CHALK DUST:

A DISCOURSE ON THE STATUS OF

THE PHILIPPINE EDUCATION SYSTEM

By

Eugenio, Ivan Ignatius

Miraflor, James Matthew

Submitted in Partial Fulfillment of the Requirements

of the course,

Statistics 130 (Non-parametric Data Analysis)

Laboratory

April 04, 2005

 Introduction

In any developing nation, one of the biggest components of the enabling environment
for industrial growth and capital expansion is the general educational state of the people. The
concept is not alien at all to the civilized world. In fact, most liberal democracies often allocate a
huge amount of its budget for the education and training of its citizens.

The Philippines is not an exemption. A huge portion of the budget allocation goes to the
education sector, especially in elementary and secondary public schools. It has been stipulated by
the Philippine constitution that education should remain to be the country’s top priority. With
such prioritization, one can only imagine the Philippine education sector as the most dynamic
and developed sector in the country.

The quality of education in the Philippines, however, seems to prove otherwise. Despite
having considerable figures for literacy rate and other benchmarks, the popular notion is that the
functional literacy of the people still lags behind. In fact, it is not uncommon to hear comments,
surveys, news, indexes and competition results showing that the Philippines is not doing well in
aspects like training its citizens in mathematics, natural sciences or even in some technical skills.

Whether such claims of lack of quality in the Philippine Education Sector are true or not
then just depend on a number of factors. First factor is number of graduates produced by the
educational institutions, primarily the tertiary level institutions that produce the workforce. If the
input is considerably higher than the output, i.e. the number of graduates is higher than the
enrollees; it just clearly shows that the drop-out rate is high. This implies three things – (1) either
the standards of the schools is very high and/or their resources is very limited, (2) the quality of
the students produced by the secondary level of education is very low, or (3) the students do not
have the necessary means to sustain their education. Either way, the problem boils down on the
seemingly of lack quality of education which may have been the result of the lack of resources of
both parties.

Second factor, is how the government distributes the resources allocated for education.
The second factor is directly linked to the first one by saying that the deficiency of the tertiary
education may have been caused by allocating more the scarce educational resources to the
elementary and secondary education. The question here is where the government should allocate
more now given the present socio-economic demands. Which option would give the country a
better chance to survive its fiscal and social crises?

The third and most ambiguous factor is the relevance of education itself in the lives of
the Filipino people? Given the quality and accessibility of education, and the availability of work
afterwards, is it still necessary to send children to school? Here, what will be investigated is
whether current government actions is mitigating the gap between the new jobs created and
workers produced or not.

These three factors will determine whether the real status of the Philippine educational
sector. It is thus the objective of this paper to explore these matters more thoroughly through
quantitative and qualitative analysis of both data and legislative measures, of both student
statistics and the factors which affects it, and of both trends and their causes.
 It is hoped that this investigation will lead to further inquiries on the matter, and with
those inquiries will come an exhaustive search for solutions for problems or rectification of the
better aspects of education.

Background

The Philippines has long been a leader in the region with respect to achievements in
education. By 1970, the Philippines had achieved universal primary enrollment. By 1995, it was
ranked one of the most-schooled nations in Asia, after Brunei and Korea.

These successes, however, mask a long-term deterioration in access and quality, and the
national figures obscure wide regional differences. Nationally, two-thirds of children in primary
school fail to complete the cycle, but this varies widely from region to region.
In Manila, close to 100 percent of students finish primary school, whereas in Mindanao and
Eastern Visayas less than 30 percent of students finish. A recent study showed that scores for
Filipino children between 9 and 14 in math, science and reading were two standard deviations
below the international mean. Not surprisingly, urban/rural differences were especially
pronounced.

For many years, the Philippines failed to capture the benefits of education – productivity
growth, poverty reduction, and social development. Slow-growth and import-substitution
policies failed to generate jobs, and 4 million Filipinos went abroad. The new emphasis on
export-led growth, however, has increased the demand for skilled labor, and exposed the
deteriorating quality of education.

