more superior. • They abolished the NCEE instead.
  10. 10. Liquidity of the Private Schools• The free scheme in the public schools, made them vis a vis unable to compete with the public schools.
  11. 11. Solution• The private schools believed they can help in the congestion and quality problem.• Public schools was more than willing to decongest classrooms and to uplift quality.
  12. 12. STEPS1. Curriculum should be certified by the MECS.2. Public High School Principal should certify that his/her school was overcrowded. The applicant would “otherwise-have-been-admitted”3. Private schools must accept the “otherwise- have-been-admitted” students without additional qualifications. An applicant could only be refused admission if the private schools is itself overcrowded.4. An applicant cannot be kicked out. But can be retained.
  13. 13. Interegnum• Soon after the FAPE was designated to implement the ESC, many problems surfaced, such as: • It was unacceptable to many principals. The premium was on the size of school population. The bigger the school was, the more senior principals were assigned there, such that it was a post of prestige. • In due time the DECS took over the implementation.
  14. 14. • After three years, the program was returned to the FAPE, and it was already different. • The recipients were of the following types: • Endorsed by politicians • Endorsed by Education officials • Endorsed by private school officials • Private school students, planning to drop out because of the high tuition fees. • Walk-ins from public schools
  15. 15. At the Present• The present ESC is suited for a scholarship program.• The GASTPE was implemented-it gave the private schools deregulation of tuition fees.• Thus, tuitions substantially increased.
  16. 16. The Preferred Future1. No evidence that substantial support was given by post- Marcos administrations. When the lions’ share was given to the Education, most of it was for the salaries of teachers and State Universities.2. From the way present recipients are now chosen, most do not resemble the originally intended recipients of low socio economic background.

×