Assessment Study on

Local School Boards

February 2016

1

TABLE OF CONTENTS

1. What are Local School Boards? ........................................................................ 2 2. A Radical Change in the Role of LSBs ................................................................. 2 3. Reinvention of Local School Boards in Education Governance Effectiveness .... 3 4. Profile of the Respondents ................................................................................ 3 5. Organization of Data .......................................................................................... 4

5.1 Rich and Varied Agenda of LSB Meetings ................................................... 5 5.2 Systems, Structures and Processes ............................................................ 5 5.3 Initiation of Programs by LSBs ................................................................... 5 5.4 Financing Programs Initiated by LSBs ......................................................... 6 5.5 Engagement of the Community ................................................................. 6 5.6 Composition of LSB ..................................................................................... 6 5.7 Regularity of LSB Meeting ........................................................................... 7 5.8 Leadership of the Mayor in Conducting Meetings ...................................... 7 5.9 Involvement of the Mayor in Agenda Preparation ..................................... 7 5.10 Summary of the Assessment Scores ......................................................... 7

6. Assessment Results ............................................................................................ 8 6.1. How do LSBs Perform ................................................................................. 8 6.2. Assessment of Performance by Leadership Areas .................................... 8

7. Tracking the Progress of LSBs ............................................................................. 9 8. Correlation between Performance and LSB Governance .................................... 13

List of Tables

Table 1. Distribution of Respondent LSBs that Participated in the Survey on LSB Operations , 2013 ......................................................................................

4

Table 2. Distribution of LSB Members who Participated in the Survey on LSB Operations, 2013 .......................................................................................

4

Table 3. Distribution of EdGE LSBs by Level of Performance, 2013 ....................... 8 Table 4. Assessment of Leadership Areas of EdGE Alliance, 2013-2014 ................ 9 Table 5. Assessment of Performance of LSBs in Selected LGU Partners ............. 10

Table 6. Correlation Coefficient of Per Capita Education Spending and Cohort Survival Rates of Grade Six, SY 2013-14

14

List of Figures

Figure 1. Comparative assessment scores of Selected LGUs .................................. 12

2

1. What are Local School Boards? The creation of Local School Boards (LSBs) was part of the devolution program of government in 1991. The crucial role of local governments in the delivery of public services and in promoting accountability was recognized. The Local Government Code mandated the creation of LSBs in every province, city, or municipality to disburse the Special Education Fund; provide advice to the local legislative councils on the appropriation of local funds for education; and, recommend changes in the names of public schools. LSBs are to be co-chaired by the Local Chief Executive and the Division Superintendent in the case of provinces and cities and by the LCE and the District Supervisor in the case of municipalities. The LSB has six members: the Chairman of the Education Committee of the local legislative council; the municipal treasurer and representatives from the following organizations:

Youth Sector1

Federation of the Parents-Teachers Association

Teachers’ Organization

Non-academic personnel

LSBs performed perfunctory functions in education because their responsibilities were limited by the Local Government Code. The Code also specified the priorities that they should follow in spending their SEF:

Construction, repair and maintenance of school buildings and other facilities

Establishment and maintenance of extension classes

Sports activities

2. A Radical Change in the Role of LSBs. Then Mayor Jesse Robredo of Naga City started to change the way that LSBs function. The Naga City LSB was initially no different from any other. During Mayor Jesse Robredo’s first three terms, the local school board functioned merely as a budgeting body. Meeting early in the year to determine how the Special Education Fund should be allocated, the LSB played a very limited and conventional role. The concept of reinvention came in August 2001 when the Ford Foundation supported Mayor Robredo with a grant to see if he could transform the LSB as leader in catalyzing community participation in improving the delivery of basic education. This provided him with the impetus to take a long hard look at the problems of public education in the city, and to engage the community in the process. 2 Mayor Robredo was aware that the provisions of the law rendered school boards largely ineffective. He took a progressive view that “what the law does not prohibit, it allows. More importantly, he saw the power and responsibility of the city government in seeing to it that public funds, such as the SEF, should be spent efficiently and honestly. He sought to address the tradition role of its school board by strengthening education governance. As a foundation for action, Naga City’s own progressive model of governance was used. Its principles include: greater participation, multi-sectoral partnerships, and the development of a progressive attitude.

