I.

ABSTRACT
This paper aims to explain the factors affecting the variability of the enrolment rate in
basic education of the Philippines. Using SAS, the enrolment was regressed on 15 variables that
have been initially considered as indicators in the enrolment rate. In coming up with the best
model, the researchers have detected problems with outliers. Remedial measures such as deletion
and transformation of variables were performed to verify the compliance of the model with the
regression assumptions. The variables that showed a positive linear relationship with enrolment
rate are percentage of teachers, Total Financial Resources, Percentage of Fully Immunized
children (9-12 months) and Percentage of private motor vehicles while Cohort Survival Rate
showed a negative linear relationship. The resulting model had an R 2 value of 0.9544 where all
five variables are significant predictors of the enrolment rate in basic education.
II. INTRODUCTION
The Philippine has committed itself to 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by
2015. One of which is to provide universal access to primary education. The government
acknowledges the potential of basic education as an empowering process that capacitates the
individual to function, to achieve, to be law-abiding, participate intelligently in elections, and
have a better sense of nation and community (Sen, 1999).
However, according to the Philippine Midterm Progress report on MDG that was released last
2007, the government assessed the probability of attaining 100% enrolment rate in primary
institution to be low. Also, according to UNDP, from a near universal rate of 97% in 1999/2000,
as measured by net enrolment rate (NER), participation in elementary education dropped to
83.2% in 2006/07, the lowest over the last two decades. While increasing marginally in 2007 at
84.8%, the rate of progress is very minimal in order to achieve universal access to basic
education by 2015. . On the other hand, as released by UNICEF last 2005, the net enrollment rate of
secondary education reached 60.7% from 66.1%.

Although the compulsory minimum education law is already enforced, there are still
other factors that affect the said rate. According to a study conducted by Tullao and Rivera
(2009), it suggests that the factors affecting enrolment rate in basic education can be divided into
1

Supply and Demand factors. Supply factors include the capability of the government to cater
pupils and students, the number of teachers, school facilities, number of books, school supplies
and other educational inputs (Tullao, Rivera, 2009). Moreover, the demand factors refer to the
households decision to avail educational services. This can be measured through household
income, cost of education, and health factors. Looking at the provincial level, these factors can
be measured through total financial resource, the number of private cars and number of fully
immunized children. It is also important to note the Cohort Survival Rate per province as one of
the indicators that might affect the enrolment rate.
To address the problems in enrolment rate, the researchers aim to provide a model that
will determine and explain the significant factors that explains the variability. Also, the
researchers aim to relate this model to the recently implemented K-12 educational system.
III. RELATED LITERATURE
Last September 2000, Philippine government is one of the 189 member states that
committed to achieve 8 Millennium Development Goals (MDG) by 2015. One of these goals is
to achieve universal access to primary education.
The Education plays a significant in economic development. It is widely acknowledged
that education increases the innovative capacity of an economy and facilitates the diffusion,
adoption, and adaptation of new ideas. More specifically, education increases the amount of
human capital available, thereby increasing productivity and ultimately output. Education is
especially important in a rapidly evolving economic environment where a rapid rate of job
destruction and creation might otherwise lead to a gap between the skills demanded in the labor
market and the skills of job-seekers (Yap, 2012).
The Department of Education receives one of the biggest budget allocations among other
sectors and agencies in the Philippines. This allows the government to create more schools,
increase the number of teachers, books and improve educational facilities.
Basing from the Philippine Net enrolment ratio in primary education for both sexes, during
1990s, the rate was consistently high (going up to 97%) then there was a decrease in year 2001,
with only 92.7%. The lowest rate for the last two decades was reported to be 83.2% last 2007. In
the case of the secondary education, last year 2000, the enrolment rate is 52.6% that eventually
increased to 60% last 2005.
2

