AUGUST 2022

DISCUSSION PAPER SERIES NO. 2022-23

Philippine Education: Situationer, Challenges,

and Ways Forward

Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr. and Vicente B. Paqueo

The PIDS Discussion Paper Series constitutes studies that are preliminary and subject to further revisions. They are being circulated in a limited number of copies only for
purposes of soliciting comments and suggestions for further refinements. The studies under the Series are unedited and unreviewed. The views and opinions expressed are those
of the author(s) and do not necessarily reflect those of the Institute. Not for quotation without permission from the author(s) and the Institute.

CONTACT US:
RESEARCH INFORMATION DEPARTMENT
Philippine Institute for Development Studies

18th Floor, Three Cyberpod Centris - North Tower [email protected]

https://www.pids.gov.ph
EDSA corner Quezon Avenue, Quezon City, Philippines (+632) 8877-4000
 Philippine Education: Situationer, Challenges,
and Ways Forward

Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr.

Vicente B. Paqueo

PHILIPPINE INSTITUTE FOR DEVELOPMENT STUDIES

August 2022
Abstract

While the Philippine education system is in the middle of profound changes with the passage
of RA 10533 or the Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013, the country was rudely awakened
by the poor results in its maiden participation in the 2018 Program for International Student
Assessment (PISA) which tested 15-year-old students. This result was confirmed further by
2019 Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) results which tested
grade four students. Everyone's question is: What happened to the Philippine education sector?
This paper answers this question by describing the three education subsectors as answers to
three questions, namely: (a) where each of the subsectors is in terms of their primary outcomes,
(b) what the primary reasons are why the subsectors are currently in that state, and (c) what the
recommendations are on the ways forward. This report draws mainly from research done by
the authors at the Institute and occasionally those done by other authors. The assessment shows
that the country still has high attendance rates at all levels compared to countries of similar
development states. It is, however, facing the challenge of low quality on the average even if
it also produces high-quality graduates, many of whom have been working in global labor
markets for decades now. Another problem is that education outcomes reflect students'
socioeconomic status rather than equalizing. Finally, the Pandemic, which forced the country
to remote learning mode largely unprepared like many countries, introduced another set of
challenges in addition to its pre-pandemic problems. The country needs to learn from these
experiences, rely more on data, and build rigorously validated evidence on what works for our
educational system using our experience as educational outcomes are highly context-sensitive.

Keywords: Education, Philippines, Basic Education, TVET, Higher Education

i
 Table of Contents

1. Introduction ...................................................................................................................1
2. Basic Education ............................................................................................................2
Where are we now? ....................................................................................................... 2
Why are we here?.......................................................................................................... 8
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 11
General recommendations ................................................................................... 11
Specific recommendations ................................................................................... 14
3. Technical and Vocational Education and Training..................................................16
Where are we now? ..................................................................................................... 16
Why are we here?........................................................................................................ 19
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 20
4. Higher Education ........................................................................................................23
Where are we now? ..................................................................................................... 23
Why are we here?........................................................................................................ 26
Recommendations ....................................................................................................... 28
5. Bibliography ................................................................................................................30

ii
List of Figures

Figure 2.1. Expected years of schooling and Real Per Capita Income ................................... 2

Figure 2.2. Learning-adjusted years of school and GDP per capita ....................................... 3

Figure 2.3. PISA 2018 Average Scores by Real GDP per Capita .......................................... 4

Figure 2.4. TIMSS 2019 Average Scores by GDP per capita ................................................. 5

Figure 2.5. Annualized rates of return on wages by type of HEI, 2013 ................................... 7

Figure 2.6. Distribution of enrolment in basic education by modality, SY 2020-2021 ............. 8

Figure 2.7. Total government expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP by GDP per
capita ...................................................................................................................................... 9

Figure 2.8. Share of enrollment of private school in Junior High School, SY1970-71 to SY
2018-19 ................................................................................................................................. 10

Figure 3.1. Enrollment, Graduation, Assessment and Certification, 2010-2019 ................... 16

Figure 3.2. Graduates by Sector, 2019 ................................................................................. 17