1 The youth representative used to be the chair of the Federation of Sangguniang Kabataan (SK). Republic Act

10742 introduced changes into the structure of the SK and how these reforms will affect their representation into the LSB is yet to be determined. 2 Theresa Ann Manalastas and Anthony David Medrano, “Reinventing the Local School Board, The Naga City

Experience” conducted for Synergeia Foudnation, Inc.

3

The objectives of the LSB reinvention process are as follows: 3

Improve the organizational structure of the Local School Board to ensure quality multi-sectoral community representation.

Develop the capability of the Local School Board Secretariat, technical staff, and other related working units so as to provide efficient and professional support for the Local School Board.

Institutionalize a transparent, participative, educational planning and budgeting system that will promote accountability by school board members and public officials.

Develop a community-owned education plan and budget with strong citizen participation and greater involvement by the local community.

Build and sustain community stakeholders by encouraging the general public to participate.

Identify alternative ways of financing the local education plan.

The Naga city government expanded the membership and functions of LSB, instituted a performance-incentive system for schools; conducted wide-stakeholder participation on planning, budgeting, and implementation, and broadened education financing by tapping non-traditional sources such as public-private sector partnerships.

In recognition of the innovations and significant outcomes of the LSB reinvention process in Naga City, the program was awarded as one of the 10 outstanding programs on Local Governance by the Galing Pook Foundation in 2004. 3. Reinvention of Local School Boards in Education Governance Effectiveness (EdGE). The capacity of 91 local government units that are participants to the EdGE project is continuously being built. They participated in a two-day workshop that introduced them to the Robredo model, made them analyze the performance of school children and introduced them to innovative ways of financing education. They had exercises on prioritization of programs, budgeting, and community engagement. To identify their strengths and weaknesses, an assessment tool was administered. It was composed of a questionnaire that asked information on the composition of LSBs, the frequency with which meetings are conducted, the functions which the LSB assumes, the programs that it initiates, the manner through which the community is engaged and the systems and processes that the follows. The questionnaire was administered to LSB members who participated in the training on “Reinventing Local School Boards“that was conducted by Synergeia from November 2013 to March 2014.4 4. Profile of the Respondents. Eighty three (83) LGUs participated in the survey representing 91% of the EdGE alliance. The distribution of respondent LSBs is presented below.

3 Ibid.

4The questionnaire is provided in Annex A.

4

Table 1. Distribution of Respondent LSBs that Participated in the Survey on LSB Operations , 2013

CLUSTER Respondents Non-Respondents TOTAL EdGE Communities

Number

In Per Cent

Number In Per Cent

Number In Per Cent

TOTAL 83 91% 8 9% 91 100%

NCR & CENTRAL LUZON

11 12.1% 2 2.2% 13 14.3%

NORTH LUZON 15 16.5% 0 0.0% 15 16.5%

ARMM CLUSTER 19 20.9% 1 1.1% 20 22.0%

NON-ARMM MINDANAO

6 6.6% 1 1.1% 7 7.7%

VISAYAS 32 35.2% 4 4.4% 36 39.6%

Two hundred thirty-eight (238) of the 260 LSB members who attended the training participated in the survey. Twenty –two (22) attendees requested not to participate in the survey simply because they were new LSB members. The number represents only 8% of the trainees. The non-respondents came from ARMM and Visayas clusters.

Table 2. Distribution of LSB Members who Participated in the Survey on LSB Operations, 2013

CLUSTER Respondents Non-Respondents TOTAL EdGE Communities

Number

In Per Cent

Number In Per Cent

Number In Per Cent

TOTAL 238 92% 22 8% 260 100%

NCR & CENTRAL LUZON 33 12.7% 2 0.8% 35 13.5%

NORTH LUZON 48 18.5% 1 0.4% 49 18.8%

ARMM CLUSTER 61 23.5% 8 3.1% 69 26.5%

NON-ARMM MINDANAO 13 5.0% 3 1.2% 16 6.2%

VISAYAS 83 31.9% 8 3.1% 91 35.0%

5. Organization of Data. The questionnaire was constructed using open-ended questions to provide respondents with greater freedom in giving information. LSBs operate under various structures and adopt diverse processes in their operations. Such diversity would not be captured by fixed-alternative questions.

