Asia-South Pacific Education Watch

Philippines: Summary Report

Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups
in Education
About Asia South Pacific
Education Watch Initiative
The critical state and ailing condition of education in many
countries in Asia-South Pacific region compels serious and urgent
attention from all education stakeholders.
Centuries of neglect, underinvestment in education, corrup-
tion, and inefficiency by successive governments in the countries
of the region have left a grim toll in poor education performance
marked by low school attendance and survival rates, high dropout
and illiteracy rates, and substandard education quality.
Moreover, there are glaring disparities in access to education
and learning opportunities: hundreds of millions of impover-
ished and disadvantaged groups which include out-of-school chil-
dren and youth, child workers, children in conflict areas, women,
ethnic minorities, persons with disabilities, dalit caste and other
socially discriminated sectors, remain largely unreached and ex-
cluded by the education system.
Hence they are denied their fundamental human right to edu-
cation and hindered from availing of the empowering and trans-
formative tool of quality, life-long learning that could have
equipped them to realize their full human potential, uplift their
living conditions, and participate meaningfully in governance and
in decisions that affect their lives.

At Midway: Failing Grade in EFA

In the year 2000, governments and the international commu-
nity affirmed their commitment to quality Education for All
(EFA) and Millenium Develoment Goals (MDGs). Midway to
target year 2015, government assessments of EFA progress re-
veal that education gaps and disparities persist, and education
conditions may even be worsening as indicated by shortfalls and
reversals in EFA achievement.
The landmark year 2007 therefore presents a timely opportu-
nity for civil society networks to engage governments in address-
ing the unmet EFA goals and MDG education targets, especially
for disadvantaged groups.

Real World Strategies

Spurred by the challenge of pushing for accelerated progress
towards EFA, the Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Educa-
tion (ASPBAE) and the Global Campaign for Education (GCE)
launched the Real World Strategies (RWS) programme to under-
take realistic and practical initiatives based on the actual condi-
tions, experiences, and aspirations of people in communities.

(Continued on inside back cover)

 Philippines: Summary Report
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups
in Education

2007
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

ISBN 81-278-0021-X
Philippines: Summary Report
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

© 2007, Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education (ASPBAE)

The Asian South Pacific Bureau of Adult Education

iv (ASPBAE) is a regional association of organisations and individuals
working towards promoting quality education for all and
transformative and liberating, life-long adult education and
learning. It strives to forge and sustain an Asia-Pacific movement
dedicated to mobilizing and supporting community and people’s
organizations, national education coalitions, teachers unions,
campaign networks, and other civil society groups and institutions
in holding governments and the international donor community
accountable in meeting education targets and commitments,
ensuring the right of all to education, and upholding education as
an empowering tool for combating poverty and all forms of
exclusion and discrimination, pursuing sustainable development,
enabling active and meaningful participation in governance, and
building a culture of peace and international understanding.

ASPBAE publications form an integral part of ASPBAE’s

information, education, and advocacy activities and efforts, and
seek to support sharing and learning among education
stakeholders, advocates, practitioners, analysts, and policy-makers.
The reader is therefore encouraged to use the material contained
herein for reproduction, adaptation, and translation worldwide for
use in nonprofit education and information activities and
publications, with due acknowledgement to ASPBAE, and to
provide feedback that could help in further improving these
publications.
Contents

1 A. Education Watch Initiative

3 B. Key Find ings of the Study

3 1. Gaps and Reversals in Basic Education

7 2. Persisting Disparities

11 3. The Gender Dimension

13 4. Socio-Pol itical Inequities v

Create Disparities in Education

Philippines
16 5. Education Financing

17 C. Pol icy Recommendations

Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

Executive Editorial Board:

Maria Lourdes Almazan Khan
Secretary General, ASPBAE
Bernard Lovegrove
vi Programme Manager, ASPBAE
Raquel Castillo
Asia Advocacy and Campaigns Coordinator,
Real World Strategies for Education for All, ASPBAE/GCE

Policy Group:
Rene Raya, Lead Policy Analyst
Darmiyanti Muchtar, South East Asia Policy Analyst
Aruna Anand, South Asia Policy Analyst
Grant Harrison, South Pacific Policy Analyst

National Coordinator, Philippines:

Cecilia V. Soriano
Civil Society Network for Education Reforms
(E-Net Philippines)

Publications Group:
Sylvia de Guzman, Writer
Luz Rimban, Editor
Michael Garcia, Layout Artist
Federico ‘Boy’ Dominguez, Cover Designer/Illustrator
Philippines: Summary Report
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups
in Education

P
ublic education in the Philippines has been deteriorating
since the 1980s. The country has had six Secretaries of the
Department of Education (DepEd) since the World
Education Forum in Dakar in 2000, and all of them have
introduced initiatives to reverse the decline. The interventions
focused mostly on the schools, with marginal results. Little attention
went to the learning needs of almost one-third of the school-age
population who are not in school, and to adults denied basic education.