Although the budget allocation to basic education remains to be the biggest, and
compulsory education law is already enforced, family decision still affects the ability of the
children to go to school (King, 1983). The family demand for human capital can be attributed to
different economic and demographic factors (Tullao, Rivera, 2009).
As cited by Caete (n.d.), Maligalig and Albert (2008) presented in their analysis of the
2002 and 2004 APIS the different reasons for nonattendance in school of school-age children as
follows: (a) Cannot cope with school work; (b) High cost of education; (c) Illness and/or
disability; (d) Lack of personal interest; (e) Schools are far or there is no school within the
barangay; (f) Finished schooling; (g) Housekeeping chores; (h) No regular transportation from
house to school; and others. Poor health was also pointed out to be one of the factors that
negatively affect the school participation is the poor health of pupils.
Currently, different programs are being implemented to remedy the problems in the
enrolment rate. One of the programs is called Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program. The aim
of 4P is to provide human development capital to eradicate intergenerational poverty cycles by
granting poor families that complied to different conditions. These conditions include sending
children to school and keeping them healthy.
Also, the government launched the K+12 program to better ensure the quality of the
primary education here in the Philippines. This program also aims to prepare every Filipino
citizens to be more globally competitive, in the hope of eradicating, if not lessening, poverty.

IV. METHODOLOGICAL SKETCH

Framework
Economy
Education
Family Income Percentage of Teachers
Consumer Price Index
Cohort Survival Rate
Poverty Incidence
Number of Public Schools
Enrolment Rate
Private Bank Deposit
(with respect to the
total population of the
province)

Governance
Health
Financial ResourcesSafe Water Supply
Indexed CrimeNumber of Sanitary Toilet
Fully Immunized
Children

Others
Telephone Line Subscribers
Private Motor Vehicles
Number of Energized Barangays

The researchers chose to include 15 independent variables in the model-building process

based on the review of related literature with the constraint of the availability of the data. The
independent variables considered in the study were grouped into five categories namely:
education, economy, governance, health, and others (communication, transportation, energy).
The data under the categories were based on the same reference year 2009.
The data on the variables were obtained from the Philippine Statistical Authority National Statistical Coordination Board (NSCB) website and Department of Education (DepEd).
The variables with their descriptions and/or procedural definitions and their labels are the
following:
Dependent Variable: Enrolment Rate of public elementary and secondary schools (ENROL)
This refers to the percentage of the sum of government elementary and secondary
enrolees with respect to the total population in each province. In the year 2009, a total of
12,775,404 enrolees was collected in the country.
Independent Variables:
Economy

Family Income (INCOME) average family annual income obtained by dividing the
total income of families by the total number of families. It includes primary income and
receipts from other sources received by all family members during the calendar year as
participants in any economic activity or as recipients of transfers, pensions, grants, etc.

Consumer Price Index (CPI) indicator of the change in the average prices of a fixed
basket of goods and services commonly purchased by households relative to a base year

Poverty Incidence of Families (POV) - proportion of families whose annual per capita
income fall below the annual per capita poverty threshold

Private Bank Deposit (BANKDEP) total private commercial bank deposits in million
pesos

Education

Percentage of Teachers (TEACH) - percentage of the sum of government elementary and

secondary teachers who engaged in actual teaching of a group of pupils/students on fulltime or part-time basis with respect to the total population of the province

Cohort Survival Rate (COHORT) - percentage of enrolees at the beginning grade or year
in a given school year who reached the final grade or year of the elementary/secondary
level

Number of Public Schools (PUBE) - number of public schools in the province

Governance

Financial Resources (FINRES) - total financial resources in each province in million

pesos

Percentage of Indexed Crime (CRIME) - percentage of the total index crime with respect
to the total number of crime

Health

Safe Water Supply (WATER) - number of households with access to clean water

Number of Sanitary Toilet (TOILET) - number of sanitary toilet in the province. Sanitary
toilet is a covered installation, whether public or private, used for the disposal of waste.