Apart from the regional disparities, the school system is socially regressive. Children
from poor families have little choice but to go to the public schools. Wealthier families send
their children to private schools, where the quality tends to be better than in the public system.
Furthermore, parents must contribute one-third of the costs of their child’s education, which is
proportionately a greater burden on poorer households.

The main challenge facing the education system in the Philippines will be to redress
these inequities between regions and between income levels. This will require improving the
readiness of poor children for school, redressing inequities in access to textbooks, and
experienced teachers, repairing the physical plant of the school system. The Government has
already begun implementing a decentralization program, which is intended to redress these
inequities, in part, by leveraging more resources for the education sector. Additional resources,
from the private sector, or wealthier local government units, would free up existing government
resources to be targeted to the poorer areas.

The Challenges of the Crisis

The economy is experiencing a slow-down due to the Asian financial crisis and El Niño.
Growth in the first quarter of 1998 slowed to 2.5 percent, compared to 5.4 percent in the first
quarter of 1997. The El Niño-induced drought may prevent a quick resumption of agricultural
production, and it is unclear how long the country will be able to rely upon export revenues
from Japan and the United States.

The Philippines managed to avoid the early extreme effects of the crisis, unlike Indonesia
or Thailand where the crisis hit almost without warning. So, despite the slowdown, the
Government of the Philippines has been able to concentrate on medium-term strategy, and on
cushioning the expected impact of the crisis on the poor while maintaining macroeconomic
stability.

As economic growth slows, and even contracts, households will feel the impact of the
crisis through reduced incomes, rising prices, and reduced government support for social
programs. The long-term impact of the crisis on human capital will depend on how households
cope with their reduced purchasing power and access to public services.

Inflation in June reached 9.9 percent, but local reports suggest that prices on key
commodities, such as food, had already doubled by the beginning of the year from their mid-
1997 level. On the income side, wages are being reduced and regular workers are being replaced
by lower paid and less secure contract workers. Unemployment in the National Capital Region
(NCR) reached 15 percent, and the unemployed in the NCR account for roughly half the total
number of unemployed nation-wide. There is evidence that informal sector earnings have also
dropped, largely because of increased competition for fewer jobs. The fall in urban incomes is
expected to spill over to the rural poor as remittances to rural households from relatives in urban
areas decline.

The impact of the crisis on education, and the long-term impacts on the children, will
depend on how households cope with their falling purchasing power. Many households are
curtailing food expenditures. To the extent that the children in these households are still going
to school, the lack of proper nutrition can affect their attention span, learning ability, and
ultimately, their school performance. Other households are pulling children out of school
because the households can not afford the fees, or lunch money, or need the children to work at
home or for money.

The challenge posed by the crisis to priorities in education will then depend on the
projected impact of the crisis and the specific coping mechanisms adopted by households.
 Computations and Discussion of Results

The first test actually explores whether there is a trend towards the decrease in the
number of ratio between enrollees and graduates. If such is the case, then we may be dealing
with a declining rate of educated laborer production. As it has been said in the introduction, this
implies three things, the standards of the schools is very high and/or their resources is very
limited, the quality of the students produced by the secondary level of education is very low that
they do not survive college, or the students do not have the necessary means to sustain their
college education, which means that college education is expensive (which may have been an
offshoot of the first implication, given that the resources of schools are very limited).

The data below have been taken from PM’s RP education primer:

Enrollment by Discipline Group and Academic Year (1994-2000)

Discipline
Group 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000

General 113,286 110,175 107,351 108,941 105,467 122,183

Education and
Teacher 236,464 278,443 301,148 316,293 307,311 453,856
Training

Fine and
8,266 9,168 10,922 9,394 10,689 7,669
Applied Arts

Humanities 6,105 8,484 14,014 9,227 12,558 10,812

Religion and
7,713 8,392 8,397 7,079 8,971 7,130
Theology

Social and
Behavioral 27,158 35,044 41,873 34,735 43,154 36,754
Science
Business
Administration 545,982 593,402 615,817 620,681 687,253 793,884
and Related

