Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON AUDIT Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
A Citizen Participatory Audit Report
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON AUDIT Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION’S ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY SCHOOL
BUILDINGS AND OTHER FACILITIES IN METRO MANILA
A Citizen Participatory Audit Report
JANUARY 2020
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
Acronyms ..................................................................................................................................... i
Transmittal Letter ........................................................................................................................ 1
Report
1.0 Background ........................................................................................................................... 2
2.0 Audit Focus ........................................................................................................................... 4
3.0 Audit Objectives .................................................................................................................... 5
4.0 Audit Criteria ......................................................................................................................... 6
5.0 Audit Scope and Methodology............................................................................................... 7
6.0 Audit Period ........................................................................................................................ 13
7.0 Audit Team Composition ..................................................................................................... 15
8.0 Audit Results ....................................................................................................................... 16
9.0 Audit Conclusions ............................................................................................................... 51
10.0 Recommendations ............................................................................................................ 53
11.0 Auditee’s Comments ......................................................................................................... 63
12.0 Auditor’s Evaluation and Rejoinder ................................................................................... 67
13.0 Acknowledgement ............................................................................................................ 69
Annexes:
Annex 1: Inspection Data Gathering Tool Annex A.1 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and
Mechanical/Fire Protection Design Standards for school buildings
prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Ground Floor)
Annex A.2 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and
Mechanical/Fire Protection Design Standards for school buildings
prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Upper Floor)
Annex A.3 Compliance with the Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and
Mechanical/Fire Protection Design Standards for school buildings
prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Single-storey Buildings)
Annex B Compliance with toilet facilities requirements prescribed under
Educational Facilities Manual
Annex C Compliance with architectural facilities and features requirements of
ramps and toilets for Persons with Disability (PWDs) prescribed under
Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 344 - Accessibility Law and its
Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRRs)
Annex D Compliance with fire protection system requirements prescribed under
Republic Act (RA) No. 9514 - Fire Code of the Philippines and its IRRs
Annex E Compliance with RA No. 6716 - Rainwater Collector and Springs
Development Law
Annex F Geotagged Photos
Annex 2: Focus Group Discussion Guide
ACRONYMS
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
BEFF
BFP
Basic Education Facilities Fund
Bureau of Fire Protection
COA Commission on Audit
CPA Citizen Participatory Audit
CSO Civil Society Organization
DepEd Department of Education
DPWH
FGD
IRR
Department of Public Works and Highways
Focus Group Discussion
Implementing Rules and Regulations
LGU Local Government Unit
MOA Memorandum of Agreement
MPSS Minimum Performance Standards and Specifications
NCR
NGS
National Capital Region
National Government Sector
PMO Project Management Office
PWD
RSBP
RWCS
Persons With Disability
Regular School Building Program
Rain Water Collection System
SDO Schools Division Office
Republic of the Philippines
COMMISSION ON AUDIT Commonwealth Avenue, Quezon City
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
March 2, 2020 HON. LEONOR MAGTOLIS BRIONES Secretary Department of Education DepEd Complex, MERALCO Avenue Pasig City Dear Secretary Briones:
Pursuant to Section 2, Article IX-D of the Philippine Constitution and Section 43 of the Government Auditing Code of the Philippines (Presidential Decree No. 1445), Audit Teams were created under Commission on Audit (COA) Office Order No. 2019-027 dated August 28, 2019 to conduct the Citizen Participatory Audit of selected Public Elementary and Secondary School Buildings in Metro Manila.
For this undertaking, we adopted the Citizen Participatory Audit (CPA) technique
in line with the COA’s response to the call of the President of the Philippines for increased transparency and citizen participation in government and invoking COA’s authority granted by the 1987 Constitution “to define the scope of its audit and examination and establish the techniques and methods required therefor.”
We discussed the audit observations and recommendations with the Officials of the Department of Education (DepEd) and Department of Public Works and Highways including the Schools Division Superintendents (SDS’s) of Metro Manila in an exit conference conducted on January 24, 2020. We incorporated their responses/comments in the report where appropriate. The details of the audit are contained in this Audit Report.
We wish to express our gratitude to the SDS’s, School Principals, Teachers, and other concerned personnel of the selected schools in Metro Manila for their cooperation and support extended to the Teams during the audit. Likewise, we will appreciate receiving feedback on the status of implementation of our audit recommendations within 60 days from receipt hereof. Very truly yours,
ELINORE C. LAVILLA Director IV
P a g e | 2
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
1.0 BACKGROUND
The CPA is a priority program of the Commission on Audit, a broad program that provides, among others, a strategy for reform to uphold the Filipino people’s primordial right to a clean government and the prudent utilization of public resources, founded on the premise that public accountability can prosper only with a vigilant and involved citizenry. It further aims to provide a mechanism for collectively answering questions regarding government’s efficient and effective use of public funds for projects and operational activities. Per Republic Act (RA) No. 9155, DepEd’s goal of basic education is to provide the school age population and young adults with skills, knowledge, and values to become caring, self-reliant, productive and patriotic citizens. To attain this goal, schools should have, among others, adequate school buildings that comply with applicable standards; and, that operate in an environment that is conducive to learning. The DepEd 2010 Education and Facilities Manual was issued to lay down the standards for classrooms and schools buildings. Based on the said Manual, the following general guidelines shall be observed in the design of school buildings:
a. A school building shall be designed in accordance with its functions, needs of its user, and the nature of the environment.
b. In view of scarce resources, a school building shall be conceived for economy in construction, utilization and maintenance.
c. The design approach shall be straightforward, relying upon simplicity of concept in the context of innovation to reflect order and dignity, ensure flexibility in anticipation of educational change, and achieve structural stability.
d. Human dimensions, static and dynamic, specifically with reference to Filipino children and youth, shall be the basis for establishing scale.
e. Aesthetic elements shall be integral to the overall design and even given contemporary treatment, shall derive from historical, traditional or native themes.
f. The use of indigenous or locally produced materials shall be maximized in
conjunction with the application of appropriate construction technology.
g. Provision for mobility of handicapped/disabled persons shall be given due consideration in the design and construction of school buildings and other facilities in accordance with Batas Pambansa (BP) Bilang 344 (Accessibility Law).
P a g e | 3
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
1.0 BACKGROUND
On December 15, 2017, DepEd Order No. 64 was issued to establish the Minimum Performance Standards and Specifications (MPSS) for DepEd School Buildings, whether single-storey, medium-rise, or high-rise, to guide the DepEd and other stakeholders in the preparation of plans to ensure comfort and safety of the would-be occupants of the school buildings.
P a g e | 4
2.0 AUDIT FOCUS
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
Following the institutionalization of the CPA in the Commission, the Audit Sectors
identified CPA foci which were selected based on, among other parameters, feedback
from civil society. The National Government Sector (NGS) committed to undertake a CPA
focusing on Public Elementary and Secondary School Buildings in the National Capital
Region (NCR) for Calendar Year 2019. The Assistant Commissioner, NGS, and the
Directors of the NGS, Cluster 5 - Education and Employment and Project Management
Office (PMO), Office of the Chairperson affirmed, in a series of meetings, the selected
audit focus.
Nationwide, there are 78,567 schools under the supervision of the DepEd’s Schools
Division Offices, of which 55,502 are public schools. In this audit, we considered as our
population the 792 public schools in the NCR, from which we selected 158 schools as the
sample using statistical sampling design.
P a g e | 5
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
3.0 AUDIT OBJECTIVES
We conducted the CPA of public elementary and secondary school buildings with the
following audit objectives:
1. To determine compliance of public elementary and secondary school buildings
with the minimum standards and specifications embodied in existing laws,
rules and regulations (architectural, structural, electrical, fire protection,
sanitary and others), specifically, the following features and subsidiary works:
a. Concrete and smooth finish flooring;
b. Painted walls and ceilings;
c. Long-span and pre-painted roofing;
d. Complete set of windows;
e. Two (2) entrances with doors;
f. Complete electrical wires and fixtures;
g. Chalkboard;
h. Ramps pursuant to BP Bilang 344; and
2. To determine the satisfaction of pupils/students with the classrooms, facilities
(toilets, library, computer room, clinic, etc.); materials/equipment (books,
computer, chairs, electric fans, etc.); and people (teachers, students, principal,
nurse, security guards, etc.)
