Reinventing the Naga City School Board

Reinventing the Naga City School Board

Improving education outcomes

Outline

Our journey to improve basic education

Where we are 3 years henceGetting there: 3-Year Local

Education Plan HighlightsLessons Learned

Reinventing the Naga City School Board

Conceived to make the local school board a vehicle for improving the public school system by promoting governance reforms and building stakeholdership at the local level

Guiding Principle No. 1

Education is a shared community responsibility– Impelled by reality that our nation

cannot depend on a central government agency alone to revive the basic public education system

– DepEd must partner with local communities, led by their respective local governments, to address this task

Guiding Principle No. 2

Shared responsibility must be twinned with shared accountability among public school stakeholders – Means (a) defining roles in the effort to

improve the quality of basic education, and (b) consistently reviewing performance of these roles

– Implies the need for provincial, city and municipal schools divisions and districts to be more open towards engaging with its partners

– Calls for creating mechanisms that will support more meaningful engagement and allow these partnerships to flourish

Problems facing Public Schools Deteriorating quality of basic education General lack of awareness about the current state of

public education among stakeholders Weak mechanisms for meaningful parent

participation in the education of their children Weak “soft infrastructure” support (textbooks,

reference materials, continuing professional development, etc.) to facilitate the learning process

Underperforming City School Board that has been reduced to a mere budgeting agency for local education funds

Weak local involvement and participation in the delivery of public education services

Weak planning and budgeting practices and processes that contribute to inefficient and ineffective use of local education funds, and

Lack of transparency and accountability in the administration of the public school system.

Comparative Performance2005 National Achievement Test (Bicol Region)ELEMENTARY (Grade VI)Division English Science Math Total RankIriga City 71.33% 64.56% 69.41% 68.43% 1Naga City 62.15% 57.12% 61.01% 60.10% 2Catanduanes 61.35% 56.97% 61.44% 59.92% 3Camarines Norte 60.78% 55.75% 61.49% 59.34% 4Sorsogon 58.19% 53.65% 55.30% 55.71% 5Masbate 54.86% 50.08% 56.56% 53.83% 6Tabaco City 56.34% 49.58% 50.62% 52.18% 7Camarines Sur 51.80% 48.01% 51.43% 50.41% 8Sorsogon City 52.18% 47.90% 50.01% 50.03% 9Albay 51.71% 46.67% 49.66% 49.35% 10Masbate City 52.39% 46.38% 47.77% 48.85% 11Legaspi City 50.13% 45.68% 45.94% 47.25% 12Ligao City 45.10% 40.83% 40.81% 42.25% 13

SECONDARY (4th Year)Division English Science Math Total RankNaga City 60.61% 44.28% 58.79% 54.56% 1Catanduanes 55.63% 42.87% 59.70% 52.73% 2Sorsogon City 54.00% 48.31% 53.85% 52.05% 3Masbate 47.26% 34.85% 45.51% 42.54% 4Tabaco City 49.53% 32.06% 45.26% 42.28% 5Masbate City 47.82% 34.04% 43.81% 41.89% 6Sorsogon 45.12% 35.68% 44.80% 41.87% 7Camarines Norte 46.79% 33.63% 44.07% 41.50% 8Legaspi City 47.59% 34.20% 37.92% 39.90% 9Albay 44.69% 33.24% 41.50% 39.81% 10Iriga City 46.20% 31.17% 40.93% 39.43% 11Camarines Sur 42.82% 31.98% 40.11% 38.30% 12Ligao City 43.45% 29.61% 38.43% 37.16% 13

TIMSS* Results, 1999*Trends in International Math and Science Survey

43.12

61.00

71.12

43.12

60.88

75.50

TIMSS* Results, 2003*Trends in International Math and Science Survey

47.25

58.25

75.62

59.12

72.25

47.12

The Naga City School Board

JESSE M. ROBREDOCity Mayor - Chairman

NENITA L. RAMOSSuperintendent – Co-Chairman

MILA RAQUID S. ARROYOSP EdCom Chair - Member

SOLOMON SALESNACITEA President – Member

ALLEN L. REONDANGACity SKF President - Member

ABNER PARDIÑASCity PTA League President – Member

RODRIGO C. BELLEZACity Treasurer - Member

MA. FELICITAS SANTIAGONon-teaching Personnel President – Member

Legal basis: Sections 98-101, Title IV, Book I

Republic Act No. 7160 (The Local Government Code of the Philippines)

Traditional vs. Empowered School Board

TRADITIONAL EMPOWERED Functions: Budgeting Authorized SEF

disbursement Advisory, i.e. change in

name of public schools Endorse promotion of

education officials

Functions: Capacity building Performance measurement Resource mobilization and

allocation Procurement of SEF-funded

services (teachers, instructional materials)