Figure 3.3. Distribution of VET graduates, by level of educational attainment prior to training,
2018 (Percentages) .............................................................................................................. 18

Figure 3.4. Distribution of VET graduates, by reason of taking VET courses, 2017
(Percentages) ....................................................................................................................... 19

Figure 4.1. Tertiary Enrollment (%) Comparison Between the Philippines, Regional Peers
and the Average of middle-income Countries ....................................................................... 23

Figure 4.2. Net enrollment rate in higher education by income decile, 2019 ........................ 24

Figure 4.3. Distribution of enrollment in public and private HEIs, by income decile (2019) .. 25

Figure 4.4. First year enrollment in public and private HEIs, 2011-2019 .............................. 27

iii
 Philippine Education: Situationer, Challenges and Ways Forward

Aniceto C. Orbeta Jr. and Vicente B. Paqueo 1

1. Introduction

The Philippine education system is currently undergoing profound changes and, at the same
time facing tremendous challenges. With the passage of RA 10533 or the Enhance Basic
Education Act of 2013, basic education has since undergone significant restructuring with the
introduction of the senior high school program. These changes also necessitated the overhaul
of the basic education curriculum and the accompanying adjustment of higher education.
Tracking was also introduced into the senior high school program in preparation for three
possible exits higher education, employment, or entrepreneurship. In addition, mother tongue-
based multi-lingual education (MTB-MLE) was formally introduced in the primary grades.
Even before these transitions can be fully completed, the results of the country's maiden
participation in the Program for International Student Assessment (PISA) came out in
December 2019, showing the country is last in reading and second to the last in mathematics
and science among 79 participating countries. The 2019 Trends in International Mathematics
and Science Study (TIMSS) reinforced these dismal results. The country participated again in
TIMSS after 16 years of absence since 2003, and the country ranked last in both Mathematics
and Science among 64 participating countries. Everyone's question is: what happened to the
Philippine education system?

The paper highlights that country still has high attendance rates at all levels of the education
system compared to countries of similar development state. This result is not surprising given
that it recorded exceptionally high attendance rates for its level of development in the earlier
decades of the 1970s. It is, however, facing the challenge of low quality on the average even if
it also produces high-quality graduates that have been working in global labor markets for
decades now. Another problem is that education outcomes reflect students’ socioeconomic
status rather than being an equalizer. Finally, the Pandemic, which forced the country to remote
learning mode largely unprepared like many countries, produced another set of challenges in
addition to pre-pandemic problems. The country needs to learn from these experiences, rely
more on data, and build rigorously validated evidence on what works for our educational
system using our experience as educational outcomes are highly context-sensitive.

This paper presents an overview of the Philippine education system covering basic, technical
vocational education and training, and higher education. Specifically, it (a) describes where
each of the subsectors is in terms of their primary outcomes, (b) provides the primary reasons
why the subsectors are currently in that state, and (c) provides recommendations on the ways
forward. This paper draws mainly from the research done by the authors at the Institute and
occasionally those done by other authors.

1
President and Distinguished Visiting Research Fellow, respectively, of PIDS. Opinions expressed here are of the authors and
not of the Institute. Research assistance of Kris Ann Melad, Nina Araos, and Zyra Diego are greatly appreciated. This paper
has benefitted from the comments of the officers and staff of the Department of Education (particularly, Director Jocelyn
Andaya), Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (particularly, Ms. Katherine Zarsadias and Mr. Regino Cloefe),
the National Economic and Development Authority (particularly, Director Girlie Igtiben), and Philippine Business for Education
(particularly, Executive Director Lovelaine Basillote). All errors remain the responsibility of the authors.

1
2. Basic Education

Where are we now?

The country is at par with even richer countries in terms of school attendance. Figure 2.1,
for instance, shows that in terms of expected years of education completed by age 18 2, the
Philippines ranks among the top performers relative to middle-income countries with a similar
level of GDP per capita. Moreover, CCT data attest to a near-universal attendance rate for
elementary level even among the poor (Orbeta et al. 2021).