P a g e | 6
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
4.0 AUDIT CRITERIA
The guidelines, benchmarks, rules, and regulations used as standards for the inspection
of public elementary and secondary school buildings in the NCR include the following:
1. DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 - Establishing the minimum performance
standards and specification for DepEd School Buildings;
2. DepEd Order No. 91, s. 2011 - Kindergarten School Building Project;
3. DepEd Order No. 94, s. 2011 - Guidelines on the Implementation of Basic Educational Facilities Fund (BEFF);
4. DepEd Order No. 28, series of 2014 - Guidelines on the Implementation of the
CY 2014 RSBP;
5. DepEd Order No. 56, series of 2009 - Construction of Water and Hand Washing Facilities;
6. National Building Code;
7. National Structural Code;
8. Philippine Electrical Code;
9. Plumbing, Sanitary, Mechanical and Fire Codes of the Philippine including BP Bilang 344 (provision of ramps);
10. Educational Facilities Manual (CY 2010); and
11. RA No. 6716 - Rainwater Collection System.
The CPA Team is aware that school buildings were designed and constructed following the standards set in laws, rules and regulations applicable at that time. It is however, the contention of the CPA Team that as the DepEd issues new standards, it also proceeds with the improvement of old buildings to likewise comply with the new standards. The results of the audit, in the context of compliance with DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017, would tend to show the current status of implementation of interventions to ensure the buildings’ safety, adequacy of space and facilities, and conduciveness to learning, among others, regardless of the source of fund for the construction, the implementing entity, and year of design/construction.
P a g e | 7
5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
The methodology applied started with the initial planning for the identification of schools to be the subject of CPA, followed by the selection of Civil Society Organization (CSO) partners, design, dry-run, and conduct of capacity building activities, engagement with the CSO/citizen-partners, the audit planning activities by the CPA Teams, the execution phase and reporting of the audit results. I. Planning and Designing the CPA Engagement
The following activities were conducted:
1. Selection of the audit focus;
2. Gathering of data on school buildings and organizational set-up of DepEd;
3. Gathering of data on criteria (laws, rules and regulations on design and specifications of school buildings) for the audit and design of survey questionnaires;
4. Preparation of the CPA Calendar/Plan;
5. Preparation of the audit design with concept of the inspection sampling,
including determination of the number of citizen-partners needed;
6. Preparation of the authority for the Assistant Commissioner of NGS to constitute the CPA Team, sign Memorandum of Agreement (MOA), authorize citizen-partners, etc.;
7. Determination of sample schools and transmission of data on the number of
classrooms for the sample schools to NGS;
8. Design of focus-group-discussion (FGD) plan on satisfaction survey;
9. Constitution of the CPA Teams;
10. Preparation of initial audit program, inspection data gathering tool and FGD guide; and
11. Conduct of inspection dry-run in one public school building - San Diego
Elementary School, Quezon City – and enhancement of the Inspection Tool and Instructions.
P a g e | 8
5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
II. Preparing for and Conducting the Exploratory Meeting
Exploratory meetings were conducted with individual CSOs: (1) Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO), (2) Metro Manila Federation of Persons With Disability, Inc., (3) Unang Hakbang Foundation with its partner Pinagsamang Lakas ng Kabataan, (5) Quezon City Federation of PWDs, Inc.; and, with three individual citizens – retired Auditors who were once part of the DepEd Audit Group. The activities in this step of the CPA process were mostly conducted by the Office that manages the CPA – the PMO, Office of the Chairperson. The activities included in this step of the CPA Process are:
1. Preparation of COA Office Order for the Exploratory Meeting and submission to
the COA Chairperson for approval;
2. Preparation of budget and submission to Risk Management and Budget Office (RMBO) for processing;
3. Identification of possible CSO/citizen-partners;
4. Preparation and sending of invitation letters to citizens/CSOs;
5. Monitoring of responses and determination of number of attendees;
6. Preparation of Program or Activity Outline;
7. Exposure of the Program for comments of the NGS Assistant Commissioner
and NGS-Cluster 5 Directors;
8. Revision of the Program incorporating the comments of NGS; and
9. Preparation of meeting materials (presentation materials, CPA templates, attendance sheets).
III. Preparing for and Conducting the Capacity Building, MOA Signing,
Nominating, Authorizing, Initial Audit Team Planning
These activities comprised:
1. Preparatory Activities
a. Preparation of COA Office Order for the activities for approval of the Chairperson;
P a g e | 9
5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
b. Preparation of the budget and submission to RMBO, PFMS for processing;
c. Identification of possible CSO partners from those who signified their intention during the Exploratory Meeting with their possible nominees;
d. Preparation and sending of invitation letters to citizens/CSO partners;
e. Monitoring responses and determining the number of attendees;
f. Preparation of the Program or Activity Outline;
g. Exposure of the Program for comments of the NGS Assistant Commissioner
and NGS-Cluster 5 Directors;
h. Revision of the Program incorporating the comments of NGS;
i. Preparation of activity materials (presentation materials, CPA templates, attendance sheets);
j. Arrangement of venue and equipment (sound, projector);
k. Arrangement for meals and snacks;
l. Arrangement for photo / video coverage with PIO; and
m. Obtaining of cash advance for citizen-partners’ allowances and supplies/ materials.
2. Conducting the Capacity Building, Signing of the MOA, Nominating,
Authorizing, and Initial Audit Team Planning
a. Capacity building of participating auditors and nominated citizen-partners on the CPA engagement, its purpose and processes, responsibilities of both COA auditors and citizen-partners;
b. Capacity building of participants on the use of tools – geotagging and the like –
for the audit;
c. Capacity building of participants on the use of the inspection data gathering tool and in the conduct of FGD;
P a g e | 10
5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
d. Signing of the MOA by the NGS Assistant Commissioner, Heads of CSOs, and individual citizens;
e. Nomination of capacitated members of CSOs;
f. Authorizing nominated members of CSOs and individual citizens;
g. Acceptance by the participating citizen-partner/auditor of the authority granted as citizen-partner/auditor; and signing the Auditor’s Statement of Independence, Non-Disclosure Statement, and Waiver of Liability.
h. Enhancement of the audit program taking into account the inputs of the citizen-
partners;
i. Discussions of the audit instructions by the assigned Audit Team Leaders to the Audit Team Members.
j. Distribution of CPA Teams’ uniforms and other paraphernalia (t-shirts, caps, umbrellas, identification cards); and
k. Distribution of citizen-partners’ allowances. IV. Conducting the CPA engagement
This involves the following audit activities:
1. Notification of the auditee regarding the CPA engagement;
2. Conduct of Audit Entrance Conference;
3. Conduct of audit fieldwork;
4. Performance of data analysis and consolidation, and preparation and transmittal of Audit Observation Memoranda, as applicable;
5. Preparation, finalization, and collation of audit working papers;
6. Initial evaluation of Management’s Comments; and
7. Conduct of the Audit Exit Conference.
P a g e | 11
5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
V. Writing the CPA Report
For the purpose of this step of the CPA process, a Writeshop was organized and conducted by the PMO where the CPA Teams composed of COA auditors and citizen-partners wrote the narrative CPA Report.
The activities conducted were: 1. Preparatory activities mostly done by the PMO, in collaboration with the Audit
Cluster and the CPA Teams:
a. Preparation of the Office Order; and, approval by the COA Chairperson;
b. Preparation of activity materials (audit working papers) by the CPA Teams;
c. Arranging for logistics (fund support, venue, equipment, meals and snacks, supplies and materials);
d. Obtaining cash advance for citizen-partners’ allowances and procurement of supplies/materials.