1
A. Education Watch Initiative

Philippines
The Civil Society Network for Education Reforms (E-Net Philippines),
a network of organizations pushing for Education for All, believes that
years of underinvestment and neglect of the public education system
have caused the country’s dismal education performance. This critique
provided a framework for engaging with DepEd and the Legislature,
specifically in lobbying for increased investments for education targeting
the marginalized, excluded and vulnerable groups. But it did not apply to
principals, teachers and civil society organizations already implementing
and innovating education programmes on the ground. There was also a
need to formulate an approach toward local government (LGU) officials
responsible for the needs of those who are missing out on education. E-
Net Philippines realized the importance of generating updated data at
the barangay (village) and municipal (town) levels and scrutinizing the
reasons many children and youth are not in school.
The need for updated data to guide national and local advocacy
gave birth to Education Watch, a collaboration between Asian South
Pacific Bureau of Adult Education (ASPBAE) and E-Net Philippines, to
map out the disadvantaged sectors in education. Conceptualized in
 March 2006, Education Watch culminated in a public launch in
September 2007. It is a citizen-based assessment at the midpoint of the
Education for All campaign in the Philippines seeking to establish
baseline data, determine the magnitude of education deficits, analyze
the underlying causes of deprivation, monitor changes over time, and
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

identify factors that can account for changes in the education

performance until 2015. It is designed to inform policy, formulate well-
targeted programs and identify and locate beneficiaries to effectively
reach out to children missing out on education.
The study was undertaken at three levels:
1) National Monitoring. The monitoring compiled available data to
assess the magnitude of the education gaps at the national
level. Data at this level came from official censuses, surveys and
administrative reports of various national agencies.
2) Local Area Surveys. The surveys generated village and town
level data on key education indicators. Four areas were selected
purposively based on geographic location, the presence of
partners in the local areas and the cooperation of the local
government units. The areas covered by the survey were located
in the highly urbanised Quezon City and in three provinces
where agriculture is the major economic activity: Negros
2 Occidental, Northern Samar, and Benguet. These local surveys
aimed to get a snapshot of the local education situation and
substantiate the education trends at the national level.

Education Watch
Enumerators’
Training Workshop
conducted in
Toboso, Negros
Occicental on 26
April 2006 in
preparation for the
local survey
covering four
barangays of the
municipality
 3. Case Studies. Four case studies were done on marginalised
sectors: two on indigenous peoples in Pampanga and South
Cotabato provinces, one on child laborers in sugarcane
plantations and one on the plight of children in armed conflict
areas in Maguindanao.

B. Key Findings of the Study

1. Gaps and Reversals in Basic Education

E-Net Philippines’ local Education Watch survey showed that 81.1%
of children 6 to 11 years old were attending primary school while only
55.8% of children 12 to 15 years old were attending high school (See
Table 1). This indicates that a huge number of children were either out
of school or were in levels not corresponding to their ages. In the
Philippines, the officially prescribed school age is 6 to 11 years old for
primary level and 12 to 15 for secondary level.
The study found that some 60% of students lagged by one to two
years while another 12% were behind their school levels by at least 3
three years. Some 11.2% of children 6 to 11 years old were still in pre-
school; 35.4% of children 12 to 15 years old were still in elementary;

Philippines
and 52.5% among the 16- to 19-year-old age group were still in high
school while 3% were still in the elementary level.
The study also noted that a significant number of children were

Education Watch Local Survey Key Indicators

Participation Rate (Primary) 81.1%

Gross Enrolment Rate (Primary) 101.3%
Participation Rate (Secondary) 55.8%
Gross Enrolment Rate (Secondary) 83.7%
ECE Attendance Rate (3-5 yrs. old) 29.7%
School Age Population (6-24 yrs. old)
Attending School 72.3%
Not Attending School 27.7%
Educational Attainment (6 yrs. Up)
No Grade Completed 4.4%
Primary Level 40.3% Table 1. Enrolment
Secondary Level 36.3% rates in various
Tertiary Level or Higher 19.3% levels based on
Mean Duration of Schooling Education Watch’s
7.3 Yrs.
Local Area Survey
 already late in starting school. These are children over 6 years old who
have not started primary school. Late entrants are usually at risk. Many
never make it to school or drop out early to work to help in the
family’s livelihood or when they reach puberty and are ridiculed in
school. The dropout rate among late entrants tends to be higher than
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

among children who started schooling on time.

Participation in early childhood education (ECE) is low in areas
covered by the survey. Only about 30 percent of the children 3 to 5
years old were attending pre-school. The study noted that day care
centers were far from some barangays surveyed; other barangays had
no access to day care centers at all.
A huge number of school-age children and youth do not attend
school. Survey data reported that 27.7% of the 36,187 surveyed
population 6 to 24 years old were not attending school. The proportion
of males not in school is higher at 30% than their female counterparts
at 26%. The survey data also showed that attendance in school
decreases with age. Some 6.7% of children 6 to 11 years old were not
attending school; 11.4% among the 12 to 15 years old were out of
school; and 43.3% among the 16 to 19 years old were out of school.
The survey data also revealed that the average duration of
schooling among those 6 years old and older was 7.3 years. Some 4.4%
4 had not gone to school; 40.3% had at most elementary education;
36.0% reached high school; and 19.3% reached tertiary level.

Education trends at the national level. The findings of the local

survey are validated by official data culled from the DepEd which
reported a consistent decline in the country’s education performance
over the past several years. The elementary participation rate went
down to 84.4% in SY 2005-2006 from 90.1 percent in SY 2001-2002.[1]
Meanwhile, dropout rates remain alarmingly high, posting record levels
in both primary (10.57%) and secondary levels (15.81%). The increasing
fallout of children from the school system explains the low survival and
completion rates, and indicates the weak holding capacity of the public
school system.
The huge number of the out-of-school children and youth
highlights the deteriorating state of basic education in the Philippines
(See Table 2). For 2003, the National Statistics Office (NSO) reported
that of the 34.2 million Filipinos 6 to 24 years old, 11.6 million were
not attending school. This means that one in every three school-age
Filipinos is out-of-school. The Bureau of Alternative Learning System
 National Education Indicators
Performance Statistics (SY2005-06) Primary Secondary
Participation Rate 84.4% 58.2%
Gross Enrolment Rate 101.1% 80.8%
Cohort Survival Rate 58.4% 59.1%
Completion Rate 56.7% 54.1%
Dropout 10.6% 15.8%
ECE Attendance Rate (3-5 years Old) 34.0%
Median Duration of Schooling 6.2 Years
School Age Population (6-24 years old) 34.2 million
Out-of-School 11.6 million
6-11 Age Group 1.84 million
12-15 Age Group 3.94 million
Illiteracy Rate (10-64 years old)
Completely Illiterate 5.2 million
Not Functionally Literate 9.6 million
Not Fully Literate 19.7 million
Number of Child Workers 4.0 million
Number of Street Children 1.5 million
Malnourished School Children 2.49 million