Figure 2.1. Expected years of schooling and Real Per Capita Income

Source: Human Capital Index 2020 Update, The World Bank; World Development Indicators, The World Bank.
Notes: The GDP per capita at PPP is in constant 2017 US$, which adjusts for inflation and cross-country price
differences.

The country is way below potential in measures of learning. When the expected number of
years of schooling is adjusted for the quality of education received for the years students spend
in school, the Philippines has an estimated learning gap of about 5.5 years, as illustrated in
Figure 2.2 3. Thus, the learning gap is larger than its neighbors.

2
Expected years of schools measures the number of years of school a child progressing through the current pattern of
enrolment rates can expect to obtain by the age of 18, up to a maximum of 14 years. It uses total net enrollment rate published
by the UNESCO Institute for Statistics (UIS)
3
The quality measure used to adjust the expected years of schooling by The World Bank in its Human Capital Project is the
harmonized test scores, which, for the Philippines used data from PISA 2018. For further reading on the methodology of the 2017
harmonized test scores, see Patrinos and Angrist (2018).

2
 This finding can be interpreted to mean that an average Filipino student spent more time in
school but less productively than their counterparts in comparator countries 4. In addition, this
also highlights that schooling does not always translate into learning (World Bank 2018).

Figure 2.2. Learning-adjusted years of school and GDP per capita

Source: Human Capital Index 2020 Update, The World Bank; World Development Indicators, The World Bank.

The country's performance in international large-scale assessments (ILSAs) confirms we

have been in a learning crisis for a while now. The performance of our 15-year-old students
in PISA, on average, is below expected given our level of income. Jordan, Morocco, and
Indonesia have shown better performance of the upper-middle-income countries participating.
However, a redeeming factor is that our private schools are performing better than expected
given our level of income and better than public schools. This result is true for all three domains
– mathematics, science, and reading (Figure 2.3a, 2.3b, 2.3c).

The results in TIMSS that tests grade 4 students are similar but even much farther down from
the expected given our level of income (Figure 2.4a, 2.4b). Kosovo, Morocco, and Pakistan
performed better than the Philippines of the upper-middle-income countries participating.
Again, private schools are performing on or above expected given our level of income and
better than public schools.

4
Schooling does not always translate into learning (World Bank 2018). Filmer et al. (2018) explains how the measure of learning-
adjusted years of schooling (LAYS) is a better indicator for learning over simply measuring the number of years spent in schools
considering different countries with similar average number of schooling end with varied levels of learning outcomes. The learning
adjusted years (LAYS) is measured as EYS x HTS/625 where EYS is expected years of school at age 18 and HTS is harmonized
test scores.

3
Given that the tests were taken within one year apart, these provide a good snapshot of what is
happening in the elementary grades in the case of TIMSS and junior high school in the case of
PISA.

Figure 2.3.a PISA 2018 Average Score in Mathematics by Real GDP per Capita

Figure 2.3.b PISA 2018 Average Score in Science by Real GDP per Capita

4
 Figure 2.3.c PISA 2018 Average Score in Reading by Real GDP per Capita

Figure 2.3.a TIMSS 2019 Average score in Mathematics of Grade 4 by GDP per capita

5
Figure 2.4.b TIMSS 2019 Average Score in Science of Grade 4 Students by GDP per capita

A vast proportion of our students are below minimum proficiency levels. The low average
is not because everyone has low test scores. Rather, the ILSAs results show that an
overwhelming proportion of students were below minimum proficiency levels pulling down
our average test scores. The PISA test scores reveal that in reading, our average achievement
score (340) is at proficiency Level 1a, which is one level lower than the minimum proficiency
level (Level 2). Eighty percent of our students are below the minimum proficiency level (Level
2). Our average achievement score (353) is below Level 1 proficiency in mathematics. Eighty-
one percent of our students are below Level 2. Finally, in science, our average score (357) is at
proficiency is at Level 1a, and 78% achieve below proficiency level 2 (DepEd 2019).

In TIMSS, our average scores in mathematics (297) and science (249) are lower than the low
benchmark of 400 or minimum proficiency levels. A vast majority of the Grade 4 students fell
below the low benchmark. This is 81% in Mathematics and 87% in science (DepEd 2020).