2. Conduct of the CPA Report Writeshop where the CPA Report was drafted. It involved the evaluation of further Management’s comments and preparation of Audit Team’s Rejoinder, as applicable; and
3. Review, finalization, and transmittal of the audit report.
P a g e | 12
5.0 AUDIT SCOPE AND METHODOLOGY
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
The CPA activities in photos:
• Developing and Pre-testing the Inspection Data Gathering Tool
• Capacity Building: Pre-testing the Focus Group Discussion Guide
• Signing of the MOA among the COA, CSO Partners, and individual citizens (retired COA auditors); Nomination and Authorization of Citizen-Partners
P a g e | 13
6.0 AUDIT PERIOD
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
We conducted the CPA planning and fieldwork from September 30 to December 5, 2019
and data processing and analysis, including report-writing from December to February
2020.
Presented below is the timeline and the pictures taken during the conduct of CPA activities:
Activity TIMELINE
Aug. to Sep.
Oct. November December January February
Audit Planning Capacity Building Entrance Conference Audit Execution
Conduct of Ocular Inspection and FGD Processing of Data Gathered Analysis of Results
Preparation of Audit Observation Memoranda
Exit Conference CPA Report Writeshop Finalization of CPA Report
Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 1A) Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 1B)
Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 1C) Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 2A)
Audit Execution
P a g e | 14
6.0 AUDIT PERIOD
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 2B) Ocular Inspection of School Buildings (CPA Team 2C)
Audit Report Writeshop on the CPA engagement of public elementary and secondary school buildings
Exit Conference
P a g e | 15
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
7.0 AUDIT TEAM COMPOSITION
Per COA Office Order No. 2019-027 dated August 28, 2019 and COA Office Order No.
2019-027A dated September 3, 2019, the compositions of the Audit Teams are as follows:
A. Commission on Audit
CPA Team 1 (South)
Team Supervisor:
Miguela S. Baon
Team Leader:
Job O. Aguirre, Jr.
Team Members:
1. Abdul Khalid D. Macabuat
2. Jeorge Roman G. Lozano
3. Precious Joy E. Borromeo
4. Gizel Levy E. Trinidad
5. Sittie Aisah S. Sanggacala
6. Juvy C. de Guzman
7. Camille Rose G. Celestial
8. Jones Harvey I. Marquez
CPA Team 2 (North)
Team Supervisor:
Teresita Y. Arlos
Assistant Team Supervisor:
Jemalyn V. Bautista
Team Leader:
Aldrin M. Candelario
Team Members:
1. Eliza Q. Bermudez
2. Asleah M. Mambuay
3. Melanie Julie R. Salazar
4. Mark John G. Bautista
5. Maricas J. Guillermo
6. Jonathan M. Rea
7. Marie Joy S. Castillo
Technical Inspection Team
Teresa Ty-Santiago
Michael Niño A. Chan
Mark John L. Aquino
Mark Ian P. Bonavente
Mark Edison S. Navas
Liene Stephanie L. Nadonga
B. CSO-Partners (with members with authorized Citizen- Partners) and Individual Citizen-Partners
• Caucus of Development NGOs (CODE-NGO)
• Metro Manila Federation of Persons with Disability
• Quezon City Federation of Persons with Disability
• Unang Hakbang Foundation (UHF) with its partner
Pinagsamang Lakas ng Kabataan (PILAK)
• Three (3) retired COA Auditors:
- Julieta T. Escaño, Retired OIC Director III
- Rosalinda A. Andes, Retired SA IV
- Rhodora C. Inoncillo, Retired SA IV
P a g e | 16
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
On Audit Objective 1:
Compliance of public elementary and secondary school buildings with the minimum standards and specifications embodied in existing laws, rules and regulations (architectural, structural, electrical, fire protection, sanitary and others), specifically, the following features and subsidiary works: (1) Concrete and smooth finish flooring; (2) Painted walls and ceilings; (3) Long-span and pre-painted roofing; (4) Complete set of windows; (5) Two (2) entrances with doors; (6) Complete electrical wires and fixtures; (7) Chalkboard; and (8) Ramps pursuant to BP Bilang 344. The results of inspection of the sample multi-storey school buildings in 158 schools in Metro Manila, and two single-storey school buildings are consolidated as follows:
• Annex A.1 - Ground Floor Multi-Storey Buildings,
• Annex A.2 - Upper Floor Multi-Storey Buildings,
• Annex A.3 - Single-Storey Buildings,
• Annex B - Provision for Toilet,
• Annex C - Accessibility Law,
• Annex D - Fire Protection System, and
• Annex E - Rainwater Collection System. Annex A.1 contains the details of the data gathered pertaining to the ground floor’s architectural standards of the school buildings under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017, specifically, on the following aspects per school building: classroom size, windows, doors, ceiling, partitions, corridors, stairways, chalkboard, painting, wall markings, ventilation, illumination, lightings and fixtures, mechanical system/elevator, water piping system and septic vault. Annex A.2 contains the details of the data gathered pertaining to the upper floor’s architectural standards of the school buildings under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017, specifically, on the following aspects per school building: classroom size, windows, doors, ceiling, partitions, corridors, stairways, chalkboard, painting, wall markings, ventilation, illumination and lightings and fixtures. Annex A.3 pertains to the data gathered on the two single-storey buildings in Las Piñas North National High School – Gatchalian Annex and Taguig National High School. Inspections were conducted to determine compliance with the architectural standards of the school buildings under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017, specifically, on the following aspects per school building: classroom size, windows, doors, paintings, floor, elevation, ceilings, partitions, corridors, chalkboard, wall markings, ventilation, illumination, lighting and fixtures, and roofing.
P a g e | 17
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1 On Compliance with Architectural, Electrical, Sanitary, Plumbing, and Mechanical/Fire Protection Design Standards for school buildings prescribed under DepEd Order No. 64 s. 2017 (Annexes A.1, A.2, and A.3)
Inspection of the school buildings’ ground floor (Annex A.1) disclosed that:
8.1.1 On the classroom size or width/depth and length
Majority1 or one hundred thirty (130) school buildings or 82.28 percent complied with the width/depth standard, and eighty-nine (89) schools or 56.33 percent complied with the length standard (shown in Table 1a. Ground Floor).
Table 1a. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable2
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Classroom size Classroom size Width/depth = 7.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls
130 82.28 25 15.82 3 1.90
Length = 9.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls
89 56.33 66 41.77 3 1.90
8.1.2 On the Windows
An average of 120 school buildings or 76.08 percent were compliant with the 10 standards (shown in Table 1b. Ground Floor).
Table 1b. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Windows
1. Bilateral fenestration
136 86.07 19 12.03 3 1.90
2. Operable louver type
100 63.29 55 34.81 3 1.90
3. Transparent or translucent
148 93.67 3 1.90 7 4.43
1 “Majority” pertains to percentage of compliance and non-compliance above 50% 2 “Not applicable” refers to some aspects or information in the data gathering tool that could not be considered as compliant or not compliant with the specifications during inspection by the Audit Teams
P a g e | 18
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 1b. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
4. Allows entry of daylight even if closed
147 93.04 4 2.53 7 4.43
5. Total area of window opening = at least 10.00 square meters
108 68.35 47 29.75 3 1.90
6. Window sill NOT lower than 0.60 meter for single-storey buildings from the finished floor line (FFL)
0 0.00 0 0.00 158 100.00
Window sill NOT higher than 0.90 meter for multi-storey buildings from the finished floor line (FFL)
120 75.95 35 22.15 3 1.90
7. Minimum height of fixed louver or transom window above the operable windows = 0.30 meter
89 56.33 65 41.14 4 2.53
8. Window panels, when opened, must not be an obstruction along the corridor
140 88.61 15 9.49 3 1.90
9. Window metal frames Sturdy enough to withstand vandalism
130 82.28 17 10.76 11 6.96
10. Jalousie holders can withstand vandalism
84 53.16 27 17.09 47 29.75
Average 120 76.08
P a g e | 19
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.3 On the Doors
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with nine (9) out of twelve (12) standards (Table 1c. Ground Floor). On the other hand,
• only 13 out of 158 schools (or 8.23%) complied with the requirement on lever-type locksets;
• only 51 (or 32.28%) complied with the requirement on DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green; and
• only 49 (or 31.01%) complied with paint Color Schedule – Temptation.