Law and
14,950 14,248 15,892 16,481 16,009 18,374
Jurisprudence

Natural Science 18,475 24,400 23,031 21,914 24,483 22,872

Math and
Information 97,853 130,859 153,505 166,329 183,267 211,306
Technology
 Medical and
274,941 240,075 200,122 164,784 179,625 188,215
Allied

Trade Craft and

195 399 273 2,519 1,512 6,523
Industrial

Engineering 287,821 295,172 305,843 299,226 309,950 335,484

Architectural
and Town 21,665 23,066 22,268 23,901 24,172 25,251
Planning
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fisheries, 59,400 68,760 71,228 64,760 73,869 76,511
Veterinary
Medicine

Home
2,577 5,106 4,826 5,562 5,684 6,929
Economics

Service Trades 7,134 6,883 8,169 7,666 8,757 7,410

Mass
Communication
10,613 14,602 12,004 12,445 14,572 14,381
and
Documentation
Other
131,048 151,294 144,617 176,028 190,285 190,070
Disciplines

1,871,64 2,017,97 2,061,30 2,067,96 2,207,58 2,535,61

Total
6 2 0 5 8 4

Table 1.0 - Enrollment by Discipline Group and Academic Year (1994-2000)

Source: Partido ng Manggagawa – The State of Philippine Education: A Primer on RP Educational System

Number of Graduates by Discipline Group and Academic Year (1994-2000)

Discipline
Group 1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000
General 13370 16905 17163 15292 14973 18090
Education and
Teacher 43674 45545 42197 42325 41741 49073
Training
Fine and
655 717 2482 1735 1924 2658
Applied Arts
Humanities 507 1198 2809 2181 2505 3124
Religion and
1088 1266 2707 2074 2249 2726
Theology
Social and
2703 5392 7603 6814 7600 8532
Behavioral
Science

Business
Administration 85781 96665 90942 97861 102633 100098
and Related
Law and
2111 2206 3219 2665 2742 3293
Jurisprudence
Natural Science 2134 3791 5835 4805 5220 6466
Math and
Information 21338 19494 25055 27636 31144 26888
Technology
Medical and
49802 47483 36206 40501 37966 38003
Allied
Trade Craft and
14 71 3817 2215 2627 3965
Industrial
Engineering 46090 38919 40639 39586 38251 44718
Architectural
and Town 1947 1599 1811 1626 1499 1956
Planning
Agriculture,
Forestry,
Fisheries, 12178 15633 11861 14734 15679 15373
Veterinary
Medicine
Home
362 977 2396 1722 1942 2823
Economics
Service Trades 626 761 1906 1355 1468 2150
Mass
Communication
937 1818 4148 3213 3642 4777
and
Documentation
Other
27350 27680 32461 34211 37022 35815
Disciplines
Total 312,667 328,120 335,257 342,551 352,827 370,528

Table 1.1 - Number of Graduates by Discipline Group and Academic Year (1994-2000)
Source: Partido ng Manggagawa – The State of Philippine Education: A Primer on RP Educational System

We then derive from the former tables the table below:

1994-1995 1995-1996 1996-1997 1997-1998 1998-1999 1999-2000

Total
312,667 328,120 335,257 342,551 352,827 370,528
Graduates
Total
1,871,646 2,017,972 2,061,300 2,067,965 2,207,588 2,535,614
Enrolled
Ratio 0.167054561 0.162598886 0.162643477 0.165646421 0.159824659 0.146129498

Table 1.2 – Ratio of Number of Graduates and the Total Enrolled

 Ratio of Number of Graduates and the Total
Enrolled versus Year

Graduates and the Total

0.17
Ratio of Number of
0.165
Enrolled 0.16
0.155
Ratio
0.15
0.145
0.14
0.135
1994- 1995- 1996- 1997- 1998- 1999-
1995 1996 1997 1998 1999 2000
Year

Chart 1.0 – Ratio of Number of Graduates and the Total Enrolled

It is obvious from the Chart 1.0 that there is a downward trend, though we still need to
analyze the data through a statistical test if the trend is significant using Spearman Rank
Correlation Coefficient Test, which is a non-parametric test for association.