Education continues to be a good investment. Using APIS 2013 5 and a Mincerian equation
to compute the private rates of return shows that the rates are still remarkably high. This
estimate implies that, despite all its problems, education is still a good investment. The basic
model without covariates says returns can be as high as 30% for private sectarian schools and
24% for private non-sectarian schools (Figure 2.5). The returns decline to 16 to 19%, which
remains high when one controls for household socioeconomic variables.

5
APIS 2013 is the only round of APIS so far who asked about the name of HEI college graduates came from.

6
Figure 2.5. Annualized rates of return on wages by type of HEI, 2013
SUC Private Non Sectarian Private Sectarian
30% 30%
26% 26%
24% 24%

19% 19% 18% 20%

16% 16%

Basic Model With HH SES control Basic Model without With HH SES control
UP without UP

Source: Paqueo, Orbeta, and King (2020)

The response to COVID-19 Pandemic reveals unique challenges of remote learning. The
response of the DepEd is laudable with the issuance of the Basic Education-Learning
Continuity Program (BE-LCP) (DepEd 2020a). It streamlined the K to 12 curricula from the
original 14,171 competencies to 5,689 labeled as the Most Essential Learning Competencies
(MELCs). It also identified several learning delivery modes, including (1) face-to-face; (2)
distance learning consisting of three types (a) modular distance learning (MDL), (b) online
distance learning (ODL), and (c) TV/Radio-Based instructions; (3) blended learning, and (4)
homeschooling. In addition, the learning assessments were adjusted to "meaningfully support
learner development and respond to varied contexts" (DepEd 2020b, item 3).

The most recent enrollment data from the DepEd Planning Service reveals that most of the
public basic education is on printed modules while private schools showed a considerable
proportion doing online learning. The data shows that in terms of mode of learning, the modal
group for public elementary is printed modules (90%) while for private elementary is online
(46%) (Figure 2.6). The highest frequency in public schools for junior high school is printed
modules (83%), while online learning (36%) for private schools. Similar modal groups are also
found in the senior high school with printed modules (80%) in public and online (44%) for
private. This pattern of learning modes chosen reflect (a) the connectivity issues the country is
facing and (b) the differences in the nature of clientele in public and private schools. The
significant proportion of online learning in private schools compared to public schools reveals
that they serve those who have more connectivity at home. The connectivity issues that can
hamper remote learning are discussed in PIDS (2020). For instance, it is mentioned that the
latest household survey done by the DICT in 2019 showed that only 18% of households have
internet access and only 24% have computers at home (PIDS 2020). The large disparity in
access to computers across income groups is also highlighted using the APIS 2017. In addition,
the outcomes of home learning also depend on the quality of home support as parents and
guardians will become the primary teachers. It was also pointed out that there are only 26% of
household heads have finished secondary school. This proportion rises to 69% in the richest

7
decile and goes down to 6% in the poorest decile. These results highlight the disparity in access
to the internet, access devices, and home support required by remote learning. This also points
to the likelihood that whatever learning loss with remote schooling will be more pronounced
among the children in poorer households. Unfortunately, there appears to be no systematic
measurement of learning during the Pandemic that would have provided information on what
happened to learning during this large-scale experiment with remote education delivery. Of
course, some learning is always better than no learning at all. However, we should also be
aware of the likely differential impacts of remote learning delivery given these realities.
Finally, we should not forget that this is in addition to the problems the country's educational
system is facing even before the Pandemic.

Figure 2.6. Distribution of enrolment in basic education by modality, SY 2020-2021

Source of basic data: DepEd Planning Service

Why are we here?

The system has focused on access to the neglect of quality. The focus on access leads to
attendance rates at par with even richer countries. But this has led to the neglect of quality. In
addition, we were unmindful that schooling does not always translate to learning (World Bank
2018).