Percentage of Fully Immunized Children (IMU) - percentage of fully immunized children

from 9-11 months with respect to the population of the province
6

Others (Communication, Transportation, Energy)

Percentage of Telephone Line Subscribers (PHONE) - percentage of telephone line

subscribers with respect to the total population of the province

Private Motor Vehicles percentage (CARS) percentage of registered private motor

vehicles not to be used for hire under any circumstances with respect to the total numbers
of registered motor vehicles in the province

Number of Energized Barangays (ENERG) total number of energized barangays in the

province
The researchers chose 2009 data due to a greater degree of availability. Observations with

missing cells were deleted prior to importing in the statistical package. A remaining total of 72
observations (provinces), 15 independent variables were organized in a spreadsheet and were
included in the development of the model. The full model used in the study to determine which
predictor variables significantly explain the variation in the response variable, the enrolment rate
of public elementary and secondary schools (ENROL), is given below:

ENROL= 0+ 1 INCOME+ 2 BANKDEP+ 3 CPI + 4 CARS+ 5 ENERG + 6 TEACH + 7 PHON

,
To determine the adequacy of the full model, it was subjected to an ANOVA F-test for the
significance of at least one of the predictor variables that sufficiently explains the variation in the
response variable. The researchers set the level of significance to be 0.05. Through a stepwise
selection procedure, the reduced model was obtained. Further diagnostic checking of the reduced
model was done to validate assumptions using SAS. This includes the multicollinearity,
nonlinearity, nonnormality, heteroskedasticity, identification of outlier and its deletion, influential
observation, and autocorrelation. The researchers then proposed an estimated regression function
to represent and summarize all of these results.

V. RESULTS AND DISCUSSION

Initially, percentage of enrolled students in public elementary and high schools was
regressed using the following variables: Average family annual income, total private bank
deposit, consumer price index, percentage of private motor vehicles, number of energized
barangays, percentage of teachers, percentage of telephone line subscribers, total financial
resource, number of households with access to clean water, number of sanitary toilets, poverty
gap, percentage of indexed crimes, cohort survival rate, number of public schools and percentage
of fully immunized children(from 0 to 9 months).

Figure 1. SAS Output of the Full Model

Dependent Variable: ENROL ENROL
Analysis of Variance
Source

DF

Model
Error
Corrected Total

15
56

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F Value

8941.42420
596.09495
467.71078
8.35198
71
9409.13498

Pr > F

71.37

<.0001

Root MSE
2.88998 R-Square
0.9503
Dependent Mean
27.03254 Adj R-Sq
0.9370
Coeff Var
10.69074
Parameter Estimates
Variable
Intercept
INCOME
BANKDEP
CPI
CAR
ENERG
TEACH
PHONE
FINRES
WATER
TOILET
CRIME
COHORT
PUBE
IMU
POV

Label

Parameter
Standard
DF
Estimate
Error

t Value

Pr > |t|

Intercept
1
25.91442
13.71744
1.89
0.0641
INCOME
1
0.00001823
0.00001427
1.28
0.2069
BANKDEP
1
0.00000598
0.00003190
0.19
0.8521
CPI
1
-0.19485
0.09621
-2.03
0.0476
CAR
1
0.08053
0.04363
1.85
0.0702
ENERG
1
0.00090835
0.00167
0.54
0.5893
TEACH
1
24.45408
2.48649
9.83
<.0001
PHONE
1
-0.01559
0.05540
-0.28
0.7794
FINRES
1
0.00222
0.00096923
2.29
0.0260
WATER
1
0.00000786
0.00000664
1.18
0.2412
TOILET
1 -0.00000804
0.00000635
-1.27
0.2103
CRIME
1
-0.01338
0.04273
-0.31
0.7553
COHORT
1
-0.20181
0.04034
-5.00
<.0001
PUBE
1
-0.00255
0.00209
-1.22
0.2272
IMU
1
2.28500
0.54931
4.16
0.0001
POV
1
0.09932
0.05785
1.72
0.0916

Since the F Value is relatively high, then this suggests that there is at least one
independent variable in the model that can explain the variability of the percentage of enrolment.
Also, 95.03% can be explained by the model as seen in the value of R2.
8

Based on the independent variables p-values using .05 as alpha, the significant variables
are the following: CPI, TEACH, FINRES, COHORT and IMU.
The researchers used Stepwise Variable Selection Procedure to identify the independent
variables that will be included in the reduced model.

Figure 2. SAS Output for Variable Selection

All variables left in the model are significant at the 0.0100 level.
No other variable met the 0.0500 significance level for entry into the model.

