To attain the 2015 goal andtargets of Education For All, Is the country needs to implement policies? Presented by: VIDA JOY M.QUIMSON
To attain the 2015 goal and targets of Education For All, thecountry needs toimplement policies, programs and projects that will addressthe needs of specificlearners, particularly those belonging to the un-reached andunder-served groups.A. Explicit Articulation ofInclusive Education Policy andSubstantial Increase inBudget Provision
First, DepEd needs to explicitly articulate “Inclusive Education” as the overall policy and planning framework of EFA. This policy will dictate how the curriculum will be delivered including the programs, projects, and resource requirements that will support the specific needs of particular groups of learners. One of the policies that DepEd will be issuing soon is the institutionalization of Alternative Delivery Mode Programs that will cater to learners in difficult and different circumstances and which will use self-learning modules.Second, the government should take comprehensive but concrete actions toaddress the inadequate use of the budget for basic education. Specifically, thegovernment should consider the following in coming-up with a financingstrategy for EFA:E underinvestment in basic education (only 2.4 percent of the GDP); about85 percent of DepEd’s budget goes to salaries of personnel; and8 inequitable distribution of limited national and local government resources,especially for capital outlay and operating costs due to some “loopholes” inexisting policies.
The current inequitable distribution of resourceswill require the government toreview existing legislations and policies inallocating resources for schools in ruralareas to address the existing bias against ruralschools. Moreover, there is a need torevisit the implementation of the law on“Government Assistance to Students andTeachers in Private Education” to find out if thenational government subsidy toprivate schools benefits the poor students and ifthe private schools produce betterquality outputs than the public schools.
• B. Addressing the Socio-Economic and Geographical/Geophysical Factors that• Affect the attainment of Education For All• 143. The Philippine basic education system should be flexible and responsive to the• needs of learners as affected by non-school factors, such as:The Philippine basic education systemshould be flexible and responsive to theneeds of learners as affected by non-school factors, such as:a. Economic Factors
The country is still dependent on agriculture, fishingand forestry but at the same time an emerging globalmarket for business process, ICT spare parts, medicalservices, to name a few, and this will require 51 DepEd’simplementation of a more relevant basic educationcurriculum in relation to local and global needs.Social FactorsS The increasing percentage of school-age population requires thegovernment to effectively and efficiently implement fiscal reforms as thiswill have major implications in attaining the goal of education for all. Inthis regard, DepEd should actively participate in advocating for efficienttax revenue collection. Moreover, mobilization of resources from localgovernments, private sector and other partners will also help thecountry finance the increasing budgetary requirements of EFA
Language and Cultural Factors With different ethnic and Muslim groupsspread across country –effective implementation of the curriculumindigenization policy and national curriculum forMuslim education is imperative.M With more than 111 dialects spoken there is aneed to revisit the current policy on medium ofinstruction: effective nationwide implementation ofthe use of the mother tongue or the child’slanguage as medium for instruction in pre-schooland the first two grades in the elementary level.
Geographical and geophysical factorsG Considering the huge size of the basic education system, (over40,000 public schools in 7,107 islands) the applications of modern .information and communication technology may offer the onlyfeasible medium for delivering high-quality instruction to millions oflearners in a large, diverse and geographically dispersed population.. DepEd must seriously consider adopting a flexible school calendar–e.g., first three months of the school calendar (June to August) arethe rainy months with frequent flooding in Metro Manila; supervisionof schools is very difficult and dangerous during the rainy andtyphoon season.t There is need to adopt differentiated designs for school facilities towithstand natural calamities such as typhoons and earthquakes
• C. Reaching the Un-reached and Underserved Groups of Learners• 144. Providing children in difficult/different circumstances access to quality and• relevant basic education is still a big challenge that the country should immediately• address. To wit:• • Children Engaged in Labor. DepEd needs to intensify the implementation of its• distance learning program both for elementary and secondary levels so that• schoolchildren who really need to work to earn a living could still continue• schooling even without regularly attending classes.
• • Street Children. • DepEd needs to establish a strong partnership with other• government agencies and other partners (NGOs, private/business sector/LGUs)• in providing basic education and other social and livelihood services to street children and their families (the main objective of the latter services is to sustain children’s schooling). .• • Children with Special Needs (Gifted and Differently-abled)• . With the limited coverage of existing government educational facilities, DepEd together with other agencies and partners need to work on the expansion of basic education services to reach more persons with disability. DepEd should specifically work on• the strengthening and expansion of its SPED classes in the existing public• elementary and secondary schools and the strengthening and enrichment of its regular classes to mainstream the people with disabilities.