There was a failure to inform the public about national achievement tests. Even though
we continuously administer national achievement tests, the results are never granularly
available for in-depth analysis and even less public discussion. When the PISA and TIMSS

8
results were released, they were a wake-up call. We could have been warned and acted earlier
had we released, analyzed, and publicly discussed the NAT results we administer almost every
year. Reliable measures of progress such as achievement test scores are important reminders
of the progress of our education system. We need to inform the public about the conditions of
the schools as test scores are not only the result of school characteristics, but are strongly related
to families, peers, and other non-school inputs (Hanushek 2021).

The expenditure on education is not as high as our neighboring countries. Figure 2.7 shows
government expenditures on education as a percentage of GDP. It shows we are not investing
as much as our neighboring countries. While it is recognized that pouring more resources will
not solve education problems, additional resources used wisely will ease the constraints on
critical inputs that will improve quality.

Figure 2.7. Total government expenditure on education as a percentage of GDP by GDP

per capita

Source of basic data: World Development Indicators, The World Bank

Education policies have undermined better-performing private schools. Both PISA 2018
and TIMSS 2019 show that private schools have higher test scores than public schools. Instead
of harnessing the strengths of the better-performing private schools, we manage our education
system largely ignoring the constitutionally mandated public-private sector complementarity.
DepEd manages the education system as if only one exists, i.e., DepEd schools (ADB
forthcoming). This has resulted in the continuous marginalization of private schools through
the years. This is exemplified by the decline in the private school share in secondary education.
Figure 2.8 shows that in SY 1970-71, the share of private schools is 56%. This has steadily
gone down to 17% in SY 2018-19. This shows a consistent decline of almost 1% per year. The
saving grace is the public-private partnership programs, namely, the Education Service
Contracting (ESC) for Junior High School, the Senior High School Voucher Program, and the
Joint-Delivery Program for Senior High School Technical-Vocational-Livelihood

9
Specializations (JDVP-TVL). These programs, however, have no well-defined long-term plan
that is needed to guide private sector investments (ADB forthcoming).

Figure 2.8. Share of enrollment of private school in Junior High School, SY1970-71 to SY
2018-19
70.0

60.0

50.0

40.0

30.0

20.0

10.0 y = -0.9019x + 55.714

0.0
1970-71
1972-73
1974-75
1976-77
1978-79
1980-81
1982-83
1984-85
1986-87
1988-89
1990-91
1992-93
1994-95
1996-97
1998-99
2000-01
2002-03
2004-05
2006-07
2008-09
2010-11
2012-13
2014-15
2016-17
2018-19
Source of basic data: PSA Philippine Statistical Yearbook, various years

The reasons for our dismal performance in ILSAs still need to be discovered, and
understood. If there is one thing clear from the results of the ILSAs, it is that whatever we are
doing up to now is found wanting. While we have some hypotheses based on research results,
actual causal reasons still need to be discovered, contextualized, and validated. Determinants
of quality and test scores are highly context-sensitive (Hanushek 2021). We need in-depth
analyses of the results of ILSAs. The analysis of the World Bank for the three ILSAs – PISA,
TIMSS and SEA-PLM has highlighted four issues, namely: (a) safe and inclusive learning
environment, (b) investing in early childhood education and development and foundational
skills, (c) strengthening the MTB-MLE policy and its implementation, and (d) increasing
government education spending and equitable allocation (WB 2021). Our NAT scores, which
we produce almost every school year, needs to be accompanied by school, individual,
household, and community characteristics to make it amenable for determinants of test scores
analyses.

The importance of the MTB-MLE policy and its implementation in student learning is
not clearly understood. The study done by the institute researchers highlights the conceptual
confusion among implementers and stakeholders and the implementation challenges of the
MTB-MLE policy (Monje et al., 2021). Educating a child should harness the critical resource
a child brings into his education besides his innate ability – his language of thinking and
expression. Evidence has shown that starting a child's education using the language a child
understands well is the best way to learn the second and third languages in the long run (Metilla
et al., 2017).