Promoting participation Policymaking

Organization & Membership Eight-man board loaded in

favor of LGU

Organization & Membership Eight-man board (with voting

rights) Non-voting representatives

(NCPC, private schools, business chamber, media)

Naga Governance Model

Good Urban Governance

a function of leadership which local administration must provide. Seeks to build prosperity for the community at large

Progressiveperspective

enables city to tap community resources, multiplying capability and enabling it to overcome resources constraints

ensures long-term sustainability by generating broad-based stakeholdership and community ownership over local undertakings

Partnership Participation

Broad Strategies PRINCIPLE STRATEGY OUTCOME(S)

Progressive perspective

“HOME RULE” aka THE HALF-FULL GLASS

What the law does not expressly prohibits, it allows

A proactive school board that functions beyond merely providing additional budgeting support to DepEd:

Participative planning and budgeting Divisionwide achievement testing Performance-based teacher

incentives More transparent teacher

recruitment

THE BUDGET IS KEY

The School Board budget provides basis for activities that go beyond current laws on the LSB

2002-05 budgets were crafted with strong stakeholder participation

Budgetary provision for hiring locally-funded high school teachers paved way for teacher recruitment reforms

School board budgets authorize conduct of divisionwide pre-testing and post-testing. Results serve as basis for additional teacher incentives

Partnerships ROLE DEFINITION

Setting of rules of engagement minimizes potential conflicts

Operating principles:DepEd has mandate to provide basic education

City Hall gets involved because it is accountable for the Special Education Fund (SEF)

As taxpayers, local communities have right to demand quality basic education

RESOURCE COMPLE-MENTATION

Attains synergy: “The whole is greater than the sum of its parts”

City Hall: augmentation funding for public schools, expertise in governance

DepEd: operating funds for public schools, expertise in education

Local communities:oAdditional funding for school

and class-based projects and activities

oNGOs provide specialized services, particularly in alternative learning systems

Partnerships SPECIALIZATION Moving towards one’s core competencies

DepEd, partner academic institutions: core competency is education

City Hall: core competency is governance

Key is for City Hall to influence DepEd to embrace governance reforms in

o Transparency and accountability

o Planning and budgeting, ando Teacher recruitment

Participation GREATER STAKEHOLDER-SHIP

In all key aspect of project management

o SA – situation analysis

o PI – planning and implementation

o ME – monitoring and evaluation

More accurate needs assessment

More reliable, updated dataMore responsive budget, programs, projects and activities (PPAs)

Multi-level, multi-stakeholder performance review

o By school, at city levelo By sector (teacher, principal,

parents)

Key Accomplishments, 2002-04INVESTED MORE THAN P100 MILLION TO PROMOTE: QUALITY 1:1 textbook, workbook-student ratio in core subjects bridging

DepEd shortfall Standardization of quality instruction through printed lesson

plans. Annual localized pre-testing and post-testing. Transparent recruitment for the best teachers (close to 80 locally

funded teachers) Manageable class size (45) IT Programs (CLICK, Youth Tech

ACCESS, PCs for Public H/S, Computer Achievement Test, Teachers Training)

Significant improvements in achievement levels

ACCESS Standardization of school fees Sanggawadan extends assistance to 1,281 children and 1,281

parents to ensure stay of children in classrooms

STAKEHOLDERSHIP School Empowerment Fund PTCA – School Governance Boards

CAN IT WORK?Naga’s Academic Achievement Gains

Improvements are in line with “Low” (6%) and “High” (9%) annual target under the city’s education plan for the next 3 years

A qualified “yes” – depending on validity and reliability of testing. Cross-referencing with third-party testing. To be negotiated with DepEd

COMPARATIVE NATIONAL ACHIEVEMENT TESTNaga City Schools Division, 1999-2005

Level 1999 2000 2004 2005Elementary 32.07 38.10 50.58 60.10

% Point Improvement 6.03 12.48 9.51 Secondary 37.26 47.09 48.31 54.56

% Point Improvement 9.83 1.22 6.25

Our short-term directions Quality public education as a

partnership between– Parents (individual and PTCA)– Students– School and community (incl DepEd, City Hall,

Barangay Council, other community stakeholders

One hour study time at home every day – after school hours

Homeroom PTA meetings to discuss students’ academic progress, not school contributions

“Brigada Basa” reading program Focused feeding program to address

nutrition problems of those in need

Sustaining gainsfor the long term Bring governance reforms to the

community level Deepen gains at the city level Reduce class size Optimize use of education investments,

assets and resources Pursue other measures:

– Strengthen local capability for testing– Assess teacher proficiency as basis for

continuing professional development– Establish high schools close to urban poor

communities, i.e. Pacol, Del Rosario

Community governance Anchored on proposed school

governance board that will be established in each school

The board will– Formulate 3-year school development plan– Assess resources, validate needs and

approve annual school budget– Review annual school performance– Monitor progress of school programs,

projects activities Its establishment may be legislated by

the Sangguniang Panlungsod

Composition

• Barangay captain • School head

• Faculty and Employees Association president• PTCA president • PTCA treasurer

• PTCA parent representative • Barangay committee on education chair

• Sangguniang Kabataan chair• Barangay People’s Council representative

• Student council president

Board to elect its chairman from its members

School head – chief executive officer

Potential fund sources (Per annum)