Year (Xi) Ratio (Yi) R(Xi) R(Yi) Di = R(Xi) - R(Yi) Di2

1994 0.1670546 1 6 -5 25
1995 0.1625989 2 3 -1 1
1996 0.1626435 3 4 -1 1
1997 0.1656464 4 5 -1 1
1998 0.1598247 5 2 3 9
1999 0.1461295 6 1 5 25
Total (D) 62

Table 1.3 – Computations for Spearman Rank Correlation Coefficient Test

Ho : Ratio and year are independent (no trend exists).

Ha : Ratio and year are directly related (trend exists).

α : .05 (right-tailed)

Test Statistic : n = 6, D=62

rs = 1-6D/(n (n2-1)), D sum of square of ranks
rs = 1-6(62)/(6(35))
rs = -0.771428571428571
 Critical : Reject if: (rs > rs*)
Region rs* = 0.7714

Decision : Do not reject Ho (-0.7714<0.7714).

Conclusion : Ratio and year are independent (no trend exists).

Interpretation

This means that there is no significant correlation between the year and the ratio of
graduates and enrollees. Thus, there is no significant decrease in the ratio even if our chart says
so. This implies that during the five-year interval, there has been no significant change in
proportion of the input of students to the tertiary education and the output of the tertiary
education to the workforce.

As we can see, however, the ratio remains significantly low, meaning that the much
needed improvement did not happen as well. Considering that schools only produces 17 at most
graduates for every 100 enrollees, the situation is still very much appalling.

The second test analyzes the current priorities of the government within the education
sector, i.e. how it distributes and utilizes its money that is allocated for education. This will be
very important for such priorities determine on how the government sees the education as an
aspect of the socio-economic environment.

This can be explained by saying that if the government for example, focuses more on the
tertiary level education, i.e. those students who has an immediate use for the economy and the
industry, it just shows that the government sees the education sector as a producer of workforce.
Thus, all of its decisions will be based on the paradigm of industrialization of education, which
involves molding it to answer the demands of the corporate-industrial sector.

If, on the other hand, the data says that the government focuses more on the secondary
level education, which are those in the high school level, this may actually mean many things.
First, is that the government is just answering a need. Responsiveness to an immediate concern
is actually a political prerequisite for candidates with electoral positions. Second, is that the
government believes in a future base of a mass produced educated workers, which can be
derived from the elementary level.

The table below is original Number of Government and Private Schools by Level of
Education lifted from Partido ng Manggagawa’s primer:

Number of Government and Private Schools by Level of Education

Total Secondary Tertiary
Total Percentage Total Percentage Total Percentage
Year Number Public Private Number Public Private Number Public Private
1965-66 3260 37.0% 63.0% 2537 36.4% 63.6% 527 16.5% 83.5%
 1970-71 5027 48.6% 51.4% 4111 51.7% 48.3% 728 15.9% 84.1%
1975-76 5662 53.1% 46.9% 4908 58.7% 41.3% 754 16.7% 83.3%
1980-81 6302 55.1% 44.9% 5218 60.6% 39.4% 1084 28.5% 71.5%
1985-86 6453 56.6% 43.4% 5375 62.5% 37.5% 1078 27.2% 72.8%
1990-91 8883 47.7% 52.3% 5550 61.2% 38.8% 2071 24.6% 75.4%

Table 2.0 - Number of Government and Private Schools by Level of Education

Source: Partido ng Manggagawa – The State of Philippine Education: A Primer on RP Educational System

From these data, we can derive the following information.