10
Recommendations

General recommendations

Improving quality is key. We should focus more on improving quality because our attendance
rates are already high. The DepEd current thrust on quality dubbed as Edukalidad 6 is a step in
the right direction. But the challenge is always on the details. We need to find the right levers
to improve quality faster. While it is common knowledge that there are three components in
the education production function, namely, school, individual and households, and community
factors (Hanushek 1978; Todd and Wolpin 2003), unfortunately, there is not much research
which one has greater influence on student outcomes in the Philippine context. There is
research using data from other countries, but Hanushek (2021) warns against generalizing these
results because these are dependent on country-level institutional characteristics. He further
argues that test scores reflect school quality and relate to families, peers, and other non-school
inputs. We need to find effective levers using our own experience that will only be revealed by
analyzing our data.

Data on school quality (such as test scores) and characteristics should be regularly made
public. There are at least two important reasons for being transparent about school
performance. One, public policy should be based on empirical analysis of the relationship
between test scores, school, and home characteristics. Two, appropriate household decisions
on schooling also need good information on school performance. Just as we regularly generate
information and report on labor market outcomes, inflation, or national income accounts, we
should regularly report on the performance of our schools on which the future of our nation
depends. Public use files on test scores and school characteristics should be made available to
analysts just as we make available public use files for our Labor Force Surveys and Family
Income and Expenditure Surveys, among others.

Create an independent body overseeing the generation and reporting on key education
statistics, particularly standardized test scores. The importance of standardized test scores
in improving education outcomes, particularly for poorly performing schools, is emphasized in
Hanushek (2021). Given the country's experience of standardized test scores not being publicly
available for analysis at the student and school level, there is a good case for having an
independent body managing the conduct of national achievement tests and generating other
education performance indicators. The body should be composed of eminent persons in
education. Like the statistical system, there should be a publicly declared schedule of release
of education statistics that must be adhered to. As argued earlier, public knowledge of these
critical education characteristics is essential for a well-functioning education market.

6
Edukalidad has four reform areas dubbed as KITE, namely, (a) K to 12 curriculum review and update, (b)
improvement of learning environment, (c) teachers’ upskilling and reskilling, and (d) engagement of
stakeholders for support and collaboration. The first three addresses school factors while the fourth addresses
the household and community factors.

11
Identify clear indicators of quality and consistently measure the contribution of primary
reform initiatives to improving these indicators. It is critical that indicators for quality be
identified, e.g., the proportion of enrolled students meeting the minimum level of proficiency.
Their marginal contribution to improving these quality indicators should guide budget
allocation and the introduction or expansion of reform initiatives. In addition, the information
on the marginal effectiveness of reform initiatives should be widely disseminated and updated
as new evidence is produced.

DepEd must evolved from mostly teaching into a learning institution for teachers and
administrators also. We do not have solid evidence of how to move forward on many
education issues. If there is evidence, these usually use data from other countries that still
require local validation because education relationships are highly context-sensitive. We need
a system for generating knowledge that will inform education policy. Currently, DepEd is, for
the most part, a teaching institution. Teachers are there to teach and impart content to students
with the presumption that current ways are working. However, the results of the ILSAs are
telling us the existing ways are failing. We need to know why. Several hypotheses need to be
validated in the classroom. We should make our classrooms not just a venue for imparting
content to students but also for generating knowledge on better classroom instruction for our
teachers and school administrators. We should make our classrooms knowledge-generators that
will inform education policy.

Towards this end, it would be good to identify representative sentinel schools that we
continually monitor to provide rapid and consistent feedback on the education system's
performance. These schools should provide more nuanced information critical to policy design
and implementation over and above the normal administrative data that DepEd is currently
gathering for all schools.

Finally, to facilitate the virtuous cycle of teaching and learning, schools will need to connect
to nearby education colleges that can help set up teaching, learning, and improvement in
pedagogy loops to build evidence on better ways of improving learning in schools.

Systematically develop remedial programs for students who are lagging. As mentioned
earlier, there is a minuscule proportion of high proficiency students. The great majority of our
students have below the minimum proficiency levels. This calls for a systematic remedial
program to improve lagging students' performance and address learning losses. The
accumulative process of education highlights the importance of addressing students who are
lagging early and systematically. When basic education fails, this will make education in higher
levels more inefficient and costly.