Table 1c. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Doors
1. Two (2) doors per classroom
142 89.87 13 8.23 3 1.90
2. Swing-out 132 83.55 22 13.92 4 2.53
3. 180 degrees 101 63.93 53 33.54 4 2.53
4. Clear width = 0.90 meter
143 90.51 11 6.96 4 2.53
5. Clear height = 2.10 meters
143 90.51 11 6.96 4 2.53
6. Provided with keyed locksets
144 91.14 11 6.96 3 1.90
7. Provided with lever-type locksets
13 8.23 142 89.87 3 1.90
8. Must withstand normal wear and tear
138 87.34 16 10.13 4 2.53
9. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green
51 32.28 103 65.19 4 2.53
10. Paint/Color Schedule – Temptation
49 31.01 102 64.56 7 4.43
11. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
0 0 0 0.00 158 100
12. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – Quick Drying Enamel (QDE) semi-gloss
149 94.31 4 2.53 5 3.16
P a g e | 20
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.4 On the Floor Majority of the 158 school buildings complied with four out of the five requirements. On the requirement Elevation increased depending on history of flood level, however, only 45 or 28.48 percent of the schools complied (refer to Table 1d. Ground Floor).
Table 1d. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Floor
1. Of non-skid finish 147 93.03 9 5.70 2 1.27
2. Greyish color 91 57.59 65 41.14 2 1.27
3. Classroom FFL higher than the corridor FFL by 25 millimeters
114 72.15 41 25.95 3 1.90
4. For multi-storey building, floor finish elevation = 325 millimeters or higher than the NGL
103 65.19 40 25.32 15 9.49
5. Elevation increased depending on history of flood level
45 28.48 15 9.49 98 62.03
8.1.5 On the Ceiling
Almost all3 of the 158 school buildings inspected were compliant with the four minimum standards applicable to the ground floor (the fifth standard applies only to upper floors) (Table 1e. Ground Floor).
Table 1e. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Ceiling
1. Height of rooms from FFL to finished ceiling line (FCL) = 2.70 meters or higher
148 93.67 8 5.06 2 1.27
2. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – White
155 98.10 0 0 3 1.90
3. Paint/Color Schedule – White
154 97.47 1 0.63 3 1.90
3 “Almost all” refers to percentage of compliance and non-compliance above 90%
P a g e | 21
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 1e. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
4. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
155 98.10 0 0.00 3 1.90
This requirement applies only to the upper floors:
5. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
0 0.00 0
0.00 158 100.00
8.1.6 On Partitions
Out of the sample 158 school buildings, 155 or 98.10 percent were compliant with the lone standard. (Table 1f. Ground Floor).
Table 1f. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Partitions
From floor to ceiling 155 98.10 1 0.63 2 1.27
8.1.7 On Corridors Majority of the 158 school buildings were compliant in only two out of the five applicable minimum standards (Table 1g. Ground Floor).
Table 1g. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Corridors
1. For multi-storey building = not less than 2.50 meters
66 41.77 90 56.96 2 1.27
2. With steel railings 80 50.63 69 43.67 9 5.70
3. Height = not less than 1.50 meters
6 3.80 123 77.85 29 18.35
4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green
42 26.59 63 39.87 53 33.54
5. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
105 66.46 0 0.00 53 33.54
6. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
0 0.00 0 0.00 158 100.00
P a g e | 22
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.8 On Stairways Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the three minimum standards (Table 1h. Ground Floor).
Table 1h. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Stairways
Concrete 154 97.47 3 1.90 1 0.63
For multi-storey building – concrete stairs = width of not less than 1.50 meters
108 68.36 45 28.48 5 3.16
No. of stairways per building – 2 (two)
107 67.72 48 30.38 3 1.90
8.1.9 On Chalkboard
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with four standards. As regards the fifth standard, only 19 out of 158 schools (or 12.02%) were compliant with the required Mounting Height (Table 1i. Ground Floor).
Table 1i. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Chalkboard
1. Built-in 140 88.61 11 6.96 7 4.43
2. Curved 84 53.16 65 41.14 9 5.70
3. Width = 1.22 meters 141 89.24 3 1.90 14 8.86
4. Height = 4.88 meters 138 87.34 7 4.43 13 8.23
5. Mounting heights and specifications 750 mm for secondary, 650 mm for elementary
19 12.02 126 79.75 13 8.23
8.1.10 On Painting - columns and beams, interior and exterior walls, baseboard and floor finish Majority of the school buildings were compliant with 13 out of 14 standards. However, 137 schools or 86.71 percent were not compliant with the required Color Scheme for baseboard (Table 1j. Ground Floor)
P a g e | 23
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 1j. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Painting
Columns and beams:
1. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (light shade)
97 61.39 57 36.08 4 2.53
2. Paint/Color Schedule – Yellow rain
97 61.39 57 36.08 4 2.53
3. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
153 96.83 2 1.27 3 1.90
Interior wall:
4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (lightest shade)
99 62.66 55 34.81 4 2.53
5. Paint/Color Schedule – Bright wonder
97 61.39 57 36.08 4 2.53
6. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
155 98.10 0 0.00 3 1.90
7. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
0 0 0 0.00 158 100
Baseboard:
8. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (lightest shade)
17 10.76 137 86.71 4 2.53
9. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
155 98.10 0 0 3 1.90
10. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
0 0 0 0.00 158 100
Exterior wall:
11. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (very light shade)
120 75.95 34 21.52 4 2.53
12. Paint/Color Schedule – Crisp ecru
119 75.32 34 21.52 5 3.16
13. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
158 98.73 0 0 2 1.27
Floor finish:
14. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Concrete plain cement, non-skid finish (grayish color)
90 56.96 64 40.51 4 2.53
P a g e | 24
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.11 On Wall Markings One hundred forty-eight (148) school buildings or 93.67 percent were compliant with the required minimum standard (Table 1k. Ground Floor).
Table 1k. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Wall Markings
Free from any markings 148 93.67 8 5.06 2 1.27
8.1.12 On Ventilation
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the two required minimum standards (Table 1l. Ground Floor).
Table 1l. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Ventilation
Natural: Supplied by windows and vents
150 94.94 5 3.16 3 1.90
Artificial: Supplied by 2 units oscillating ceiling fans
104 65.82 51 32.28 3 1.90
8.1.13 On Illumination
One hundred forty-six (146) school buildings or 92.40 percent were compliant with the required minimum standard.
Table 1m. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Illumination
Falling at desk or arm rest – with combined artificial and natural lighting
146 92.40 10 6.33 2 1.27
8.1.14 On Lightings and Fixtures Majority of the school buildings were compliant with one out of three required minimum standards.
P a g e | 25
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Less than 20 percent complied with the required number of units of fluorescent lamp (double T5 36 watts) and the required number of ceiling outlets for ceiling fans (Table 1n. Ground Floor).
Table 1n. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Lightings and Fixtures
1. Classroom of 7m x 9m or 9m x 7m = 6 units of double T-5 36 watts fluorescent lamp with reflector or minimum of 104 Lumens per Watt (LPW)
27 17.08 129 81.65 2 1.27
2. Duplex convenience outlet of grounding type on each windowless side
129 81.64 27 17.09 2 1.27
3. Two ceiling outlets for ceiling fans for every classroom
30 18.99 125
79.11 3 1.90
8.1.15 On Mechanical system – elevator
Only one school building has a mechanical system-elevator installed and has complied with five out of six minimum standards. The said school building, nevertheless, did not comply with the required installation of fire fighter switch (Table 1o. Ground Floor).