(BALS-DepEd) updated these estimates for Table 2. Education performance

2006 and placed the number of those not statistics and estimated 5
population count of
attending school at 1.84 million for the 6 to 11 disadvantaged children

Philippines
age group and another 3.94 million for the 12
to 15 age group.[2] Given these figures, the Sources: Department of
Philippines has one of the biggest numbers of Education (DepED);
Department of Social Welfare
out-of-school children in Southeast Asia, higher and Development (DSWD);
even than Vietnam and Indonesia in both Food and Nutrition Research
absolute number and relative terms.[3] Institute (FNRI); and National
Statistics Office (NSO)
The Functional Literacy, Education and
Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS) conducted in
2003 further noted that one out of ten Filipinos 10 to 64 years old was
completely illiterate. That means 5.2 million Filipinos cannot read and
write simple words or sentences in any language. The same survey also
noted that 84.1% of Filipinos were functionally literate. This means that
one in six Filipinos or 9.6 million were not functionally literate. More
disturbing is that one in three Filipinos was not fully literate. These are
persons who are able to read and write but who cannot comprehend a
full paragraph consisting of a few sentences.
Between 1994 and 2003, official survey reports noted a slight
improvement in the educational attainment of the working population
15 years and above. This is reflected in the higher percentage of those
 reaching tertiary and higher levels of education in 2003 compared to
the previous survey years. Nonetheless, the improvement is too
marginal and not commensurate to the reported increases in
enrolment over the same period. Even worse is the fact that literacy
levels of Filipinos did not improve at all during the same period.
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

The FLEMMS 2003 reported some more alarming findings about

the quality of education Filipino children get. Nearly 6% of elementary
graduates could not read and write, and only 81.6% among them were
functionally literate or could read, write and compute. Even worse, less
than half or 45.3% were fully literate. Even among those who have had
some high school education, 89.5% were functionally literate and only
57.6% of them were fully literate. These figures show the poor outcome
of basic education in the Philippines: children either drop out before
functional literacy is achieved or continue schooling without learning
enough. The survey results clearly indicate that while Filipinos are
getting more schooled, they have become less literate.
The data culled from the local survey and from national
government statistics show that the Philippines is missing its
Education for All targets. In fact, the government’s midterm
progress report on the Millennium Development Goals (MDG)
noted that Goal No.2 on universal primary education, along with
6 Goal No.5 on Maternal Health, have become the most threatened
among the eight goals.

Poor road conditions

affect the delivery of
educational services in
upland areas of the
Philippines, where
teachers usually report for
work only three times a
week. Remote communities
are hardship posts for
teachers, and they ask to
be reassigned to town
centers after two years of
duty, leaving many upland
schools without teachers.
This photo was taken in a
remote village in Benguet
in Northern Luzon.
2. Persisting Disparities
Local survey data reflect wide disparities in education performance
and achievement across geographic areas and economic status. Table 3
shows a gap between rural and urban areas in terms of educational
attainment of the household population. A higher percentage of the
rural population or 56.4% had at most an elementary level education.
Similarly, more of the urban dwellers had reached tertiary level
education compared to those in rural areas. Among the surveyed areas,
the poor and remote municipalities of Toboso, Capul and Rosario in
Negros Occidental registered the lowest educational attainment. In
contrast, the relatively affluent municipality of La Trinidad had the
highest percentage of residents who had gone to college.
The disparity in educational attainment is also manifested in the
shorter duration of schooling among the rural population. The survey
results noted that urban dwellers tend to stay longer in school compared
to those residing in rural areas. The rural barangays of Toboso town and
Samar province had the lowest mean years of schooling.
The study also noted that a slightly larger proportion of the school-
age population in rural areas was not attending school. Rural residents
were also more at risk of dropping out of school, with a higher 7
percentage among them starting school late and a significant number
over-age by at least three years.

Philippines
Disparity is also noted in preschool attendance rates. The relatively
affluent areas of La Trinidad, Benguet and Quezon City showed that more
children 3 to 5 years old were attending preschool compared to those
children in the more remote municipalities of Toboso, Rosario and Capul.

Education Watch Local Survey

Disparities by Area and Wealth Status
Area Location Wealth Status
Richest Poorest
Urban Rural 20% 20%
School Age Population (6-24 yrs old)
Attending School 73.9% 70.0% 79.5% 67.2%
Not Attending School 26.1% 30.0% 20.5% 32.8%
Educational Attainment (6 yrs. up)
No Grade Completed 3.8% 5.3% 2.5% 7.3%
Primary Level 32.8% 51.1% 27.9% 50.8%
Secondary Level 40.0% 30.2% 39.6% 34.3%
Tertiary Level or Higher 23.4% 13.4% 30.1% 7.6%

Mean Duration of Schooling 8.0 Yrs. 6.6 Yrs. 7.5 Yrs. 6.0 Yrs.