Summary of Stepwise Selection

Variable Variable
Step Entered Removed
1
2
3
4
5

TEACH
IMU
COHORT
FINRES
CAR

Number Partial Model

Label
Vars In R-Square R-Square C(p)

F Value Pr > F

TEACH
1
0.8559 0.8559 94.3347 415.79 <.0001
IMU
2
0.0424 0.8983 48.5626 28.77 <.0001
COHORT
3
0.0207 0.9190 27.2116 17.41 <.0001
FINRES
4
0.0148 0.9338 12.5716 14.95 0.0003
CAR
5
0.0075 0.9413 6.1276
8.43 0.0050

Using stepwise selection, the variables that are suggested to be included in the model are
TEACH, IMU, COHORT, FINRES and CAR.
The researchers regressed the percentage of enrolment to the variables suggested by the
variable selection procedure.

Figure 3. SAS Output for the Reduced Model

Dependent Variable: ENROL ENROL
Analysis of Variance
Source

DF

Model

Sum of
Squares
8856.83842

Mean
Square

F Value

1771.36768

Pr > F

211.68

<.0001

Error
Corrected Total

66

552.29656
8.36813
71
9409.13498

Root MSE
2.89277 R-Square
0.9413
Dependent Mean
27.03254 Adj R-Sq
0.9369
Coeff Var
10.70107
Parameter Estimates
Variable

Label

Parameter
Standard
DF
Estimate
Error

t Value

Pr > |t|

Intercept Intercept
1
2.93143
3.73332
0.79
0.4351
TEACH
TEACH
1
24.15975
2.21674
10.90
<.0001
IMU
IMU
1
2.25222
0.45582
4.94
<.0001
COHORT
COHORT
1
-0.17085
0.03125
-5.47
<.0001
FINRES
FINRES
1
0.00193
0.00059288
3.26
0.0018
CAR
CAR
1
0.11010
0.03793
2.90
0.0050

Based on the R2, 94.13 % of the variability of the percentage of enrolment can be
explained by the reduced model. The full model R2 decreased by around 1% which is very
minimal; implying that the unselected variables didnt contribute much on explaining the
variability of the dependent variable.
The reduced model has to undergo diagnostic checking in order for the researchers to
make sure that the assumptions are not violated.
MULTICOLLINEARITY
Figure 4. SAS Output for Variance Inflation, Condition Index and Proportion of Variation
Parameter Estimates
Parameter
Variable Estimate

Standard
Variance
Condition
Error t Value Pr > |t|
Inflation Eigenvalue
Index

Intercept 2.93143
3.73332
0.79
0.4351
0
5.54181
1.00000
TEACH
24.15975
2.21674
10.90
<.0001
3.87897
0.24075
4.79779
IMU
2.25222
0.45582
4.94
<.0001
4.00322
0.17396
5.64413
COHORT
-0.17085
0.03125
-5.47
<.0001
1.05637
0.02142 16.08425
FINRES
0.00193 0.00059288
3.26
0.0018
1.27644
0.01668 18.22808
CAR
0.11010
0.03793
2.90
0.0050
1.11116
0.00538 32.09414
Collinearity Diagnostics
-----------------------------Proportion of Variation----------------------------Number
Intercept
TEACH
IMU
COHORT
FINRES
1
2
3
4
5
6

0.00026347
0.00001404
0.00695
0.00321
0.02427
0.96530

0.00102
0.02649
0.01349
0.74283
0.19045
0.02573

0.00135
0.02469
0.08191
0.76458
0.08359
0.04389

0.00065372
0.00020031
0.02342
0.10107
0.56590
0.30876

0.00554
0.59191
0.19319
0.13962
0.01940
0.05033

CAR
0.00040177
6.397094E-7
0.00874
0.02502
0.28631
0.67953

10

Based on the variance inflation, none of the variables are suspected to have
multicollinearity problem since all of the VIFs < 10. However, one value of the condition index
is greater than 30. The researchers then checked the proportion of variation for possible
multicollinear variables. Although CAR has a proportion of variation greater than 0.5, there is no
other variable within the same line that has proportion of variation greater than 0.5. From these
observations, the researchers concluded that there is no multicollinearity between the
independent variables in the reduced model.
NONLINEARITY
Figure 5. SAS Output for Partial Regression Plot