Muslim Children. With the big percentage (93%) of Muslim school-age population in the public school system, theeffective implementation of the national curriculumfor Muslim education in the public school system isverycritical. The overall goal of the curriculum is todevelop the core competencies of Muslim childrenin order for them to function effectively in societywithin thecontext of their environment and culture and that ofthe wider community. In the long run, it willhopefully effectively address the economic, social,political problems in Muslim-dominated areas andthe entire country in general
• Children in Conflict-Affected Areas.Convergence of support for the protection ofchildren, especially those who are noteducated from being vulnerable targets fortraining and indoctrination as fighters. Thereis also a need to execute acovenant among and between concernedparties to protect schools as “peacezones”.
In summary, the country was not able to attain its 2005 targets inalmost all key outcome indicators in Early Childhood Education,Formal Basic Education and Alternative Learning System. Most of the regions have performance classified as“falling further behind” or with performance lower than thenational level in 2002 and continued to decline in 2005. Whilesubstantial investments were poured into the establishmentof basic education facilities, these were not enough to ensurethat all3-5 year olds are in Early Childhood Education learningcenters, and all school-aged children were in school and ableto continue and eventually complete basic education withsatisfactory achievement level. The basic education systemshould 53 be responsive to the differentiated needs oflearners where a “one-size fit all” or conventionalinterventions (such as construction of classrooms, provisionof textbooks, etc) are not enough or will no longer work.
MDG attainment would require:Enhanced revenue generation;LGU, private sector and civilsociety support;Pursuit of projects with higheconomic impact;andTapping OFW remittances
Working toward s achie vingone G oal wil m ake us cl r l oseto achie ve m e nt of the re st & woul re d uce dcosts of achie ving othe rs”,E ve l H e rfke ns ine
Enabling Environment for the MDGs SDC Res. No. 1 DILG MC 2003 “Expanding 2004-152 functions and “Guide to LGUs composition of in the MC-IHDC” Localization of the MDGs” MTPDP 2004-2010 Investment identification per goalhews closely to and target in MTPIP the MDGs 2005-2010 Strong Legislative commitment Strong support of support of of the Congress donor business community sector and for the MDGs civil society
FIGURE 1: Poverty Incidence of Population by Region, 2003 Legend Below national average (7.3 - 30.4) Above national average(30.5 - 54.2) Cordillera Region 31.2 Cagayan Valley 24.5 Ilocos Region 30.2 Central Luzon 17.7 Metro Manila 7.3 Bicol Region 48.4 CALABARZON 18.8 Eastern Visayas 43.3 MIMAROPA 47.9 Central Visayas 28.4 Western Visayas 39.1 CARAGA 54.2 Northern Mindanao 44.3 Central Mindanao 38.4 Western Mindanao 49.4 Southern Mindanao 34.4 ARMM 53.1SourceNSO Fam ily Incom e and Expenditures Survey 2003
Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold, Poverty Incidence of Families and Populationby Region: 2000 and 2003 Annual Per Capita Poverty Poverty Incidence Poverty Incidence Region Threshold (in Pesos) of Families (%) of Population (%) 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003Philippines 11, 451 12, 267 27.5 24.7 33.0 30.4NCR 15, 693 16, 796 5.7 5.0 7.6 7.3CAR 13, 066 13, 976 30.7 24.8 37.6 31.2Region I 12, 685 13, 276 29.4 24.4 35.1 30.2Region II 11, 128 11, 409 25.2 19.3 30.4 24.5Region III 13, 760 14, 342 17.3 13.7 21.4 17.7Region IV-A 13, 657 14, 616 15.2 14.9 19.1 18.8Region IV-B 11, 995 12, 406 36.3 39.7 45.2 47.9Region V 11, 372 12, 354 45.3 40.5 52.6 48.4Region VI 11, 313 12, 275 36.6 31.3 44.4 39.1Region VII 9, 656 9, 779 31.5 23.7 36.2 28.4Region VIII 9, 518 10, 802 37.5 35.5 45.1 43.3Region IX 9, 116 10, 414 38.5 44.1 44.8 49.4Region X 10, 503 11, 609 37.9 37.9 43.8 44.3Region XI 10, 264 11, 276 27.7 28.1 33.1 34.4Region XII 10, 466 11, 303 40.7 32.0 46.8 38.4Caraga 10, 896 12, 000 43.7 47.3 50.9 54.2ARMM 12, 192 12, 739 53.7 45.7 59.8 53.1