Table 3. Local survey data reflecting disparities in education performance and achievement
across geographic areas and economic status
 Poverty is weighing down heavily on the education of Filipino
children. Survey informants revealed that the main reasons children
were dropping out or not attending school were economic and
poverty-related, as seen in Figure 1. Over half mentioned the high cost
of education, financial constraints and seeking of employment as the
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

main reason for dropping out of school. Some respondents (2.9%)

mentioned accessibility factors such as distance and lack of
transportation. These respondents live in remote and isolated areas
where the poverty incidence is usually high. It is also significant that a
higher percentage of those who mentioned housekeeping chores,
difficulty in coping with school work and illness or disability belonged
to the poorer section of the population.
The survey documented the incidence of child labor with a number
of children as young as 8 to 12 years old having to drop out of school
to look for jobs and to work. Children are also being pulled out of
school to attend to housekeeping chores and to help in the farms and
the family’s livelihood.
The study identified disadvantaged groups among the household
population covered by the survey. They consist of the out-of-school
children, 6 to 17 years old; the youth, 18 to 24 years old who had at
most elementary education; and the illiterate and poorly educated
8 adults, 25 to 64 years old. In the survey areas, the disadvantaged
children and youth total 4,215 or 11.54% of the relevant age group,
while the disadvantaged adults are estimated at 11,000 or 32.22% of
the population 25 to 64 years old.

Education Watch Local Survey

Reasons for not Attending School
High cost of Education 2307
1834
Financial Constraints 1229
Early Marriage/Pregnancy 515
369
Illness/Disability 313
308
263
Lack of Personal Interest 201
Others 1770
0 500 1000 1500 2000 2500

Figure 1. Reasons given by respondents for

dropping out or for not attending school
 The disadvantaged groups cut
across gender and geographic areas.
They are found in all barangays
covered by the survey. Nonetheless,
the survey yielded significant
disparities. A higher proportion of
disadvantaged children and youth
were found in rural communities,
many in areas without access to
electricity, without sanitary toilet
facilities and where safe drinking
water has to be fetched 250 meters
from where they live.

Chances of returning to school. Survey respondents aged 6 to 24 who

dropped out of school, were asked if they have plans of going back to
school. Positive responses were inversely proportional to age. The
longer the time spent away from school, the more difficult it is for the
children to return to school.
In the surveyed area, 22.5% of those not attending school among 9
children and youth aged 6 to 24 have been away from school for only a
period of at most two years. A proactive intervention requires

Philippines
immediate identification to enable educators to reach out to these
children and youth. Intervention programs should consider the length
of time the students have been away from school. The approach to
those who have left school for a shorter time may differ from those
who have been away from school for several years already.
The survey also inquired into attendance in training programs.
Survey data reveal that participation rate in existing training programs
is low: only 10 % of those aged 10 to 64 years old attended training,
mostly on livelihood. This is similar to the findings of a national survey
(FLEMMS 2003), which noted that only 9% of respondents aged 10 to
64 years took part in a training program, also mostly related to
livelihood. Only a small number had any training in literacy, livelihood,
skills development and other learning endeavors. Only very few from
the poorest segments of the population attended such trainings.

Disparity trends at the national level. Again, the findings of the local
survey are supported by available data culled from government
national surveys and administrative agencies.
 The huge number of the out-of-school children particularly among
the poor, the malnourished, those with disabilities and children
coming from ethnic minority groups highlights the persisting
inequities in access to basic education. The FLEMMS 2003 reported
the high incidence of out-of-school youth in the depressed regions of
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

Mindanao and the Visayas, as well as in the thickly populated regions

of Luzon, specifically the National Capital Region, Calabarzon and
Central Luzon. Similarly, the 2003 Nutrition Survey reported that
some 2.49 million school children 6 to 10 years old were
underweight. The same survey also revealed that the poor comprise
the largest group at risk of or already suffering from nutritional
deficiencies and food insecurity. Poor nutrition has been identified as
a leading reason children drop out of school particularly during the
first three grades of formal education. Moreover, poor nutrition is
often associated with poor performance in school.
The incidence of disability is likewise high among school-age
children. Disability is a major factor depriving children of access to
education even if guarantees exist on the right of the disabled child to
special care, education and training. The 2000 census reported that,
nationwide, there were 845,676 disabled people. A little less than half
of them or 44.38% achieved elementary level of education while
23.56% have never attended formal education. The educational
10 attainment of persons with disabilities is consistently lower compared
to the achievement level of the average Filipino.
Literacy status also reflects
similar disparities across
regions and across income
groups. In general, higher
incidence of illiteracy is noted
among the poor and in high
poverty areas across the
country.
Poverty forces children to
leave and stay out of school
to work, look for jobs and
help in the family livelihood.
The National Statistics Office
revealed that in 2001, there
were more than four million
working children aged 5 to 17
years old. Majority of them
(70%) were residing in the rural areas numbering 2.8 million. Large
populations of working children were found in highly populated
regions and in depressed areas of the country.[4]
Of the more than four million working children in the country, 2.65
million were attending school while 1.26 million were not. That means
one out of three working children was not attending school. Working
male children are two times more likely to drop out compared to
working females. The physical and mental strain of working exacts a
heavy toll on those who continue to study. Some 44.8% of the young
working students admitted that they had difficulty doing both at the
same time. The most common problems encountered were difficulty in
catching-up with the lessons, low grades, absenteeism and tardiness.[5]
Street children, on the other hand, are one of the most visible victims
of exclusion. The Department of Social Welfare and Development
(DSWD) estimates a total of 222,417 street children in 65 major cities in
the country (1998), most of them not attending school.[6]
It is also important to note that parents’ education impacts
significantly on school attendance of their children.
Persisting disparities in education access and outcome reflect the
prevailing inequities in Philippine society. The poor and the 11
disadvantaged are still being left out, thus, threatening the

Philippines
achievement of the Education for All (EFA) goals.