Table 1o. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Mechanical System-Elevator
1. Elevator installed 1 0.63 9 5.70 148 93.67
2. Fire Alarm System 59 37.34 32 20.25 67 42.41
3. Door panel buttons and lights are functional
1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37
4. Maximum Load Capacity is indicated inside the elevator
1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37
5. Emergency button inside the elevator car
1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37
6. “Certificate of Elevator Operation” is updated
1 0.63 0 0 157 99.37
P a g e | 26
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.16 On Roughing-ins One hundred fifty-two (152) school buildings or 96.21 percent complied with the required minimum standard. (Table 1p. Ground Floor).
Table 1p. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Roughing-ins
Service entrance = 1.60 meters above natural grade line or 0.30 meter above the established high flood level, whichever is higher
152 96.21 5 3.16 1 0.63
8.1.17 On Waterline Piping System
One hundred fifty-five (155) school buildings or 98.10 percent complied with the required minimum standard (Table 1q. Ground Floor).
Table 1q. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Waterline Piping System
Provide for a waterline service entrance
155 98.10 2 1.27 1 0.63
8.1.18 On Septic Vault
One hundred fifty-seven (157) school buildings or 99.37 percent were compliant with the required minimum standard.
Table 1f. Ground Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Septic Vault
Concrete septic tanks used as sanitation solutions – protected from corrosion by coating with approved bituminous coat or other acceptable means
157 99.37 1 0.63 0 0
P a g e | 27
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Inspection of the school buildings’ upper floor (Annex A.2) revealed that:
8.1.19 On Classroom size Majority (120 out of 158) of the school buildings complied with the standards on Width/Depth; while, a smaller majority (86 out of 158) complied with the standard on Length, as shown in Table 2a. Upper Floor.
Table 2a. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Classroom size
Width/depth = 7.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls
120 75.95 38 24.05 0 -
Length = 9.00 meters measured from the centers of the walls
86 54.43 72 45.57 0 -
8.1.20 On Windows
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the ten standards, as shown in Table 2b. Upper Floor.
Table 2b. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Windows
1. Bilateral fenestration 142 89.87 16 10.13 0 -
2. Operable louver type 112 70.89 46 29.11 0 -
3. Transparent or translucent
152 96.20 2 1.27 4 2.53
4. Allows entry of daylight even if closed
151 95.57 3 1.90 4 2.53
5. Total area of window opening = at least 10.00 square meters
108 68.35 50 31.65 0 -
6. Window sill NOT higher than 0.90 meter for multi-storey buildings from the finished floor line (FFL)
96 60.76 62 39.24 0 -
P a g e | 28
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 2b. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
7. Minimum height of fixed louver or transom window above the operable windows = 0.30 meter
91 57.60 28 17.72 39 24.68
8. Window panels, when opened, must not be an obstruction along the corridor
135 85.45 11 6.96 12 7.59
9. Window metal frames sturdy enough to withstand vandalism
132 83.54 17 10.76 9 5.70
10. Jalousie holders withstand vandalism
76 48.10 40 25.32 42 26.58
8.1.21 On Doors
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with eight out of eleven standards. On the other hand, most of the school buildings were not compliant with three standards:
• on lever-type locksets;
• DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra Green; and
• Paint/Color Schedule – Temptation (Table 2c. Upper Floor).
Table 2c. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Doors
1. Two (2) doors per classroom
148 93.67 10 6.33 0 -
2. Swing-out 180 degrees 136 86.08 22 13.92 0 -
3. Degrees 104 65.82 54 34.18 0 -
4. Clear width = 0.90 meter
148 93.67 10 6.33 0 -
5. Clear height = 2.10 meters
148 93.67 10 6.33 0 -
6. Provided with keyed locksets
134 84.81 23 14.56 1 0.63
P a g e | 29
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 2c. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
7. Provided with lever-type locksets
7 4.43 150 94.94 1 0.63
8. Must withstand normal wear and tear
141 89.24 16 10.13 1 0.63
9. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green
46 29.12 111 70.25 1 0.63
10. Paint/Color Schedule – Temptation
46 29.12 111 70.25 1 0.63
11. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
157 99.37 0 - 1 0.63
12. Masonry plain (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
0 - 0 - 158 100.00
8.1.22 On Floor
Majority of the school buildings inspected were compliant with all the standards, as shown in Table 2d. Upper Floor.
Table 2d. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Floor
Of non-skid finish 146 92.41 12 7.59 0 -
Greyish color 103 65.19 55 34.81 0 -
Classroom FFL higher than the corridor FFL by 25 millimeters
114 72.15 44 27.85 0 -
8.1.23 On Ceiling Majority of the school buildings inspected were compliant with six out of seven standards. Only 27 school buildings or 17.09 percent complied with the standard Masonry Paint – semi-gloss latex, as shown in Table 2e. Upper Floor.
Table 2e. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Ceiling
1. Drop-type 131 82.91 27 17.09 0 -
P a g e | 30
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 2e. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
2. Height of rooms from FFL to finished ceiling line (FCL) = 2.70 meters or higher
132 83.54 26 16.46 0 -
3. Maintenance access to the ceiling cavity – through the corridor
83 52.53 49 31.01 26 16.46
4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – White
158 100.00 0 - 0 -
5. Paint/Color Schedule – White
158 100.00 0 - 0 -
6. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
27 17.09 0 - 131 82.91
7. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
131 82.91 0 - 27 17.09
8.1.24 On Roofing Sixty-nine (69) and seventy (70) school buildings were compliant with the two standards. On the other hand, 31 and 14 or 19.62 percent and 8.86 percent, respectively, were not compliant in terms of the type of gutter and eaves and measurement of concrete gutter and eaves of 1.10 meters from wall (Table 2f. Upper Floor). Concrete gutter of 57 school buildings and eaves of 75 school buildings were not visible for inspection; hence, could not be measured.
Table 2f. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Roofing
For single-storey building – gutters not included, but properly sloped trench drain on both sides provided
0 - 0 - 158 100.00
For multi-storey building – with concrete gutter and eaves
70 44.30 31 19.62 57 36.08
Gutter and eaves = 1.10 meters from wall
69 43.67 14 8.86 75 47.47
P a g e | 31
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.25 On Partitions All of the 158 school buildings or 100% were compliant with the lone standard, as shown in Table 2g. Upper Floor.
Table 2g. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Partitions
From floor to ceiling 158 100.00 0 - 0 -
8.1.26 On Corridors
As shown in Table 2h.Upper Floor, majority of the school buildings were compliant with two out of five standards. The three standards that were not complied with were:
• corridor’s width of 2.50 meters;
• height of railings; and
• painting of railings-DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green.
Table 2h. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Corridors
1. For multi-storey building, width = not less than 2.50 meters
66 41.77 92 58.23 0 -
2. With steel railings 92 58.23 59 37.34 7 4.43
3. Height of steel railings = not less than 1.50 meters
20 12.66 131 82.91 7 4.43
4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Palmyra green
49 31.01 89 56.33 20 12.66
5. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
138 87.34 0 - 20 12.66
8.1.27 On Stairways
As shown in Table 2i. Upper Floor, majority of the school buildings were compliant with the three standards.
P a g e | 32
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 2i. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Stairways
For multi-storey building – concrete stairs =
155 98.10 3 1.90 0 -
Width of not less than 1.50 meters
106 67.09 52 32.91 0 -
No. of stairways per building – 2 (two)
128 81.01 30 18.99 0 -
8.1.28 On Chalkboard
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with four out of five standards. The standard for mounting heights was not complied with (Table 2j. Upper Floor).