Research has shown that raising the performance of lagging students is effective in raising
average test scores. For example, in a study of 13 education systems using 20 years of TIMSS
data showed that the larger reduction in the test scores gap between low- and high SES students
also accompanied steeper increases in overall test scores (Broer et al. 2019).

Orbeta et al. (2020) also finds that the incidence of grade repetition in the past is associated
with lower test scores for 15-year-old students. Repetition seems to have a scarring effect on

12
students. This also provides another reason why remedial programs are important to help
prevent grade repetition.

We need to understand that teacher incentives work against lagging students. It is always easier
for teachers to teach to the top of the class and ignore lagging students. Considering the plight
of lagging students would make teaching much more difficult for teachers.

There are models in other countries that have dealt with this issue. One is teaching at the right
level (TaRL) (https://www.teachingattherightlevel.org/). Rather than assume that students are
of the same learning readiness, recognize their differences and directly deal with these
differences.

Finally, the remedial programs will need to consider that the learning losses during the
Pandemic will be much more severe for children in lower-income households.

Improving quality should start with early childhood development, even before basic
education. In addition to education being cumulative, research has shown that early child
development affect cognitive development, school start, academic performance, school
completion, and avoiding crime. Early childhood nutrition interventions have been shown to
lower the age of school start (Yamauchi, 2006), increase grades, reading comprehension, and
non-verbal cognitive ability tests during adulthood (Maluccio, et al., 2009; Yamauchi, 2006),
increase the likelihood completing high school, attend college and have higher earnings and
avoid crime (Garces, et al., 2002). This is because nutrition deficiencies impair brain
development (Prado & Dewey, 2014). In addition, starting school early is associated with
higher test scores are age 15 (Orbeta et al., 2020).

Notably, the disparity in chronic malnutrition starts in the first 1000 days of life. Ulep (2021)
has shown that even with negligible difference in chronic malnutrition at birth between income
classes, this rapidly develops into a pronounced disparity between 6-24 months of life. Beyond
24 months, the gap in nutrition status by income classes is essentially maintained. The
immediate implication is that nutrition intervention at school age has muted or no effects on
chronic malnutrition although it has been shown to improve attentiveness and sociability, even
though only temporarily (Tabunda et al., 2016).

Verify that automatic promotion is not practiced. While it has been denied that automatic
promotion is official policy, the test results showing a huge proportion of students not having
the required competence of the grade level they are in is a piece of compelling evidence that
this may not be the case. For one, there are clear incentives why this officially frowned upon
policy may not be vigorously enforced by school administrators and/or teachers. For instance,
the study on performance-based bonuses may have encouraged misreporting of dropout rates
(Monje 2019).

Expand utilization of better-performing private schools using vouchers. The recent

research on Education Service Contracting, Senior High School Voucher, and Joint-Delivery
Program for SHS TVL has shown that these programs effectively address educating issues
(ADB forthcoming). These programs promoted efficiency, choice, and diversity of providers.

13
It promotes the utilization of private schools where test scores are higher. It also has a lower
per-student cost than the per-student allocation in public high schools. It reduced congestion in
public junior high schools except in some highly urbanized regions and in regions with few
private schools. However, this program lacks a longer-term perspective needed to guide private
sector investments.

Harness the use of technology for more learner-centered education. It is acknowledged

that different individuals learn differently both in mode and speed. Thus, education that
recognizes these differences best promotes learning (Christensen et al., 2011). However,
personalized education is expensive. Technology has the promise of delivering more
personalized education more efficiently and effectively. The better use of technology is not on
mimicking lectures in delivering content but on promoting learner-centered education,
increased interaction between teachers and learners, and enabling greater learners' control of
their education. For instance, towards this end, technology can be harnessed to enable access
to more varied content than the existing resources the school can provide. A case in point is
enabling offering more tracks in SHS to lessen the likelihood that students are forced to enroll
in tracks schools offer rather than what they prefer. Facilitating more rapid and personalized
feedbacks is another important use of technology.