FIGURE 2: Subsistence Incidence of Population, by Region 2003 Legend Below national average Above national average Cordillera Region 13.4 Cagayan Valley 7.6 Ilocos Region 11.2 Central Luzon 4.2 Metro Manila 0.6 Bicol Region 26.6 CALABARZON 4.9 Eastern Visayas 21 MIMAROPA 22.9 Central Visayas 14.6 Western Visayas 17.7 CARAGA 31 Northern Mindanao 25.4 Central Mindanao 18.4 Western Mindanao 32.8 Southern Mindanao 17.6 ARMM 24.1SourceNSO_Fam ily and Incom e Expenditure Study, 2003
Annual Per Capita Food Threshold, Subsistence Incidence of Families and Populationby Region: 2000 and 2003 Annual Per Capita Food Subsistence Incidence Subsistence Incidence Region Threshold (in Pesos) of Families (%) of Population (%) 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003Philippines 7, 707 8, 134 12.3 10.4 15.8 13.8NCR 9, 570 9, 974 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.6CAR 8, 744 9, 117 13.7 9.8 17.9 13.4Region I 8, 552 8, 903 11.4 8.1 15.2 11.2Region II 7, 560 8, 026 9.3 5.6 11.8 7.6Region III 8, 764 9, 338 4.2 2.9 5.5 4.2Region IV-A 8, 782 9, 189 5.1 3.7 6.5 4.9Region IV-B 8, 078 8, 339 17.4 17.7 24.1 22.9Region V 8, 047 8, 372 23.3 20.3 29.3 26.6Region VI 7, 983 8, 386 17.4 12.9 23.1 17.7Region VII 6, 759 7, 016 16.9 11.2 20.7 14.6Region VIII 7, 080 7, 696 19.1 15.5 24.8 21.0Region IX 6, 574 7, 245 21.0 27.9 25.8 32.8Region X 7, 296 7, 999 19.2 19.7 23.8 25.4Region XI 7, 087 7, 751 12.8 13.5 16.7 17.6Region XII 7, 235 7, 804 17.9 14.0 22.6 18.4Caraga 7, 667 8, 353 24.4 24.5 30.7 31.0ARMM 8, 313 8, 737 23.9 18.6 28.5 24.1
FIGURE 3: Gini Concentration Ratios, by Region 2003 Legend Below National Average Above National Average Cordillera Region 0.4294 Cagayan Valley 0.4411 Ilocos Region 0.3968Central Luzon 0.3486 Bicol Region 0.4648 Metro Manila 0.413CALABARZON 0.4058 Eastern Visayas 0.4577 MIMAROPA 0.4354 Central Visayas 0.4711 Western Visayas 0.4392 CARAGA 0.4294 Northern Mindanao 0.4768 Central Mindanao 0.4567 Western Mindanao 0.5197 Southern Mindanao 0.4583 ARMM 0.3464
Gini Coefficient Among Families by Region, 2000 and 2003 Region GINI 2000 2003 % ChangePhilippines 0.4822 0.4660 -1.6NCR 0.4451 0.4130 -3.2CAR 0.4439 0.4294 -1.5Region I 0.4071 0.3968 -1.0Region II 0.4227 0.4411 1.8Region III 0.3591 0.3486 -1.1Region IV-A 0.4086 0.4058 -0.3Region IV-B 0.4076 0.4354 2.8Region V 0.4455 0.4648 1.9Region VI 0.4594 0.4392 -2.0Region VII 0.4691 0.4711 0.2Region VIII 0.4807 0.4577 -2.3Region IX 0.4732 0.5197 4.7Region X 0.4794 0.4768 -0.3Region XI 0.4318 0.4567 2.5Region XII 0.4631 0.4583 -0.5Caraga 0.4118 0.4294 1.8ARMM 0.3171 0.3464 2.9
FIGURE 4: Percentage of Households with Less than 100% Energy Adequacy
FIGURE 5: Percentage of Underweight Children 0-5 Year Olds
Meeting Goal 1: EradicateExtreme Poverty and Hunger
Priority Policies and Programs• Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI)• Enrolment of 7 million beneficiaries under the National Health Insurance Program (NHIP)• Wholesale portfolio of the People’s Credit and Finance Corporation (PCFC)• Implementation of asset reform programs• Delivery of human development services
ODA for MDGs Summary of ODA for completed & ongoing projects, by MDG category, from 2001-2005, in million US$ MDGs Amount % Share to (in US$ million) Total MDG- Related ODA1 - Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 6,259.4 77.402 - Achieve universal primary education 557.9 6.903 - Promote gender equality 3.8 0.054 - Reduce child mortality 139.9 1.735 - Improve maternal health 157.0 1.946 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases 25.3 0.317 - Ensure environmental sustainability 943.31 11.67TOTAL 8,086.6 100.00Source: NEDA-PMS
INVESTMENTS SUPPORTIVE OF THE MDGs 2005-2010 MDGs COST (in PhP Billion)1 - Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 1,294.22 - Achieve universal primary education 56.73 - Promote gender equality -4 - Reduce child mortality5 - Improve maternal health 69.96 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases7 - Ensure environmental sustainability 198.88 – Global partnership for development 125.1TOTAL 1,744.7Source: NEDA-PIS
INTENSIFYING MULTISECTORAL PARTNERSHIP AND COLLABORATIONGovernment (executive, Donor legislature, judicial) Community Local Private/ Government Business CSOs, Academe
Biodiversity ResourcesPhilippines…• one of the megadiverse countries in the world• higher regard for the endemism of local speciesbut…• most severely threatened of the megadiverse countries