3. The Gender Dimension

Data culled from the Education Watch local survey, from official
national surveys and from the Department of Education consistently
show that females perform better than males in nearly all key
education indicators. Participation rate is higher among females and
they tend to survive longer in school compared to males of the same
age bracket. More males drop out of school and more of the male
children are working.
Females tend to be more literate and stay longer in school
compared to males. More women had attended college and higher
education (20.4%) and fewer women had no formal education (7.2%). In
comparison, males tended to have shorter duration of schooling while
only 17.9% had attended college and higher education and 8% have
had no formal schooling.
Females performed better than males in both urban and rural areas
and in all the regions of the country including Muslim Mindanao. These
 Gender Disparities in Education
Male Female

School Age Population (6-24 yearr old)1

Attending School 70.32% 74.33%
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

Not Attending School 29.68% 25.67%

Performance Statistics in Primary Education
(Public Schools, SY2005-06) 2
Participation Rate 72.87% 74.17%
Gross Enrolment Rate 89.84% 87.81%
Cohort Survival Rate 58.20% 67.51%
Completion Rate 56.35% 66.37%
Dropout Rate 1.73% 0.96%
Educational Attainment (6 years. up) 3
No Grade Completed 9.40% 8.60%
Primary Level 41.40% 38.70%
Secondary Level 31.30% 32.30%
Tertiary Level or Higher 14.80% 17.90%
Mean Duration of Schooling 1 7.1 Years 7.6 Year
1
Disadvantaged Children and Youth 65.00% 35.00%
Percent of Out of School among Primary 19.30% 16.90%
School Aged Children 4

1
Education Watch Local Survey Table 4. Data from various sources showing
12 2

3
Department of Education (DepEd)
National Statistics Office (NSO)
females performing better than males based on
key education indicators
4
UNESCO Institute of Statistics (UIS)

findings are fairly consistent across years as seen in Table 4 which

shows data from national surveys conducted in the last 15 years.
Notwithstanding these accomplishments, females continue to be
discriminated in and outside school. It must be stressed that gender
equality in education is not simply a question of parity measured by
the number of girls relative to the number of boys in school. In this
study, persisting discrimination is manifested in the reasons for
dropping out of school, in gender stereotyping in school, and in
education outcome.
Both the local and national surveys showed that housekeeping
chores, including taking care of younger siblings, are mainly the
responsibility of girls and young women. It is the second biggest factor
causing dropouts among females, while it is hardly a factor among
males. Discrimination is also manifested in the significant number of
females dropping out and eventually quitting school due to pregnancy
and early marriage.
 On the other hand, more males dropped out of school due to
employment-related concerns. It is significant to note that gender
differences in education accomplishment is influenced by economic
and employment factors. More males among the poor section of the
population are more likely to be pulled out of school to earn a living
and help in the family’s livelihood.
It is important to scrutinize the Philippines’ gender parity in
education. According to Quisumbing, “In the Philippines, parents may
be investing more in women’s education as women’s non-farm work
opportunities have expanded and women experience an increase in
wages.”[7] Indeed, this insight is substantiated by the increase through
time of women working abroad. Kanlungan, a non-government
organization working on migrant issues, says 73% of the overseas
contract workers from the Philippines are women involved in domestic
work, entertainment and the hotel industry. In Mindanao, teachers say
that girls who are not even 18 years old get recruited to work in the
Middle East as helpers. Thus, the necessity for girls to be educated —
they at least have to be able to read, write, compute and communicate
in English.
On the domestic labor market, women’s labor force participation 13
rate (LFPR) still lags behind men’s. In the October 2002 Labor Force
Survey, women’s LFPR was 51.7% while men’s was 80.8%. There could

Philippines
be two explanations for this: The education and high performance of
girls in schools do not necessarily prepare them for the rigors of work,
and women are still discriminated in the hiring process. The kind of
work being offered Filipinas abroad and the lack of opportunities for
women in the domestic market put to test the gender equality
dimensions of the rights-based framework of Philippine education.

4. Socio-Political Inequities Create Disparities in Education

Economic hardship is but one dimension in the lives of people in
marginal communities where E-Net Philippines made its case studies.
Other socio-political situations that impinge on education access and
quality are:
ƒ The absence of proactive efforts to reach out to indigenous
groups coupled with a lack of recognition of diverse
multicultural indigenous knowledge systems and prevalence of a
standardised curriculum, thereby depriving indigenous children
and adults of relevant quality education;
ƒ School policies that further marginalise cash-strapped marginal
 communities, and school governance lacking rigor;
ƒ Traditions and cultural beliefs and practices that favor men,
making women and children the most vulnerable groups;
ƒ Access to services highly affected by patronage and dependent
on goodwill;
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

ƒ The exclusion of marginalised groups from decision-making

processes that affect their lives and failure to provide them with
necessary information to empower them to demand education
for their children; and
ƒ Armed conflict and community conflicts in the form of feuds
between clans resulting in dislocation, thus affecting access to
education.