School empowerment fund

P100,000 per school

P3.5 million citywide

DepEd MOOE Around P95,000 per school


Barangay SK Fund

Around P163,000 per barangay


Barangay Development Fund

Around P327,000 per barangay


Deepening gains

School-level targeting anchors the proposed 3-year local education plan

City schools divided into five sub-groups according to achievement level. Annual target decreases as achievement level increases

Has four scenarios:– “Do-nothing” adopts the 2% annual percentage

point increase being targeted by the Naga schools division

– “Low” targets a 6% average increase annually– “Medium” targets a 7.5% average increase

annually– “High” targets a 9% average increase annually

A story of timelines This journey (to eventually raise average

achievement to 75%) will take a number of years

But “doing nothing” is not an acceptable option

40.00

45.00

50.00

55.00

60.00

65.00

70.00

75.00

80.00

85.00

1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

Year

Ach

ievem

en

t L

evel

Do-Nothing Low Medium High

Reduce class size Class sizes, and the corresponding cost, differ

under each scenario– Teacher requirement is based on actual sections formed– Cost of each additional teacher is assumed at

P50,000/school year (current budget for a para-teacher)– E/S enrolment is projected to increase 2% annually, H/S

by 5%

ALTERNATIVE SCENARIOSE/S H/S Year 1 Year 2 Year 3 Total Average/Year

Do-Nothing 42 48 (9) 29 31 51 17 (0.46) 1.45 1.55 2.54 0.85

Low 40 45 44 31 32 107 36 2.18 1.57 1.62 5.37 1.79

Medium 35 40 178 36 36 250 83 8.92 1.80 1.78 12.50 4.17

High 30 35 356 40 43 439 146 17.78 2.00 2.17 21.95 7.32

Additional Teacher RequirementProposed Class Size

Cost (P000'000)

Cost (P000'000)

Cost (P000'000)

Cost (P000'000)

Resource optimization Increased budget on teacher hiring means

reducing spending in other mandated and priority areas of the school board– Instructional materials– Funding support for Palaro and similar activities– Capital outlay– Teachers’ COLA (?)

Maximize use of current textbooks, workbooks, lesson plans, etc.

Conduct A.M. and P.M. classes in congested schools to optimize current classroom capacity– There is also need for a DepEd policy statement

supporting the setting of enrolment limit based on the locally adopted target class size

Resource sharingFactor/Scenario Do-Nothing Low Medium High Additional teachers

• DepEd (7, P0.7M)

• City Schl Board (10, P0.5M)

• DepEd (10, P1M) • City Schl Board

(13, P0.65M) • Schl Gov Boards

(6, P0.3M) • Bgys (4, P0.2M) • SKs (2, P0.1M)



(16, P0.8M) • Bgys (11,

P0.55M) • SKs (5, P0.25M)



(29, P1.45M) • Bgys (19,

P0.95M) • SKs (10, P0.5M)

New Classrooms (New Elementary and High Schools)

DepEd (4) DepEd (6) DepEd (8) DepEd (10)

Repair and Maintenance

City Schl Board (P2M)

City Schl Board (P1M) Schl Gov Boards (P1M)

Capability Building on Testing

Tap local academic institutions

DepEd-NERTC Local academic institutions

Staff Development

Subject to availability of training opportunities

DepEd Local academic institutions Private training institutions

Maintenance and Operations

City School Board (P1M)

Division of City Schools (P3.3M) Schl Gov Boards (P1.1M)

Summing up We cannot improve what we do not

measure. This impels the need for – setting higher but doable targets, and – developing local testing capabilities to

accurately measure progress To increase ROI, we need to

– optimize use of existing education resources

– refocus use of available funding towards high-impact initiatives, e.g. reduction of class size

Share resources, responsibility and accountability with other stakeholders, particularly at the community level

An Emerging Paradigm Shift

The push towards decentralization

Highly centralized structure for delivery of public education

Less centralized structure for delivery of public education

Decentralized delivery of public education services

DECS DepEd “Principal empowerment” School-based management

Reinventing the Naga City

School Board

Greater community involvement

Bigger LGU role in service delivery

Lessons Learned Local education reform can be done in

the context of current legal framework LSBs are the most logical vehicle for

local education reform owing to its legal mandate under the Code

Shared responsibility goes together with shared accountability

Broad-based stakeholdership enhances outcomes by serving as entry points for greater and more meaningful stakeholder participation

Reinventing the Naga City School Board

Documents

Transcript of Reinventing the Naga City School Board