5

The answers to the questionnaire were organized and analyzed and provided the codes or the general categories in organizing a 5-point rating scale. The answers of the respondents were given a score based on the following rating scale. 5.1. Rich and Varied Agenda of LSB Meetings

5.2. Systems, Structures and Processes

Score Systems, Processes, Procedures

5 Vision, Regular workshops and meetings, documentation of meetings, Special Education Fund (SEF) budget, discusses targets and accomplishments in learning performance, Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses (MOOE) budget of Schools and disbursements

4 Discusses targets and accomplishments in learning performance, SEF Finance, no regularity in meetings; has minutes of meetings

3 Has minutes of LSB meetings, SEF Finance

2 SEF Finance

1 None

5.3. Initiation of Programs by LSBs

Score Programs

5 Training of Teachers, Alternative Learning Systems

4 Hiring of Teachers

3 Provision of Scholarships

2 Brigada Eskwela, Holding of contests

1 None

Score Description Agenda Content

5 Rich and Varied - Learning Outcomes - Education Finance - DepEd Programs & School Policies - Administrative Matters - Sports Festival -Out of school Youth ( OSCY) - Teacher and Parents Programs

4 Learning Performance - Dropout - NAT -OSCY

3 Finance SEF Budget - Budget of School - MOOE Budget

2 DepEd Programs and Policies - DepEd Programs & Policies

1 Administrative -Teacher’s Appointment - Sports

6

5.4. Financing Programs Initiated by LSBs

Score Programs

5 Innovative means increase the real property tax collection; use of other funds to finance education ; initiation of partnerships with parents, and the private sector to finance education

4 Innovative means increase the real property tax collection; initiation of partnerships with parents, and the private sector to finance education

3 Innovative means increase the real property tax collection; use of other funds to finance education

2 Increase real property tax collection

1 None

5.5. Engagement of the Community

Score Programs to engage the community

5 Regular meeting with parents, Parents-Teachers Associations (PTAs), barangay assemblies, once-a-year education summit, training programs as the need arises

4 Regular meeting with parents, PTAs

3 once-a-year education summit

2 Training program as the need arises

1 None

5.6. Composition of LSB

Score MEMBERSHIP

5 CSO - Religious Sector, Women's Organizations, Business Sector, NGOs, MSWD, English, Science, Math Coordinator, MPDC, Religious on Madaris, Representative from District Hospital, District Supervisor, President of Chamber of Commerce

4 CSO - Municipal Assessor, Representative from Academe, ABC President, Municipal Administrative and Supervisor.

3 CSO - ABC, Religious Sector, Business Sector, DA, DSWD & Expanded LSB

2 CSO - Private school women, Business Religious sector ABC President, Vice Mayor

1 MANDATORY

7

5.7. Regularity of LSB Meetings

Score Frequency of Meetings

5 Monthly

4 Bi-monthly

3 Quarterly

2 Twice a year

1 Irregular

5.8. Leadership of the Mayor in Conducting LSB Meetings

Score Officials Chairing the Meeting

5 Mayor

4 Mayor or Supervisor

3 Mayor or Supervisor or Planning Officer

2 Mayor or Supervisor, or Principal and Planning Officer

1 Supervisor, or Principal and Planning Officer

5.9. Involvement of the Mayor in Agenda Preparation

Score Officials Preparing the Agenda

4 Mayor

3 Mayor & Supervisor

2 Mayor, Supervisor & Planning Officer

1 Principal, Planning officer & others

The summary of the scores divided by the number of the number of items in the questionnaire provided the average rating and served as basis for the qualitative assessment of the LSB performance as follows: 5.10. Summary of the Assessment Scores

Score Description

5 Outstanding Performance

4 Performing Well

3 Satisfactory Performance

2 LSB is Developing to be functional

1 LSB is starting to be functional

8

6. Assessment Results 6.1. How do LSBs Perform? More than half of the EdGE communities scored 3, which means a satisfactory performance. LSBs from Luzon and ARMM scored 3.0 on the average which indicates a satisfactory performance. Those that are functioning below the average are LSBs from the Visayas, and Mindanao (Non-ARMM) with a score of 2.74 and 2.95. Their operations are still in the developing stage.