The Case of the Indigenous Peoples. The indigenous peoples (IPs)

represent a significant section of the population who are disadvantaged
partly because they live in remote, isolated and upland communities
where access to schools and basic services are limited and difficult.
Indigenous peoples retain their own culture, customs and traditions
and are often discriminated against and abused. They face the constant
threat of losing their land even as they contend with inadequate social
support. There are about 12 million indigenous peoples, of which 2.5
14 million are children 6 to 15 years old. Most of
them are found in the upland communities of
Mindanao and Central and Northern Luzon,
particularly in areas with high poverty
incidence and low education performance. The
2000 Census reported a much lower literacy
level (70%) among IPs compared to the
national average. IP children are
disadvantaged with lower educational
attainment, lower enrolment rates and higher
school dropout rates.
The T’boli, Ayta and Muslims consider it
important for children to learn to read, write
and count, and to study more about their
culture, values and system of self-governance.
But parents hesitate to send their children to
school because of the western and
materialistic orientation of the school system.
Schools hardly integrate indigenous
knowledge and the discussion of local stories,
 Many Filipino indigenous beliefs and customs into the standardized
people do not have access curriculum implemented throughout the
to education. Those who do
have difficulty adjusting to country. The same lesson plans and textbooks
the national school system are used and no indigenous learning
which does not integrate materials are developed and made available
indigenous culture and to the learners. Many educators and those
15
language into the
interviewed recommend skewing the public

Philippines
curriculum. This photo
shows the Ayta respondents education curriculum closer to the needs of
to Participatory Action the students and the community as a whole.
Research conducted in
Pampanga by the Popular A related limitation is the lack of local
teachers competent enough to handle
Education for People’s
Empowerment multicultural teaching approaches. Most of
those deployed in remote areas are the new
and inexperienced teachers who are unfamiliar with indigenous culture
and life ways. They tend to be biased and to treat children from
indigenous communities as inferior. Parents complain that their
children tend to be ashamed of their identity and look down on
themselves and their parents as inadequate.
Parents also complain about the frequent absences and tardiness of
teachers who usually report for work only three days instead of the
regular five days a week. Teachers, on the other hand, complain about
being away from their families, the low salary they receive and the
difficultly of traveling through unsafe roads without adequate
transportation. These teachers usually ask to be transferred to schools
conveniently located in or near town centers, after two or three years’
assignment in remote indigenous communities.
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

The use of the national language as the medium of instruction

makes learning more difficult for indigenous children. Teachers usually
do not speak the local language and are unable to explain lessons to
most students who are used to thinking through concepts in their own
language. The language barrier thus prevents students from
communicating and performing confidently in schools.
The study covered an indigenous community in Lake Sebu, Central
16 Mindanao, which practices the tradition of early marriage, forcing
young boys and girls to quit school at an early stage. Parents arrange
marriages for their children, especially daughters who could fetch
sizable dowries from wealthy prospective husbands, if negotiations go
well. Some parents consider this a way out of their responsibility of
bringing up daughters, who are allowed to live with their betrothed
partners as early as when they turn eight years old.
Many indigenous communities are also conflict areas where the
lives and education of children are severely affected. In southern
Philippines and Muslim Mindanao, the continuing armed conflict has
displaced tens of thousands of Filipinos, many of them poor children
from remote and upland communities. Armed conflict forces entire
communities to evacuate, disrupting livelihood, community life and
school activities. Children stay out of school for extended periods and
many are forced to quit, given the unstable situation, the closure of
schools, and the distance of schools from resettlement sites. Conflicts
that are rooted in inter-ethnic biases and prejudices lead to
discrimination and fear. Government policies worsen such inequities,
which further marginalise groups along ethnic and religious lines.
 5. Education Financing
The Philippines has been under-spending in basic education. In
1997, national expenditure on basic education was about 3.2% of GDP,
compared to 2.5% in 2001 and 2.1% in 2005. Similarly, per capita
expenditure on basic education in real terms declined from P374 in
1997 to P339 in 2001 and to P282 by 2005 based on 1985 prices.[8]
Similarly, DepEd’s share in the national budget has been shrinking from
15.96% in 1998 to only 11.55% in 2006.9 These figures are way off the
international benchmark set by the UNESCO-Delors Commission which
recommended that education expenditure should be at least 6% of
GNP. This is particularly worrisome because it will take a long time to
catch up after under-investing for too long in education.
Notwithstanding the constitutional guarantee of free and compulsory
basic education, the survey results show that education is not free.
Table 5 shows that education is a major expense for Filipino
households. Apart from tuition fees, families also spend for textbooks,
school supplies, uniforms and school clothes, sports fees, and other
school-related fees and expenses.
While technically no tuition fee is collected, payment comes in
various forms and passes off as voluntary contributions. This explains 17
why many respondents claim to have paid tuition fees even though
their children were actually enrolled in pubic schools.

Philippines
Expenditure varies significantly across areas and by type of schools,
by level and by income group. As expected, the cost of private
education is significantly higher than state-provided education.

Education Watch Local Survey

Average Annual per Student Cost of Education
by Level and Type of School
Pre-School Elementary High School College/Post-Grad
Cost Item Public Private Public Private Public Private Public Private

Total Fees & Direct Cost

(books, workbook, supplies, 1,647 3,706 1,437 6,842 2,473 8,781 10,714 27,442
uniform, sports, others)
Incidental Cost (transportation,
tutor, rentals, other
603 1,020 1,013 2,225 2,773 3,487 6,936 9,070
incidentals, except school
meals)
Total 2,250 4,726 2,450 9,067 5,246 12,268 17,650 36,512
Public:Private Ratio 1:2.10 1:3.70 1:2.34 1:2.07
Table 5. Amounts spent in children’s education every year according to
educational level and type of school
 Private education costs even more in highly
urbanized areas. This observation applies to all
levels of education. In comparison, there is little
variation on the total cost of public education
across the different areas covered by the study.
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

That means that families who send their

children to public schools spend basically the
same amount for school fees and related
expenditure.
The cost of tertiary education is quite high.
This is generally true even in local and state
colleges that enjoy government subsidies.
School fees and other direct costs amount to a
yearly average of P10,714 for public tertiary
schools. The direct cost of private college
education is about three times more, averaging
P27,442 per year.
In comparison, the cost of preschool and basic education is much
cheaper. Nonetheless, even this amount may be too much for poor
families to shoulder especially if there are more than two children in
school. By the time these children reach high school, the additional
18 cost of transportation, meals and supplies constitute a substantial
portion of the family’s daily budget. This is a major reason children
drop out of school, as noted in the survey. The higher cost of tertiary
education partly explains the relatively small number of students
reaching college level.