The residual plot shows that the points are randomly scattered in a horizontal band with a
few outliers. From this the assumption of linearity is verified.
NONNORMALITY
Figure 6. SAS Output for Statistics of Tests for Normality
Tests for Normality
Test

--Statistic---

-----p Value------

Shapiro-Wilk
W
0.99338 Pr < W
0.9716
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D
0.039828 Pr > D
>0.1500
Cramer-von Mises
W-Sq 0.014527 Pr > W-Sq >0.2500

11

Anderson-Darling

A-Sq 0.135491

Pr > A-Sq >0.2500

Since the P-values for Kolmogorov-Smirnov, Cramer-von Mises and Anderson Darling
are all greater than .05, there is no sufficient evidence to conclude that the error terms are not
normally distributed. The Shapiro Wilk Test proves that the input data values comprise a random
sample from a normal distribution since 1-P(Pr<W) = .0284 is less than .05 and its Test Statistic
W is very close to 1.
HETEROSKEDASTICITY
Figure 7. SAS Output for Partial Residual Plots

12

13

Since all residual plots are neither diamond nor funnel shape, then heteroskedasticity
might not be present among all independent variables in the reduced model. To make sure, the
researchers used Whites Test for homoskedasticity.
Figure 8. SAS Output for Whites Test for homoskedasticity
Heteroscedasticity Test
Equation

Test

Statistic

ENROL

White's Test

DF

31.17

Pr > ChiSq
20

Variables

0.0530

Cross of all vars

Based from the P-value which is greater than .05 then there is no sufficient evidence to
conclude that the variances of the error terms are not constant.
OUTLIERS/INFLUENTIAL OBSERVATIONS
Figure 10. SAS Outputs for Detection of Outliers
Dependent Variable: ENROL ENROL
Analysis of Variance
Source

DF

Model
Error
Corrected Total

5
66

Sum of
Squares

Mean
Square

F Value

8856.83842
1771.36768
552.29656
8.36813
71
9409.13498

Pr > F

211.68

<.0001

Root MSE
2.89277 R-Square
0.9413
Dependent Mean
27.03254 Adj R-Sq
0.9369
Coeff Var
10.70107
Parameter Estimates
Variable

Label

Parameter
Standard
DF
Estimate
Error

t Value

Pr > |t|

Intercept Intercept
1
2.93143
3.73332
0.79
0.4351
TEACH
TEACH
1
24.15975
2.21674
10.90
<.0001
IMU
IMU
1
2.25222
0.45582
4.94
<.0001
COHORT
COHORT
1
-0.17085
0.03125
-5.47
<.0001
FINRES
FINRES
1
0.00193
0.00059288
3.26
0.0018
CAR
CAR
1
0.11010
0.03793
2.90
0.0050
Output Statistics(ONLY INCLUDES OUTLIERS)
Dependent Predicted Std Error
Std Error Student
Cook's
Obs Variable
Value Mean Predict Residual Residual Residual -2-1 0 1 2
16 22.9975 17.2267

0.6124

5.7708

25 23.9297 29.5490

0.8367 -5.6193

2.827

2.041 |

|**** |

2.769 -2.029 | ****|

0.033
0.063

14

32 22.2067 28.7400

1.0012 -6.5333

2.714 -2.407 | ****|

0.131

36 35.8303 30.1003

0.9708

5.7300

2.725

62 79.7616 72.7027

1.5985

7.0589

2.411

2.103 |

|**** |

0.094

2.928 |

|***** |

0.628

Output Statistics
Hat Diag
Cov
Obs RStudent
H
Ratio
DFFITS
16 2.0928
0.0448
0.7759
0.4533
25 -2.0798

0.0837

0.8125

-0.6284

32 -2.5013

0.1198

0.7174

-0.9227

36

2.1604

0.1126

0.8147

0.7696

62

3.1148

0.3053

0.6847

2.0651

Output Statistics
-------------------------------DFBETAS------------------------------Obs Intercept
TEACH
IMU
COHORT
FINRES
16