Table 3. Distribution of EdGE LSBs by Level of Performance, 2013

Qualitative Rating ARMM Mindanao

Non-ARMM

Central &

Southern LUZON*

Visayas N.

Luzon PHILS. % DISTR'N

LSB is starting to be functional – 1

- 1 1 2 - 4 5%

LSB is Developing to be functional - 2

8 1 5 18 2 34 41%

Satisfactory Performance -3

11 4 5 12 13 45 54%

Performing Well - 4

- - - - - - 0%

Outstanding Performance – 5

- - - - - - -

TOTAL 19 6 11 32 15 83 100%

In Percent 23% 7% 13% 39% 18% 100%

6.2. Assessment of Performance by Leadership Areas. The LSBs scored highest in the exercise of leadership by the Mayor. The Mayor takes the initiative in convening the LSBs, in preparing the agenda, as well in implementing programs to improve education. They scored the lowest in community engagement. They are in the developing stage with respect to initiating financing programs to support education, being inclusive and expanding membership to LSBs and in conducting regular meetings. The LSBs from the Visayas scored the lowest, 2.74, with community engagement as their weakest point, 0.75. Their other areas of weaknesses are the initiation of financing programs in education and expansion of the membership to LSBs. Their strength is the leadership of the mayor in LSB governance. The highest performers are the municipalities from ARMM. They scored above average in following systems, processes, and procedures, discussing a rich and varied agenda in LSB meetings under the leadership of the Mayor. They still need to strengthen community engagement and broaden LSB membership. The LSB must also take the lead in initiating education programs with the mayor at the helm.

9

LSBs from non-ARMM Mindanao are performing below average. This indicates that they are in the process of strengthening the LSBs through greater community engagement, greater involvement of LSBs in initiating programs in education. Their weakest area is how to implement financing programs that will generate additional resources for education. Among the members of the EdGE alliance, the highest scores were obtained by Santol, La Union (4.0); Siasi, Sulu (3.89); and Balanga, Bataan (3.89). The LSBs in ARMM are performing satisfactorily except for Parang, Sultan Sabaronguis, and Panglima Tahil with scores below 3.0. In the Visayas, 11 LSBs rated their performance as satisfactory: San Jose, Antique, Dalaguete in Cebu; Victoria City in Negros Occidental ; and, Barotac Viejo, San Joaquin, Alimodian, Pavia, Dumangas, Cabatuan, all in Iloilo; Ivisan and Mambusao in Capiz. The LSB of Maasin in Iloilo scored the lowest (1.78). Except for Santol La Union, the LSBs in Luzon consider themselves as still in the developing stage and gave a score below 3.0 to describe their performance. (Annex B provides the details on the scores obtained by LSBs).

Table 4. Assessment of Leadership Areas of EdGE Alliance, 2013-2014

Leadership Areas Northern

Luzon

Central and

Southern Luzon

Visayas Mindanao

Non-ARMM

ARMM Philippines

Regularity in conducting meetings 2.94 3.44 2.38 2.83 3.37 2.99

Rich and varied agenda 3.12 4.22 3.56 3.83 3.68 3.68

Leadership of Mayor 4.00 4.33 4.81 4.67 3.63 4.29

Collaborative agenda preparation 3.88 3.22 3.13 3.50 2.42 3.23

Follows systems, processes & structures 3.18 3.89 3.16 3.50 3.84 3.51

Exercises leadership in education programs 3.35 3.11 3.31 2.17 3.79 3.15

Initiates financing programs in education 2.88 2.22 1.44 2.67 2.26 2.29

Community engagement 2.88 0.78 0.75 1.75 1.89 1.61

Expanded Membership 3.12 2.44 2.13 1.67 2.89 2.45

Average Score 3.26 3.00 2.74 2.95 3.09 3.02

7. Tracking the Progress of LSBs. After almost two years of EdGE implementation, Synergeia started to track how LSBs have translated concepts learned, and skills developed into improved processes and systems. Focus group discussions were conducted in 21 LSBs using the assessment tool as a framework. The monitoring group was composed of the M and E team, the Project Officers and Synergeia mentors. In addition to LSB members, principals, teachers and parents participated in the discussion. They were asked to give a score on how their LSBs function using a 5-point scale. They used the same scale during the pre-assessment in 2013-2014. A comparison between the initial and mid-assessment results is shown in Table 5.