C. Policy Recommendations
The Philippines is losing out on all its EFA indicators except for
gender parity. While the DepED hopes that reforms would enable the
country to meet its EFA targets by 2015, the national government is
not as hopeful. In its progress report on the Millennium Development
Goals (MDG), it reported a failure in the MDG 2 target on universal
primary education and admitted that it is unlikely that the country will
be able to make good on its 2015 commitment. Ironically, the
government expressed confidence that it will achieve its poverty
eradication target as signaled by the decline in the proportion of
people living in extreme poverty. Clearly, pronouncements on the
bright prospect for the economy alongside the bleak picture for
education indicates the national government’s lackluster effort in
translating economic growth into better education for Filipinos.
 President Gloria Macapagal Arroyo signed in mid-2006 the
Philippine EFA Plan 2015 which carried the slogan “Functional Literacy
for All.” The EFA Plan aspires to deliver targets in Early Child Care and
Development (ECCD), elementary and secondary education as well as
promises to implement an effective Alternative Learning System (ALS)
to address learning needs of out-of-school youth and adults who were
not able to complete basic education in schools. A National EFA
Committee chaired by the DepEd and co-chaired by E-Net Philippines
was put in place in October 2006 to oversee EFA implementation. This
move to reinstate10 an alliance for EFA with government and civil
society at the helm is commendable but requires political will. Moving
into the last quarter of 2007, government agencies tasked to help work
for education have yet to sign the Memorandum of Agreement for the
governance of EFA.
While DepEd has jumpstarted reforms in aid of EFA, the
government has yet to get its act together. The Philippines’ failure in
EFA 1 may repeat itself and be even worse if the Arroyo administration
hesitates to take drastic measures in the years leading to 2015. The
quality of public education has deteriorated to such an alarming level
that the country now ranks among the poorest performers in East Asia.
Its cohort survival rate has fared no better than some of the poorest 19
countries in Africa such as Burkina Faso and Ethiopia. The dismal state

Philippines
of education in public schools and the absence of programmatic and
appropriate learning for disadvantaged adolescents and adults will
result in grave social costs.
To meet the challenges in EFA, E-Net Philippines put forward the
following policy recommendations:
1. Address School Dropouts. Develop a coherent and effective
programme for dropout prevention based on the local situation
and the specific reasons that force children out of school.
Intervention measures must be designed to suit specific grade
levels in both elementary and secondary levels. These include:
ƒ Ensure that children start school at the right age;
ƒ Identify children at risk of dropping out and implement a
pro-active program to mitigate the factors that increase the
pressure on students and families to drop out;
ƒ Make every school accountable for every student dropping
out of school;
ƒ Implement a programme that will encourage children to
return to school as soon as they drop out;
ƒ Implement an effective referral system to keep track of out-
 of-school children and ensure that they are given ample
opportunities to return to school or enlist in alternative
learning programme.
2. Reduce Overall School Cost. Abolish all formal and “informal”
school fees and other forms of contributions, whether
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

mandatory or “voluntary,” stop requiring workbooks that the

poor cannot afford and bring down the costs of additional
projects and activities.
3. Improve quality of education by enforcing current policies
aimed at making learning in schools learner-centered. These
policies include among others, the “70-30” DepEd policy that
endorses integrating local knowledge and learning approaches
in the curriculum, the ban on corporal punishment that ensures
students are protected in schools, and the observance of the
rights of children and youth in schools as embodied in the
Convention on the Rights of the Child.
4. Targeted Scholarships for the Poor and the Disadvantaged.
Implement an expanded scholarship programme for the poor
and disadvantaged groups, including children from indigenous
communities, child workers, street children, the disabled and
severely malnourished, teenage mothers and children affected
20 by armed conflict. Institute pro-poor policies in schools and
provide subsidies for poor families to cover costs of
transportation, school supplies and uniforms.
5. Health and Nutrition. Implement an effective supplementary
feeding and mid-day meal programme within the context of a
comprehensive school-based health and nutrition program.
6. Expand the Alternative Learning System. Expand the literacy
and alternative learning programmes to reach out to more
learners, targeting particularly the poor and hard-to-reach areas,
indigenous peoples’ communities and areas with high dropouts.
Develop the framework, learning strategies and curricula to
ensure appropriate learning and teaching approaches, taking
into consideration the culture, tradition and indigenous
knowledge system.
7. Mobilising Resources for Affirmative Actions for the
Marginalised. The National EFA Committee should push for
education programmes for disadvantaged groups and
consequently affirmative budget allocation for these
 programmes to benefit communities with high education
deficits; mobilise adequate resources for marginalised groups by
ensuring that at least 3% of the education budget is allocated
for literacy, alternative learning and adult education as endorsed
by UNESCO and other international agencies. A proactive
intervention necessitates immediately identifying and reaching
out to these children. The longer the time spent from school,
the more difficult it is for the children to return to school.
8. Increase Investment in Basic Education. Progressively raise the
budget for basic education to reach the international benchmark
of 5% to 6% of GDP in line with the recommendations of
UNESCO and other international agencies.
9. Budget Efficiency. Implement an effective budget and
expenditure tracking in the education sector to monitor fund
utilization and assess the effectiveness of programs and projects
implemented. This will ensure that every peso is spent
judiciously and effectively to achieve maximum impact, avoid
wastage and corruption, and ensure transparency and
participation in all phases of the budget cycle.
10. Information Access and Disclosure. Adopt a full disclosure 21
policy on information concerning education performance,