Table 2j. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Chalkboard
1. Classroom with built-in chalkboard
148 93.67 9 5.70 1 0.63
2. Classroom with curved chalkboard
88 55.70 69 43.67 1 0.63
3. Measurement = 1.22 meters tall
149 94.30 6 3.80 3 1.90
4. Measurement = 4.88 meters wide
141 89.24 14 8.86 3 1.90
5. Mounting Height: 750mm for secondary
10 6.33 47 29.75 101 63.92
Mounting Height: 650mm for elementary
13 8.23 83 52.53 62 39.24
8.1.29 On Painting – Columns and beams, Interior wall, and Baseboard Table 2k. Upper Floor, shows that majority of the school buildings were compliant with the eight standards, while almost all school buildings did not comply with the standard for Baseboard - painting-beige (lightest shade).
P a g e | 33
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 2k. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Painting
Columns and beams:
1. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (light shade)
110 69.62 48 30.38 0 -
2. Paint/Color Schedule – Yellow rain
110 69.62 48 30.38 0 -
3. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
158 100.00 0 - 0 -
Interior wall:
4. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (lightest shade)
117 74.05 41 25.95 0 -
5. Paint/Color Schedule – Bright wonder
117 74.05 41 25.95 0 -
6. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
158 100.00 0 - 0 -
Baseboard:
7. DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Beige (lightest shade)
17 10.76 141 89.24 0 -
8. Masonry paint (latex) – Semi-gloss latex
157 99.37 1 0.63 0 -
9. Paint for wood, metal, etc. – QDE semi-gloss
0 - 0 - 158 100.00
8.1.30 On Floor Finish
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with the standard (Table 2l. Upper Floor).
Table 2l. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Floor finish:
DepEd MPSS Color Scheme – Concrete plain cement, non-skid finish (grayish color)
105 66.46 53 33.54 0 -
P a g e | 34
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.1.31 On Wall markings Majority (145 out of 158) of the school buildings inspected were compliant with the standard (Table 2m. Upper Floor).
Table 2m. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Wall Markings
Free from any markings 145 91.77 13 8.23 0 -
8.1.32 On Ventilation
Majority of the school buildings inspected were compliant with the two standards (Table 2n. Upper Floor).
Table 2n.-Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Ventilation
Natural: Supplied by windows and vents
156 98.73 2 1.27 0 -
Artificial: Supplied by 2 units oscillating ceiling fans
112 70.89 46 29.11 0 -
8.1.33 On Illumination
Almost all (153 of 158) or 96.84% of the school buildings were compliant with the standard (Table 2o. Upper Floor).
Table 2o. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Illumination
Falling at desk or arm rest – with combined artificial and natural lighting
153 96.84 5 3.16 0 -
8.1.34 On Lightings and Fixtures
Majority of the school buildings were compliant with one standard, while only 30 out of 158 school buildings (18.99%) were compliant with the standard on number of required fluorescent lamps with reflector; and, only 28 out of
P a g e | 35
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
158 school buildings (17.72%) complied with the standard on two ceiling outlets for ceiling fans for every classroom (Table 2p. Upper Floor).
Table 2p. Upper Floor
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Lightings and Fixtures
Classroom of 7m x 9m or 9m x 7m = 6 units of double T-5 36 watts fluorescent lamp with reflector or minimum of 104 LPW
30 18.99 128 81.01 0 -
Duplex convenience outlet of grounding type on each windowless side
128 81.01 30 18.99 0 -
Two ceiling outlets for ceiling fans for every classroom
28 17.72 130 82.28 0 -
As regards the single-storey school buildings,
8.1.35 The one at Las Piñas North National High School – Gatchalian Annex was
only a makeshift classroom constructed to accommodate the growing number of student population; hence, 10 of the 15 minimum requirements under DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 were not complied with.
8.1.36 Further, the single-storey building at Taguig National High School, donated
by PhilAm Life Foundation, complied with majority of the minimum standards under said DepEd Order. However, it did not comply with the standards on windows, painting, elevation, chalkboards, wall markings, illumination and lighting and fixtures.
8.2 On Compliance with toilet facilities requirements prescribed under the Educational Facilities Manual (Annex B) Paragraph 2, Section L of the 2010 Education Facilities Manual requires the provision of sanitary facilities in school buildings with the following standards/specifications for toilet facilities:
Every school is required to have toilet facilities within the school premises preferably with the toilet for boys and that for girls located far apart.
P a g e | 36
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Inspections conducted disclosed that a number of school buildings did not fully comply with requirements on Sanitary Facilities, specifically with the standards contained in the Toilet Facility requirements of the cited Manual.
Annex B of this Report presents the results of inspections under the aspect of Sanitary facilities in school buildings pursuant to the provisions of the 2010 Education Facilities Manual.
Table 3. Sanitary Facilities below summarizes the results of inspection:
Table 3. Sanitary Facilities
Standards Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Ground Floor
Boy’s Urinal – 1 detached per 50 pupils or 1.00m urinal through per 100 pupils
58 36.71 61 38.61 39 24.68
Boy’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) – 1 seat per 100 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils
69 43.67 41 25.95 48 30.38
Girl’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) - 1 seat per 50 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils
61 38.60 50 31.65 47 29.75
Lavatory – 1 lavatory to 1 toilet seat
Boys 78 49.37 69 43.67 11 6.96
Girls 65 41.14 85 53.80 8 5.06
Upper Floor
Boy’s Urinal – 1 detached per 50 pupils or 1.00m urinal through per 100 pupils
22 13.92 116 73.42 20 12.66
Boy’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) – 1 seat per 100 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils
33 20.89 104 65.82 21 13.29
Girl’s Toilet Seat (Water Closet) - 1 seat per 50 pupils and 1 seat designed for disabled pupils
31 19.62 103 65.19 24 15.19
Lavatory – 1 lavatory to 1 toilet seat
Boys 17 10.76 136 86.08 5 3.16
P a g e | 37
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 3. Sanitary Facilities
Standards Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Girls 26 16.46 127 80.38 5 3.16
As can be gleaned from the foregoing Table 3, as far as the ground floor is concerned, more than half of the sampled school buildings were able to meet the prescribed ratio under the three standards as follows:
1. Boys’ toilet seat (water closet) – one seat per 100 pupils/students (69 schools as opposed to 41);
2. Girls’ toilet seat (water closet) – one seat per 50 pupils/students (61 schools
as opposed to 50); and
3. Lavatory for boys – one lavatory to one toilet (78 schools as opposed to 70). On the other hand, the toilet facilities located on the upper floor of almost the entire 158 sample school buildings were not compliant with all the prescribed standards. Aside from the instances of noncompliance with the standards, the Audit Teams also observed the following deficiencies during inspection:
8.2.1 Lack of water supply resulting in unsanitary condition and non-
functional toilets
We noticed that the unsanitary condition of the toilet was due to insufficient water supply. In most cases, water supply was only available in the toilets located at the ground floor. In the absence/non-availability of pressure tanks, the lack of water in toilets located in upper floor areas made it hard to maintain their cleanliness, leaving the upper level toilet facilities non-functional. These scenarios were apparent in10 schools.
Other reasons for the lack of water supply were:
1. water supply interruption in the school’s vicinity due to ongoing water
crisis; and
2. lack of provision of big containers for water storage to ensure water availability at all times.
P a g e | 38
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.2.2 Conversion of toilet facility into storage and/or faculty rooms
In 14 school buildings, toilets were converted into storage rooms, wherein various items, such as broken tables, armchairs, various cleaning materials, etc. were kept. In other instances, toilets served as additional faculty rooms.
8.2.3 Inaccessibility and shortage of toilets because of teachers’ exclusive
use and non-provision of toilet facility either in some floor levels or in the entire school building In seven school buildings, students were denied access to toilets as these were for the exclusive use of teachers/school staff. Moreover, some school buildings had no toilet facilities at every floor level, or the entire building had no functioning toilets. Students/pupils have to go to adjacent or another building to use the toilet, which could lead to urinary tract or kidney issues and longer time for the student to be away from the classroom resulting in missed lessons.
8.2.4 Use of common toilets for girls and boys
In nine school buildings, the DepEd did not comply with the requirements that boys and girls should have separate toilets that are located far from each other. In these school buildings, boys and girls shared toilets, thereby increasing the risk of girls/children being molested.