Number of Schools in Government and Public

Schools
Year Total Secondary Tertiary
1965-66 1206.20 923.47 86.96
1970-71 2443.12 2125.39 115.75
1975-76 3006.52 2881.00 125.92
1980-81 3472.40 3162.11 308.94
1985-86 3652.40 3359.38 293.22
1990-91 4237.19 3396.60 509.47

Table 2.1 - Number of Schools in Government and Public Schools

Since we will be measuring whether the government’s focus is just proportionate to the
demand, we then obtain the following data:

Total Secondary and Tertiary Enrollment

Total Secondary Tertiary
Total Total Total
(‘000) Percentage (‘000) Percentage (‘000) Percentage
Year Number Public Private Number Public Private Number Public Private
1965-66 1700 29.5% 70.5% 1173 37.7% 62.3% 527 11.2% 88.8%
1970-71 2370 35.0% 65.0% 1719 44.4% 55.6% 651 10.3% 89.7%
1975-76 3012 37.1% 62.9% 2240 45.1% 54.9% 772 13.7% 86.3%
1980-81 4273 42.1% 57.9% 3019 53.5% 46.5% 1254 14.8% 85.2%
1985-86 4671 46.2% 53.8% 3269 59.7% 40.4% 1402 14.9% 85.1%
1990-91 5742 49.0% 51.0% 4033 63.6% 36.4% 1709 14.8% 85.2%

Table 2.2 – Total Secondary and Tertiary Enrollment

Source: Philippine Education Indicators 1965-1985, Research & Statistics Division,
Office & Planning Service (1986-1993)

Again, we simplify the information by taking the data only for the Public Schools:

Number of Schools in Government and Public

 Schools
Year Total Secondary Tertiary
1965-66 501.50 442.22 59.02
1970-71 829.50 763.24 67.05
1975-76 1117.45 1010.24 105.76
1980-81 1798.93 1615.17 185.59
1985-86 2158.00 1951.59 208.90
1990-91 2813.58 2564.99 252.93
1995-96 4492.69 3675.39 520.88

Table 2.3 – Number of Schools in Government and Public Schools

Given these tables, we can now derive a table of ratio

Ratio of Public/Government
Schools and Total Enrollment for
Secondary and Tertiary Schools

Year Secondary Tertiary

1965-66 0.24% 0.21%
1970-71 0.29% 0.28%
1975-76 0.27% 0.29%
1980-81 0.19% 0.20%
1985-86 0.17% 0.17%
1990-91 0.15% 0.13%

Table 2.4 – Number of Schools in Government and Public Schools

We can now test then, using Mann-Whitney non-parametric statistical test, whether both
populations are identical with respect to location.

Secondary Tertiary
Ratio Ranks Ratio Ranks
0.132421672 1
0.150597850 2
0.169249055 3
0.172135020 4
0.193025644 5
0.195776159 6
0.208824999 7
0.240518445 8
 0.269051557 9
0.278470486 10
0.285179363 11
0.294529476 12
Sum of
Ranks 39

Table 2.5 – Computation of Test Statistic W for Mann-Whitney

Ho : The two populations are identical (M1 = M2).

Ha : The two populations differ with respect to location

(M1 ≠ M2).

α : .05

Test Statistic : n1 = 6, n2 = 6
WC = S – (n1 (n1+1))/2, S sum of ranks
WC = 39 – (6(6+1)/2)
WC = 18

Critical : Reject if:

Region WC>W1-α/2
W1-α/2 = n1n2 – Wα/2
Wα/2 = 6
W1-α/2 = 36 – 6 = 30

Decision : Do not reject Ho (18<36).

Conclusion : The two populations are identical.

Interpretation

This means that the government allocation of funding is just equal for both Secondary
and Tertiary schools, given the demand for both. As we can see from the test, the populations
are nearly identical. We can then say that the government, as composed on entities with political
(electoral) goal is merely satisfying the interests of their constituents.