Coastal and Marine Resources • rich sources of fish and aquatic products• habitat for countless underwater wildlife• natural areas for recreation/tourism Water resources• disparities in water supply coverage across regions• depletion of ground water especially in Metro Manila and Metro Cebu• pollution of water sources
Air Quality• pollution remains a problem in Metro Manila and major urban centers• on the level of suspended particulates (TSP), air quality is not within standards Waste and Toxic Chemicals• solid waste generation in Metro Manila is estimated at 5,345 tons per day• urbanization inevitably increased the use of chemicals• no integrated treatment facility for hazardous waste
Priority Policies and Programs• Adoption of Sustainable Forest Management• Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines and the Watersheds Code• Various biodiversity acts• Fisheries Code and AFMA• Clean Air Act
Challenges and Priorities for Action• Sustainable and more productive utilization of natural resources• Focus and strengthen the protection of vulnerable and ecologically fragile areas• Create healthier environment for the population• Mitigate the occurrence of natural disasters• Ensure environmental accountability for all industries
CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION FINANCING THE MDGs Government Expenditure Program by Sector FY 2000-2005 35 30 25 20 15 10 5 0 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 Social Services Debt Service Economic Services General Public Services DefenseSource: DBM, Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing
CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION FINANCING THE MDGs Distribution of Public Expenditures by Local Government Units By Sector, 2001-2004 (in thousand pesos) Sector/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004Economic Services 15,982,070 45,484,830 52,853,500 58,700,890 (15%) (32%) (33%) (34%)Social Services 28,979,110 26,352,690 34,001,700 36,135,990 (27%) (19%) (21%) (21%)General Public Services 63,375,820 69,580,140 73,954,470 78,545,740 (58%) (49%) (46%) (45%)Total Public Expenditures 108,337,000 141,417,660 160,809,670 173,382,620Source: DBM, Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing
CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION FINANCING THE MDGs ODA Commitments by Sector Agriculture, agrarian FY 2001-2004 (US$ million) reform and natural resources80 Governance and institutions70 development60 Infrastructure development5040 Social reform and30 development20 Industry and services100 2001 2002 2003 2004 Source: NEDA- PIS
CROSS-CUTTINGCHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION• Reduce disparities across regions• Increase resource allocation for MDG-related programs and projects• Enforce full/stricter implementation of laws & ensure passage of MDG-supportive bills• Strengthen monitoring and implementation• Scale-up campaign for localization• Develop an advocacy plan• Intensify multisectoral partnership & collaboration
Facilitating Factors• Strong global support for MDGs by the United Nations, ASEAN, and other multilateral organizations;• Expanding national support among policymakers for MDGs (e.g., creation of the House Committee on MDGs, issuance of EO on the MDGs);• Prioritization of MDGs in resource allocation (e.g., focusing of MTPIP investments on MDGs)• Increasing awareness and participation of private sector, LGUs in MDG-related programs
Hindering Factors• Resource constraints (i.e., MDG financing gap of about $1.5 billion yearly);• Lack of support by creditors for the Debt for MDG Projects/Debt for Equity in MDG Projects initiative;• Low budgetary priority for MDGs accorded by some LGUs; and• Lack of disaggregated data to monitor MDGs at local levels.
Parallel Initiatives Participation in the High-Level Plenary Meeting on MDGs Formulation of the Plan of Action for Poverty Reduction (2006-2010) Enhance the current Poverty Reduction Strategy and Program Framework Advocacy for the Philippine proposal on Debt for Equity in MDG Projects
Implications on the Philippine EconomyMDG attainment would require:• Enhanced revenue generation;• LGU, private sector and civil society support;• Expansion of microfinance services for the poor;• Pursuit of projects with high economic impact;• Right-sizing the bureaucracy;• Privatization; and• Tapping OFW remittances.