8.3 Compliance with architectural facilities and features requirements of ramps
and toilets for PWDs prescribed under BP Bilang 344 - Accessibility Law and its IRRs (Annex C)
BP Bilang 344 was approved on February 25, 1983. Its IRRs set forth the minimum requirements and standards to make the buildings, facilities, and utilities for public use accessible to disabled persons. In the rules and regulations, school buildings are under Category III, Group C – Educational Institutions, that provides the architectural design requirements on the following:
A – Stairs B – Walkways C – Corridors D – Doors and Entrance E – Washrooms and Toilets F – Lifts/Elevator G – Ramps H – Parking Areas
P a g e | 39
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
I – Switches, Controls, Buzzers J – Handrails K – Thresholds L – Floor Finishes M – Drinking Fountains N – Public Telephones O – Seating Accommodations
The details of the results of inspection on specific aspects and standards per school are in Annex C of this report. Summary of the results of inspection is as follows: Ramps (Table 3a.): 8.3.1 Out of the 158 school buildings, 104 were provided with ramps at the ground
floor, 98 of which are located near the entrance;
8.3.2 Majority of the ramps are compliant with the five standards pertaining to location near the entrance, maximum length, standard width, diameter of the handrails and non-skid flooring; and
8.3.3 Nine out of the 19 standards prescribed under BP Bilang 144 have high non-
compliance rates, namely: curbs on both sides = 0.1 m high, ramp slope maximum of 1:12 or 8.33 percent, International Symbol of Access (White graphics with United Nations blue background), and warning tactical blocks at the start and at the end of the ramp.
Table 3a: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Ramps
1. Ramp provided 104 65.82 54 34.18 0 0
2. Location near the entrance
98 62.03 5 3.16 55 34.81
3. Maximum length = 6m; 1.5m landing every 6m (Length 1)
92 58.23 11 6.96 55 34.81
4. Maximum length = 6m; 1.5m landing every 6m (Length 2)
14 8.86 3 1.90 141 89.24
5. Curbs on both sides = 0.1m high
23 14.55 81 51.27 54 34.18
6. Ramp slope maximum of 1:12 or 8.33 (Length 1)
30 18.98 67 42.41 61 38.61
P a g e | 40
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 3a: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
7. Ramp slope maximum of 1:12 or 8.33 (Length 2)
5 3.16 6 3.80 147 93.04
8. Standard width = 1.2m to 3.0m
78 49.36 26 16.46 54 34.18
9. Handrails are on both sides of the ramp
45 28.48 59 37.34 54 34.18
10. Clearance of 50mm if wall mounted
22 13.92 9 5.70 127 80.38
11. Two sets of handrails; Diameter between 30-50mm
74 46.84 29 18.35 55 34.81
12. Lower handrail Height = 0.7m
57 36.08 46 29.11 55 34.81
13. Upper handrail Height = 0.9m
59 37.34 44 27.85 55 34.81
14. Handrail extension at the start and at the end of handrails = 0.3m
25 15.82 78 49.37 55 34.81
15. Non-skid flooring 103 65.19 1 0.63 54 34.18
16. Level Area Standard length = 1.8m at the start
55 34.81 27 17.09 76 48.10
17. Level Area Standard length = 1.8m at the end
30 18.99 25 15.82 103 65.19
18. International Symbol of Access (White graphics with United Nations blue background)
13 8.23 91 57.59 54 34.18
19. Warning tactical blocks at the start and at the end of the ramp
0 0 104 65.82 54 34.18
Toilet (Table 3b.):
8.3.4 As presented in Table 3b, 99 school buildings (or 62.66%) do not have
toilets for PWDs, contrary to the requirement of the Accessibility Law; and
8.3.5 In schools found with toilets for PWDs, majority of the school buildings did not comply with all the standards. The compliance rates ranged from a low of 2 school buildings (or 1.27%) to a high of only 59 school buildings (or 37.34%).
P a g e | 41
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 3b: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Toilets for PWDs
1. Toilet for PWD provided 59 37.34 99 62.66 0 0
2. Signage mounted 1.50m on center from FFL International Symbol of Access (ISA)
14 8.86 66 41.77 78 49.37
3. ISA in shape of Equilateral triangle for Men
3 1.90 53 33.54 102 64.56
4. ISA in the shape of a Circle for Women
2 1.27 53 33.54 103 65.19
5. Door swing-out 30 18.99 31 19.62 97 61.39
6. Clear opening = 0.8m 53 33.54 7 4.43 98 62.03
7. Permit easy passage of wheelchair (1.50 meter turning space)
27 17.08 33 20.89 98 62.03
8. Lavatory = 0.80m high 40 25.32 17 10.76 101 63.92
9. Knee space = 0.60m - 0.70m
29 18.35 16 10.13 113 71.52
10. Lever-type faucet 26 16.46 31 19.62 101 63.92
11. Tilted Mirror 5 3.17 52 32.91 101 63.92
12. Toilet flooring of non-slippery surface materials even when wet.
59 37.34 0 0 99 62.66
13. Toilet Cubicle Clear Dimension:
Length=1.70m
20 12.66 39 24.68 99 62.66
14. Toilet Cubicle Clear Dimension: Width=1.80m
15 9.49 41 25.95 102 64.56
15. Toilet Bowl elevation from the floor = 45mm-50mm
6 3.80 52 32.91 100 63.29
16. Center of the toilet bowl to the face of adjacent wall = 0.40m
39 24.68 20 12.66 99 62.66
17. Vertical or Climbing bars from the front tip of the toilet bowl = 0.3m
9 5.70 36 22.78 113 71.52
18. Climbing bars Length = not exceeding 750mm
16 10.13 24 15.19 118 74.68
P a g e | 42
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 3b: Provisions for PWDs School Building Requirements
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
19. Climbing bars Height = not exceeding 750mm
11 6.96 25 15.82 122 77.22
20. Grab Bar distance from the floor = 0.8m
17 10.76 18 11.39 123 77.85
21. One (1) movable grab bar (Outrigger)
2 1.27 35 22.15 121 76.58
8.3.6 Some requirements provided in the said law were not considered in the
DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 as it only specified the requirements for ramp slope, floor finish, and signage; and
8.3.7 The architectural facilities and feature requirements of ramps and toilets for PWDs are located only on the ground floor. These facilities were not present on the upper floors of the school buildings.
8.4 Compliance with fire protection system requirements prescribed under RA No.
9514 - Fire Code of the Philippines and its IRR (Annex D)
RA No. 9514, also known as the “Revised Fire Code of the Philippines of 2008” approved on December 19, 2008, prescribes the standards on fire safety, prevention and suppression. Among the provisions of the said law is the installation of fire protection system in establishments including those of educational institutions.
Annex D of this Report shows the results of inspection on the fire protection system of the 158 schools buildings. The said Annex contains data on three aspects, namely: Illumination, Fire Protection, and Sprinkler System. Each aspect has its own standards that must be complied with pursuant to the said RA and its IRRs.
Table 4 below presents the summary of the results of inspection of the fire protection system of the school buildings:
Table 4. Provisions for Fire Protection System
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Illumination:
Fire Exit 110 69.62 48 30.38 0 0.00
Emergency Light for Fire Exits
55 34.81 103 65.19 0 0.00
Stairs well-lighted 131 82.91 26 16.46 1 0.63
P a g e | 43
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 4. Provisions for Fire Protection System
Requirements Compliant Non-compliant Not Applicable
No. Percentage No. Percentage No. Percentage
Fire Protection:
Fire Alarm System 88 55.70 70 44.30 0 0.00
Extinguishers 109 68.99 49 31.01 0 0.00
Sprinkler System:
Sprinkler System 11 6.96 147 93.04 0 0.00
Standpipe System 34 21.52 124 78.48 0 0.00
Pressure and Gravity Tanks
68 43.04 90 56.96 0 0.00
Hose Boxes/Reels 40 25.32 117 74.05 1 0.63
Based on the preceding Table, we observed that:
8.4.1. On Illumination, majority of the school buildings inspected complied with two
of the three standards - provision of fire exit and well-lighted stairs. On the other hand, 103 school buildings or 65.19 percent did not comply with the standard on provision of emergency light in the fire exits.