Philippines
budget and financial transactions, organisation and personnel
and specific projects, and policies.
11. Strengthen Participation in Education Governance. Expand
and strengthen the Local School Board (LSB) to improve
participation, transparency and accountability. Ensure active
participation of parents, communities and civil society
organizations in planning, Special Education Fund (SEF)
budgeting and decision-making. People’s participation should
be institutionalised for education planning and decision-making
in schools and education programmes implemented by the
Government, especially including alternative learning
programmes catering to disadvantaged and marginalised
groups.
 Endnotes
[1] Beginning SY 2002-2003, participation rate was derived based on the
age group consisting of 6-11 years old for elementary and 12-15 years
old for secondary whereas the previous system used 7-12 and 13-16
Mapping Out Disadvantaged Groups in Education

years old for elementary and secondary, respectively. Hence, SY 2002-

2003 data onwards cannot be compared with that of the previous years.
[2] The estimates were generated by Bureau of Alternative Learning System
(BALS), Department of Education based on population growth
projection. These estimates are consistent with the study done by the
UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS) in its global monitoring of out-of-
school children.
[3] UNESCO Institute of Statistics. Children Out of School: Measuring
Exclusion from Primary Education.(2005) Retrieved May 10, 2007 from
the UIS Website: (http://www.uis.unesco.org/template/pdf/educgeneral/
OOSC_EN_WEB_FINAL.pdf).
[4] National Statistics Office. Philippine Survey on Children 2001. (2002)
Retrieved June 14, 2007, from the NSO Website:http://
www.census.gov.ph/data/pressrelease/2002/ch01prtx.html.
[5] National Statistics Office.Children of the Philippines, How many are they,
Factsheet No. 1, citing NSO 2001 Survey on children as source of basic
22 data. Retrieved April 10, 2007, from the NSO Website: http://
www.census.gov.ph/data/sectordata/OC_FactSheet.pdf.
[6] Consortium for Street Children. A Civil Society Forum for East and
South East Asia on Promoting and Protecting the Rights of Street
Children 12-14 March 2003, Bangkok, Thailand. Citing DSWD (1998)
as source of basic data. Retrieved March 10, 2007, from the CSC
Website: http://www.streetchildren.org.uk/reports/southeastasia.pdf.
[7] Quisumbing, Agnes R. Intergenerational transfers in Philippine rice
villages. Gender differences in traditional inheritance customs.(1994,
1997)
[8] Manasan, Rosario. Financing the Millennium Development Goals: The
Philippines, Final Report. (2007) Retrieved April 10, 2007, from the
NSO Website: http://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/ris/dps/pidsdps0706.pdf.
[9] Philippine Mid-Decade Assessment Report. (Department of Education Report
to 8th EFA Meeting in UNESCO, Bangkok). Feb 26 – March 2, 2007.
[10] The government convened a grand alliance for EFA I in 1990– 2000
where civil society was not represented. This inter-agency committee,
however, did not function and left sole responsibility for EFA I to the
then Ministry of Education.
 (Continued from inside front cover)

RWS found the need for pursuing a vigorous, evidence-based

policy advocacy to build shared understanding and rally civil society
organizations (CSOs) around common goals, establish credibility with
opinion-framers and decision-makers, marshal evidence as part of
a systematic strategy to influence policy, and supply missing data on
excluded and unreached sectors. Campaign calls and messages needed
to be supported by credible evidence, based on the real state of
education in communities.

Asia-South Pacific Education Watch Initiative and Publications

These publications are the result of education watch processes
initiated and pursued since 2006 by the RWS programme of ASPBAE
and GCE, in partnership with national education coalitions from
India, Pakistan, Bangladesh, Nepal, Sri Lanka, Philippines, Indone-
sia, Cambodia, Solomon Islands, and Papua New Guinea.
Building on the successful Education Watch model implemented
by CAMPE in Bangladesh, the Asia-South Pacific Education Watch
(EdWatch) was designed and coordinated by the RWS Steering Com-
mittee composed of ASPBAE, Education International, and
GlobalMarch Against Child Labor, and the RWS Asia Pacific staff.
EdWatch has emerged as an independent, citizen-based moni-
toring mechanism for assessing the status of education at the re-
gional, national, and local levels, providing well-founded bases for
advocacy and education campaign work and strengthening CSO
capacities for policy engagement in education. It is designed to track
governments’ progress in achieving quality education for all, with
focus on addressing the education deficit for disadvantaged sectors.

Challenge to Civil Society

The daunting education situation in the region poses a chal-
lenge to CSOs to sound a clear wake-up call to governments to shake
off their complacency, go beyond rhetoric, summon the political
will, and redouble efforts. There is a crying need to assess existing
education programmes, allocate more funds and resources for edu-
cation, and institute targeted measures to address education disad-
vantage.
Since Dakar 2000, CSO participation in EFA processes has seen
the progressive growth in strength and maturity of national educa-
tion coalitions, and their developing capacity to conduct research
and policy analysis and advocacy. Armed with their EdWatch find-
ings, CSOs and education stakeholders can put together more co-
herent education policy agenda for lobbying, disseminate informa-
tion to enhance public awareness of education issues, effectively
engage governments in education planning and policy-making, and
strongly assert and sharpen CSO and stakeholders’ participation in
education governance at all levels.

– ASPBAE