This may imply, however, that the government has no clear plan on the whole
educational system, given the lack of focus for either the Secondary and Tertiary school systems.
 The third test measures the relevance of education. It is tested whether the workforce is
being less saturated or not. This is measured by analyzing the new laborer-job ratio. If it will be
found out that the entrants can no longer be accommodated, or there is a trend towards less
accommodation, this reveals that education may no longer be a factor of help for the persons,
primarily since no job will be available for them anyway afterwards. If the opposite is found to
be true, then the education is still a competitive advantage for persons who have invested in it.

We look at the table:

New Jobs and New Entrants to the Labor Force

1991 1992 1993 1994 1995 Average

New Jobs Created 703 781 686 650 644 692.8

New Entrants to the Labor Force 1787 659 589 775 726 907.2
New Laborer-Job Ratio 2.5 0.8 0.9 1.2 1.1 1.3

Table 3.0 - New Jobs and New Entrants to the Labor Force
Source: Partido ng Manggagawa – The State of Philippine Education: A Primer on RP Educational System

We then test using Wilcoxon Signed-ranks Test (one-sample) whether we can conclude
using the following data for Laborer-Job ratio is equal to the ideal 1.0. The test will be as
follows:

Di = Yi - Rank of Signed Rank of

L:J Mo |Di| |Di| |Di| Separated Ranks
2.5 1.5 1.5 5 5 5
0.8 -0.2 0.2 3.5 -3.5 -3.5
0.9 -0.1 0.1 1.5 -1.5 -1.5
1.2 0.2 0.2 3.5 3.5 3.5
1.1 0.1 0.1 1.5 1.5 1.5
Total Rank (D+, D-) 10 -5

Ho : The population is ideal (M = 1.0).

Ha : The population is not ideal (M ≠ 1.0).

α” : .125

Test Statistic : D = smaller of D+ and D- since two-sided

D = 5 (absolute value of D-)
n=5
 Critical : Reject if:
Region D < Dα” or D = Dα”
Dα” = 2 (α”=.125 – closest to .05, n=5)

Decision : Do not reject Ho (5<2).

Conclusion : The population is still ideal.

Interpretation

This means that from 1991-1995, the laborer-job ratio is still, or close to, the ideal 1.0.
Thus, since people can still be accommodated in the labor-force, education will still be of use for
the Filipino people. This is more important in the present, since we are moving from industrial-
machinery-based work towards a knowledge-based one. Education will then facilitate the
production of workers sophisticated and learned enough to thrive in this kind of environment.

Conclusion and Recommendation

We have successfully proven three things. First is that there is no change in ratio of enrollees to
graduates, and it remains significantly low by inspection. Second is that government
appropriation of funds to secondary and tertiary schools are equal. And third, the laborer-job
ratio is still close to ideal.

What do these results imply? This means that industries are already close to saturated (with
almost 1:1 ratio to demand and supply of jobs) and that the relative output of tertiary education
is low and remains to be low. This presents us with a dilemma. If the tertiary institutions will
have a better output rate (there will be an improvement in the ratio), the industries may not be
able to absorb the new entrants.

A good solution to this is to increase the number of industries concurrently with an increase in
funding in the tertiary. This will of course, reduce the allocation for the secondary education
institutions, but if we are to focus more on the immediate problems of the economy, then the
government should focus more on the available, ready-to-be-tapped, labor potential.

It is recommended too, however, that further study and analysis about the subject be done.
 Sources

The Department of Education Website

http://www.deped.gov.ph/about_deped/organizationlinks.asp?id=11

Official Unesco Website

http://www2.unesco.org/wef/en-news/philippines.shtm

The World Bank

http://www.worldbank.org/eapsocial/countries/phil/educ1.htm
http://www.worldbank.org/education/economicsed/tools/seminars/

The State of Philippine Education: A Primer on RP Educational System

prepared by: Partido ng Manggawa (PM)

Massive exodus of private school students to public seen in coming school year:
But public schools might not be able to absorb transferees due to meager budget
by: Carl Marc Ramota, Public Information Officer, Anak ng Bayan Youth Party

The Business of Higher Education: Rising Cost, Declining Quality

by: Carl Marc Ramota, Public Information Officer, Anak ng Bayan Youth Party