8.4.2. On Fire Protection, majority of the school buildings complied with the two standards.
8.4.3. On the standards for Sprinkler System, majority of the school buildings did
not have these requirements. Further, we have also observed the following:
8.4.4. The fire alarm systems at the school buildings of Elpidio Quirino High School
(SDO Manila) and Kabayanan Elementary School (SDO San Juan City) were defective.
8.4.5. The fire extinguishers in seven school buildings were already expired (SDO
San Juan City - 1; SDO Pasig City - 2; SDO Taguig City and Pateros - 3; SDO Quezon City - 1).
8.5 Compliance with RA No. 6716 - Rainwater Collector and Springs Development
Law (Annex E)
Rain Water Collection System (RWCS) is a technology that collects and stores rainwater for various uses. The non-potable water collected can be used to irrigate landscaping in the urban area. In the case of densely populated areas, like Metro Manila, the water can be used to flush toilets, water gardens, laundry clothes and
P a g e | 44
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
cleaning the households, buildings and school facilities, to significantly reduce and save the amount of fresh water consumption. RA No. 6716 and paragraph (e) of DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 promote water conservation to address urban flooding and diminishing water supply from the concrete water reservoirs (La Mesa and Angat Dams) that cater to Metro Manila and nearby provinces because of climate change. DepEd Order No. 64, s. 2017 paragraph (e), Section VIII provides that:
The storm drainage system must be sized in consideration of the rainfall intensities, slope and roof areas of the school buildings. Provision shall be made for the future installation of rainwater collection system in compliance with RA No. 6716, An Act Providing for the construction of Water Wells, Rainwater Collectors, Development of Springs and Rehabilitation of existing Water Wells in all Barangays in the Philippines.
Inspections disclosed that a total of 92 schools or 58.23 percent did not have the required RWCS.
On Audit Objective 2:
To determine the satisfaction of pupils/students with the classrooms, facilities
(toilets, library, computer room, clinic, etc.); materials/equipment (books,
computer, chairs, electric fans, etc.); and people (teachers, students, principal,
nurse, security guards, etc.)
Aside from conducting ocular inspections, the CPA Teams also facilitated Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) among 20 selected pupils/students in 73 schools out of the 158 sampled schools. FGD is a qualitative research technique consisting of a structured discussion and used to obtain in-depth information from these groups of students from similar backgrounds or experiences to discuss freely and openly a specific topic of interest. The FGDs were conducted to methodically determine the level of satisfaction of pupils/students on the following:
a. Classrooms b. Facilities (toilets, library, computer room, clinic, etc.) c. Materials/Equipment (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.) d. People (teachers, students, principal, nurse, security guards, etc.)
P a g e | 45
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
The pupils/students were also asked to draw their dream school to give the CPA Teams and the readers of the CPA Report an insight on the “wishes” of the pupils/students. Unang Hakbang Foundation, one of the CSOs who joined this year’s CPA engagement, assisted the CPA Teams in formulating the guidelines, activities, and questions that were used in conducting the FGD, which was participated in by 20 students per school consisting of ten girls and ten boys aged 10 to 17 years old. The CPA Teams presented the FGD Guidelines to DepEd officials who were present during the Audit Entrance Conference. Their comments were considered in enhancing the FGD Guidelines. The CPA Teams also secured permission beforehand by sending consent forms to the parents and pupils/students through the School Principals. During the activity, citizen partners and auditors facilitated interesting activities to obtain feedback, opinions, and solutions from the participants, being the primary end-users of the school buildings and other facilities. 8.6 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the classrooms
Shown in Table 5a are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the classrooms:
Table 5a. Results of Focus Group Discussions
CLASSROOMS
POSITIVE FEEDBACK English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation
Malawak na espasyo na sapat sa bilang ng mga mag-aaral
Wide space which is enough for the number of learners
Kakulangan / kaliitan ng classroom
Inadequate number/space of classrooms
Maaliwalas at maayos na classrooms
Cozy and orderly classrooms
Mainit na silid-aralan dahil kulang sa ventilation
Hot classroom temperature due to inadequate ventilation
Napananatiling malinis ang mga classrooms
Cleanliness of classrooms is maintained
Maruming classrooms
Dirty classrooms
Although there were school buildings with spacious, cozy, orderly, and clean classrooms; there were also school buildings with inadequate classroom space, hot room temperature, and dirty.
P a g e | 46
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
8.7 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the facilities (toilet, library, computer room, clinic, etc.) Shown in Table 5b below are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the facilities:
Table 5b. Results of Focus Group Discussions
FACILITIES (toilet, library, computer room, clinic, etc.)
POSITIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation
May library at mga libro na nagagamit ng mga mag-aaral
There is a library for the learners to use
Marumi at mabahong palikuran
Dirty and stinky comfort room
May mga computer rooms na nagagamit ng mga bata
There are computer rooms for children to use
Ang clinic minsan ay walang gamot
The clinic has no supply of medicines sometimes
Maayos na canteen na may abot-kaya at masustansyang bilihin
Orderly canteen with affordable and nutritious food
Masikip o maliit na canteen
Narrow/small canteen
The presence of a library with books which students can use, computer rooms that the children can use, and orderly canteens with affordable and nutritious food ranked highest in the positive feedback; while, dirty and stinky toilets, clinics with no supply of medicines, and narrow/small canteens ranked highest in the negative feedback.
8.8 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the materials/equipment (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.) Shown in Table 5c below are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the materials/equipment:
Table 5c. Results of Focus Group Discussions
MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.)
POSITIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation
Maayos at malinis ang mga libro
The books are neat and clean
May mga sira at punit ang mga libro
The books are worn and torn
Sapat na bilang ng electric fan upang mapanatili kaming komportable
Sufficient numbers of electric fans to keep us comfortable
Hindi maayos ang mga electric fan
The electric fans are not working properly
P a g e | 47
Citizen Participatory Audit Report
DepEd’s Elementary and Secondary School Buildings and Other Facilities in Metro Manila
8.0 AUDIT RESULTS
Table 5c. Results of Focus Group Discussions
MATERIALS/EQUIPMENT (books, computer, chairs, electric fan, etc.)
POSITIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation
Maayos at sapat na bilang ng mga upuan
Nice and sufficient numbers of chairs
Sira ang mga upuan
Broken/damaged chairs
From the responses, there are schools that are able to provide neat and clean books, sufficient number of electric fans, and nice and sufficient number of chairs. There are also schools that provide materials/equipment on the other end of the spectrum – worn and torn books, electric fans that are not working properly, and broken/damaged chairs. 8.9 On the satisfaction of pupils/students with the people (teachers, students,
principal, nurse, security guards, etc.)
Shown in Table 5d below are the top 3 (in terms of number of responses) positive and negative feedback of the pupils/students on the people in school:
Table 5d. Results of Focus Group Discussions
PEOPLE (teachers, students, principal, nurse, security guards, etc.)
POSITIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation NEGATIVE FEEDBACK
English Translation
Magagaling at considerate na mga guro
Excellent and considerate teachers
Kawalan ng disiplina ng mga mag aaral
Lack of discipline among students
Responsible at concerned na principal
Responsible and concerned principal
Pambu”bully” ng mga mag aaral
The act of bullying by learners
Mabait at palakaibigan na mga kamag-aral
Kind and friendly classmates
Masungit at mahigpit na security guard
Grumpy and strict security guard
While principals are generally viewed as responsible and concerned; teachers are likewise viewed as excellent and considerate; and, some classmates are kind and friendly; there were feedback of undisciplined students and even of bullying done by other pupils/students. Ther
Top Related