CAR

0.0899

-0.0453

0.0072

0.2235

-0.1421

-0.2035

25 -0.1846

0.3317

-0.2997

0.4061

0.1730

-0.1984

32

0.0267

0.7176

-0.8223

-0.2144

0.1703

0.0415

36 -0.0484

-0.0316

-0.0953

-0.4754

0.1588

0.4897

62 -0.5000

0.2111

0.8460

0.1875

-0.5257

0.1095

From this SAS output, the observations with absolute values of student residuals greater
than 2 are 16, 25, 32, 36 and 62. The 62nd observation has the highest Cooks D. Meaning it has
the highest influence among the observations. For the DFFITS, only observation no. 62 exceed
the cut-off. No observation exceeds the cut-off for the DFBETAS.
The researchers deleted the 62nd observation since it has the highest Cooks D. After
deletion, the outlier with the highest Cooks D is:
Dependent Predicted Std Error
Std Error Student
Cook's
Obs Variable
Value Mean Predict Residual Residual Residual -2-1 0 1 2
D
32 22.2067 28.0501
0.9668 -5.8434
2.541 -2.299 | ****|
| 0.128

After deletion of observation 32:

15 21.5354 27.0044

1.0075 -5.4690

2.426 -2.255 | ****|

0.146

2.386 -2.551 | *****|

0.144

|***** |

0.167

After deletion of observation15:

54 21.0788 27.1658

0.8707 -6.0869

After deletion of observation54:

34 35.8303 29.5960

0.8319

6.2343

2.277

2.738 |

15

After deletion of observation 34:

46 17.9292 22.6487

1.1739 -4.7195

1.968 -2.398 | ****|

0.341

After deleting observation 46, no other observations was deleted since no other value of Cooks
D is significant.
Figure 11. SAS Output for Tests of Normality after outliers have been removed.
Tests for Normality
Test

--Statistic---

-----p Value------

Shapiro-Wilk
W
0.984211 Pr < W
0.5656
Kolmogorov-Smirnov D
0.092826 Pr > D
>0.1500
Cramer-von Mises
W-Sq 0.062069 Pr > W-Sq >0.2500
Anderson-Darling
A-Sq 0.385189 Pr > A-Sq >0.2500

Heteroscedasticity Test
Statistic
DF Pr > ChiSq

Equation

Test

ENROL

White's Test

17.66

20

0.6100

Variables
Cross of all vars

With this, the researchers concluded that this new data set still generates error terms that
are normally distributed and have constant variances. Also, the residuals are spread randomly in
a horizontal band.

16

AUTOCORRELATION
The last problem to be diagnosed is autocorrelation. This is of minimum priority since we
are only dealing with 2009 data. However, it will still help validate the assumption that the error
terms are uncorrelated.
Figure 12. SAS Output for Test of Autocorrelation
Dependent Variable: ENROL ENROL
Durbin-Watson D
2.023
Number of Observations
66
1st Order Autocorrelation
-0.033

Based on the Durbin-Watson Test first Order Autocorrelation is just -0.070

Since the Durbin-Watson Statistic which is 2.023 is near 2, then it can be seen that the correlation
is also near 0.
The ARIMA Procedure
Name of Variable = resid
Mean of Working Series -859E-17
Standard Deviation
2.096795
Number of Observations
66
Autocorrelations
Lag

Covariance

Correlation

0
1
2
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16

4.396547
-0.146008
-0.436768
0.225990
-0.304449
0.879969
-0.685755
0.011037
0.064890
-0.535145
0.318076
0.133435
0.084637
-0.640056
-0.112981
-0.139338
0.041377

1.00000
-.03321
-.09934
0.05140
-.06925
0.20015
-.15598
0.00251
0.01476
-.12172
0.07235
0.03035
0.01925
-.14558
-.02570
-.03169
0.00941

-1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

Std Error

|********************|
0
. *| .
|
0.123091
. **| .
|
0.123227
. |* .
|
0.124435
. *| .
|
0.124756
. |****.
|
0.125337
. ***| .
|
0.130090
. | .
|
0.132893
. | .
|
0.132894
. **| .
|
0.132919
. |* .
|
0.134597
. |* .
|
0.135185
. | .
|
0.135288
. ***| .
|
0.135329
. *|
.
|
0.137682
. *|
.
|
0.137754
.
|
.
|
0.137865