10

Table 5. Assessment of Performance of LSBs in Selected LGU Partners of EdGE

PROVINCE

MUNICIPALITY

Regularity in

conducting

meetings

Rich &

varied

agenda

Leadership

of Mayor

Collabo-

rative

agenda

preparation

Follows

systems,

processes

&

structures

Exercises

leadership in

education

programs

Initiates

financing

programs in

education

Engages

community in

education

planning &

implementation

Expanded

membership

Numerical

Rating

Il o i l o

Mid Assessment 5 5 5 3 5 5 5 5 3 4.6

Baseline 4 3 5 3 2 5 2 0 2 2.9

Mid Assessment 3 5 5 4 5 3 3 3 4 3.9

Baseline 1 2 5 4 3 4 2 0 4 2.8

Mid Assessment 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 4 3 4.1

Baseline 1 3 5 3 2 3 2 0 1 2.2

Mid Assessment 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 4 5 4.2

Baseline 2 4 5 3 2 4 2 0 1 2.6

Mid Assessment 3 4 5 4 3 4 3 3 3 3.6

Baseline 1 4 5 3 4 4 2 0 1 2.7

Mid Assessment 5 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 4.6

Baseline 1 3 5 3 3 3 2 0 3 2.6

Mid Assessment 3 3 5 3 4 5 5 3 3 3.8

Baseline 3 4 3 3 2 4 0 2 1 2.4

Tawi Tawi

Mid Assessment 4 5 5 3 5 3 3 4 4 4.0

Baseline 3 4 5 2 4 4 0 2 2 2.90

Mid Assessment 5 5 5 4 3 5 5 5 4 4.6

Baseline 5 1 2 2 4 4 4 2 3 3.00

Capiz

Mid Assessment 4 5 5 5 5 4 3 3 4 4.2

Baseline 1 4 5 3 3 4 2 1 3 2.90

Mid Assessment 1 5 3 1 3 3 3 3 1 2.6

Baseline 1 4 5 4 3 4 2 1 3 3.00

Mid Assessment 3 3 3 3 3 2 3 3 1 2.7

Baseline 4 4 5 3 2 3 - - 1 2.40Sapian

LAMBUNAO

DAO

MINA

AJUY

CONCEPCION

LEMERY

BATAD

Mabusao

BONGAO

SIMUNUL

ESTANCIA

11

PROVINCE

MUNICIPALITY

Regularity in

conducting

meetings

Rich &

varied

agenda

Leadership

of Mayor

Collabo-

rative

agenda

preparation

Follows

systems,

processes

&

structures

Exercises

leadership in

education

programs

Initiates

financing

programs in

education

Engages

community in

education

planning &

implementation

Expanded

membership

Numerical

Rating

Maguindanao

Mid Assessment 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0

Baseline 2 5 2 2 4 3 4 1 5 3.10

Mid Assessment 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 5 4.1

Baseline 3 1 5 3 4 4 4 2 1 3.00

Mid Assessment 5 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.2

Baseline 4 4 2 2 4 4 4 3 5 3.60

Mid Assessment 4 5 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.1

Baseline 1 4 3 4 3 4 0 3 1 2.60

Lanao del Sur

Mid Assessment 5 5 5 5 5 5 3 5 4 4.7

Baseline 5 4 5 4 4 3 - - 1 2.90

Mid Assessment 4 5 5 3 4 4 3 4 5 4.1

Baseline 4 5 2 2 4 5 4 2 5 3.70

Mid Assessment 4 4 4 4 4 5 5 4 5 4.3

Baseline 3 3 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3.00

Mid Assessment 5 3 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4.0

Baseline 5 4 2 2 3 4 4 3 5 3.60

Mid Assessment 1 5 5 4 5 5 4 3 5 4.1

Baseline 1 3 4 3 1 - - 2 1.60

Average Score 3.47

Score Description

1 LSB is starting to be functional

2 LSB is developing to be functional

3 Satisfactory performance

4 Performing well

5 Outstanding performance

PAGLAT

GSKP

DATU PAGLAS

Zambo del Sur

DUMINGAG

Sulu

JOLO

Benguet

LA TRINIDAD

Balindong

PAGALUNGAN

TARAKA

12

It is heartening to note how LSBs have improved in their performance as seen by the respondents. From an average score of 2.86 (which means that LSBs were starting to be functional), the average rating of LSBs has gone up to 4.05---a positive indicator that they are performing well. For example, from a score of 1.6, the LSB of Dumingag is now performing at level 4.1 which means that it is performing well. The LSB is meeting regularly and takes the lead in organizing activities to benefit the children. Synergeia observed how the LSB took the lead in organizing the SGC training in Dumingag in December 2015. The Mayor convened an organizing committee, took care of the logistics including preparation of the venue and made sure that all the participants joined the training. All the LSB members were present during the two-day