"." marks two standard errors

Inverse Autocorrelations
Lag

Correlation

1
2
3

-0.13727
0.19128
-0.13227

-1 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 0 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1
|
|
|

. ***| .
. |****.
. ***| .

|
|
|

17

4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13

0.10259
-0.19103
0.17183
0.01574
-0.02744
0.11791
-0.08636
0.00655
-0.03968
0.16357

|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|

. |** .
.****| .
. |*** .
. | .
. *| .
. |** .
. **| .
. | .
. *| .
. |*** .

|
|

|
|
|

|
|
|
|

Based on the output, autocorrelation is not significant even up to the first order. R2 did
not change and the corrected parameter estimates have very small difference with the previous
estimates. All the variables are still significant.
VI. CONCLUSION
The estimated regression function will be

^
ENROL

= 6.67878 + 18.05543TEACH +

3.46450IMU 0.12649COHORT +.00140FINRES +.04344CAR.

R2 is very high at .9544; this indicates that the independent variables can explain 95.44%
of the variability of percentage of enrolment.
Among all the independent variables considered at the start of the study, five of them
were found to be significantPercentage of Teachers, Total Financial Resource, Percentage of
Fully Immunized Children (from 0 to 9 months), Cohort Survival Rate and Percentage of Private
Motor Vehicles. The percentage of teachers has the highest positive relationship with the
percentage, a unit in increase in the percentage of teachers may result to 18.05543 increase in
percentage of enrolment.
This result shows that the higher percentage of teachers present in a province will be able
to accommodate more students thus increasing the percentage of enrolment. The quality of
education and participation rate of students can increase as the teacher-student ratio increases. If
the number of teachers is relatively small compared to the number of students, the teachers
attention and focus will be divided greatly leading to low quality of education and decrease in
students interest. The higher percentage of fully immunized children will improve the physical
capabilities of child to go to school thus increasing the percentage of enrolment. The Cohort
survival rate has a negative effect on the percentage of enrolment since it indicates the rate of
18

students who finished elementary and secondary level meaning those students will not enrol in
the next school year. The higher total financial resource can give higher budget for education and
better material resources that can improve the percentage of enrolment. Those people who owns
a private motor vehicles indicates that they have the financial capability of sending their child to
school. Owning a private motor vehicles can also resolve proximity barriers caused by absence
of nearby public schools.
Also, more support from the government is essential in improving the percentage of
enrolment since the total financial resource is a significant factor. It is also recommended for the
government to increase the number of health care services offered to children and give more
support to the teachers by providing benefits such as increasing their salary.

19

VII. REFERENCES
King, E.M. and Lillard L. Determinants of schooling attainment and enrolment rates in the Philippines.
April 1983. The Rand Publication Series. PDF File.
Tullao, T. and Rivera J.P. Demographic, and other factors affecting school .participation among children
in urban and rural households: the case of Pasay and Eastern Samar. Vol. II, No. 6. PDF File.
Caete, L. Reviewing the Effects of Population Growth on Basic Education Development. PDF File
National Statistics Coordination Board. 2012 First Semester Official Provincial Poverty Statistics of the
Philippines. PDF File.
Capones, M. Report of the Philippine government on Millennium Development Goals. August 2008.
PDF File
UNICEF. Education statistics: Philippines. May 2008 Division of Policy and Practice, Statistics and
Monitoring Section. PDF File
National Economic and Development Authority. Philippine Midterm Progress Report on the Millennium
Development Goals. PDF File
Anonymous. (2010, April 17). Improving Philippine education. http://opinion.inquirer.net. Retrieved
March 30, 2014, from http://opinion.inquirer.net/inquireropinion/talkofthetown/view/20100417264867/Improving-Philippine-education
Yap, Joseph (2012, August 6). OPINION: Improving The Quality Of Education In The Philippines.
http://www.asianscientist.com.

Retrieved

March

30,

2014,

from

http://www.asianscientist.com/academia/philippines-education-asia-pacific-josef-yap-pids-2012/

20

VIII. APPENDICES

21

22