training. After the workshop, the Mayor met all the SGC officers to plan how they would implement their work programs. The same can be said for the big improvements in the performance of LSBs in Iloilo, Maguindanao, Lanao del Sur, Jolo, and La Trinidad. Sixteen municipalities out of 21 that were assessed have been judged as performing well at level 4. The municipalities that have moved up in performance but are still below level 4 are Batad, Ajuy and Estancia in Iloilo and Sapian and Mambusao in Capiz, Mambusao moved down in performance from 3 to 2.6. The LSB members attributed the slide to the political problems because the Mayor faced suspension and was replaced by the Vice Mayor.

Figure 1. Comparative assessment scores of Selected LGUs

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

5

Pre-assessment

Post-assessment

13

Figure 2. Assessment of LSBs in Performing Specific Functions

The areas where marked improvement is noticeable are the assumption of the Local Chief Executives of leadership in education as well as the discussion of a rich and varied agenda during LSB meeintngs. The areas which need more strengthening are the conduct of regular meetings, finance of education, and community engagement and expansion of LSB membership. 8. Correlation between Performance and LSB Governance. The effect of education governance on performance indicators was analyzed by estimating the Pearson product-moment correlation coefficient. The relationship between the following variables was tested:

Per capita education spending of LGUs and cohort survival rate

Per capita education spending of LGUs and NAT results in 2013 and 2014

Assessment of LSB performance and cohort survival rates

Assessment of LSB performance with NAT results

The education spending per capita of LGUs was found to be positively and significantly correlated to higher cohort survival rates. LSBs that spent more on education per capita have higher cohort survival rates than LSBs with lower per capita spending on education. It was also observed that education spending has an impact on cohort survival rates in the next school years. LGUs with higher spending in 2013 had higher cohort survival rates in 2014. No significant relationship was observed between education spending per capita and NAT results. We can only conclude that it is not the amount of spending that influence learning performance but the

0 0.5

1 1.5

2 2.5

3 3.5

4 4.5

5

Pre-assessment

Post-assessment

14

focus of education spending. Expenditures on areas that are not related to enhancing performance have little or no influence on the academic performance of pupils or their survival in schools. The lack of relationship between LSB performance and NAT results can be explained by the small number of LSBs whose performance was post- assessed. Only 21 LSBs participated in mid-assessment. We look forward to an improvement in the relationship with the participation of 91 LSBs.

It is worthwhile to note that the mean performance scores of students who are participating in EdGE

from the National Achievement Test (NAT) increased from 69.2% in 2013 to 71.6 in 2014. But the

improvement in performance was the result of many factors such as such as quality of teachers,

leadership of principals, support of parents and the community and ratio of teachers to students.

Table 6. CORRELATION COEFFICIENT OF PER CAPITA EDUCATION SPENDING AND COHORT SURVIVAL RATES OF GRADE SIX, SY 2013 AND 2014

Variable Pearson

Correlation

Sig. (2-tailed)

computed

Number of

Samples Level of Significance

Per Capita Spending(2013) vs Cohort Survival rate

(2013) .370** .001 82

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).

Per Capita Spending(2014) vs Cohort Survival rate

(2014) .272* .036 60

*. Correlation is significant at the 0.05 level (2-tailed).

Per Capita Spending(2013) vs Cohort Survival rate

(2014) .400** .000 82

**. Correlation is significant at the 0.01 level (2-tailed).