Clarify the primary objective of the MTB-MLE policy and address implementation
issues. The objective and merits of the MTB-MLE policy of facilitating learner-centered
education must be clarified and disseminated well. For instance, some believe that MTB-MLE
is for language preservation rather than facilitating learning. Many, including teachers, are not
convinced that using MT as a medium of instruction facilitates learning, including learning
other languages. Neither is there an appreciation that besides his innate ability, the other most
important resource a child brings into his education is his language of expression and thinking.
These conceptual issues are confusing implementation. On top of these conceptual issues are
procurement issues that led to the non-delivery of learning materials. These conceptual and
implementation issues are listed in Monje et al. (2021). It is heartening to learn that in response
to this challenge, DepEd is in the process of preparing clearer set of guidelines. As Monje et
al. (2021) has warned, guidelines may not be implemented as designed. Thus, accompanying
the clearer guidelines should be close monitoring of implementation to know that the guidelines
are implemented as intended and in case there are deviations, sources are understood, and
appropriate corrective actions are introduced.

Specific recommendations

The following specific recommendations are based on the findings in Orbeta, Melad and
Potestad (2020).

Promote parental involvement. The correlation between parental support and test scores is
strong. This is true in general but even more so for lagging students. We need to find ways to

14
encourage parental support. The experience during the Pandemic should educate us on how
parental support can be encouraged.

Improve learning environments in schools. The incidence of bullying in schools in the

country is one of the highest among participating countries in PISA (OECD 2019). Besides
being inherently unacceptable, this was also found to be negatively correlated with test scores.
Another factor that is positively correlated with test scores is the disciplinary climate in
classrooms. Valuing disciplinary climate in classrooms must not be limited to schools but also
society in general.

Review how learning time is spent in schools. Learning time is found to be negatively
correlated with test scores. Curiously, the country has one of the longest learning times among
participating countries in PISA, yet this did not help improve test scores. This calls for a review
of how learning times are utilized in schools.

Understand why teacher qualifications are not correlated with test scores. Common sense
has it that high teacher qualifications are supposed to improve test scores. Yet, the PISA data
show no correlation. This calls for a review of teacher training as well as deployment. On the
one hand, this calls for a review of the utilization of highly qualified teachers. On the other
hand, this may also mean reviewing teacher certification systems and the quality of graduate
education for teachers. It is noteworthy that PRC data shows that LET for elementary teachers
has one of the lowest passing rates among the professional board examinations.

15
3. Technical and Vocational Education and Training

Where are we now?

Enrollment, graduates and the proportion certified are rising. TVET showed consistent
improvement in enrollment, graduation, assessment, and certification. Enrollment grew to
around 2.5 million in 2019 from about 1.6 million in 2010 (Figure 3.1). Similarly, graduation
rose to 2.2 million in 2019 from 1.3 million in 2010. This implies a graduation rate of 90% in
2019, rising from 86% in 2010. In addition, the proportion of the graduates assessed grew to
about 80% in 2019 from a little over 50% in 2010. Notably, the lack of training regulation (TR)
that prescribes how to do competency assessment was one of the reasons for not taking
assessment. The figure also reveals that the assessment passing rates are respectably high at
above 80 percent.

Figure 3.1. Enrollment, Graduation, Assessment and Certification, 2010-2019

3,000,000

2,500,000

2,000,000

1,500,000

1,000,000

500,000

-
2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019

Enrolled Graduates Assessed Certified

Source of basic data: TVET Statistics, various years, TESDA

There is an increasing proportion of graduates from community-based mode while those

from enterprise-based training is extremely small. The distribution of enrolled and
graduates by mode of delivery shows the apparent dominance of institution-based providers in
earlier years (Table 3.1). However, in recent years, community-based training produces a larger
share and even shows the highest share by 2019 (Table 3.1). The rise in the share of
community-based enrollees and graduates is perhaps a reflection of the increasing emphasis on
the equity objectives of TVET. Finally, another noteworthy trend in enrollment and graduation
is that enterprise-based training (EBT) continues to contribute a tiny proportion of enrolled and
graduates (Table 3.1). This continues to be the case even when many considered enterprise-

16
based training (EBTs) as the most responsive to industry needs and promoted various EBT
schemes such as internship and dual training system (DTS).

Table 3.1. VET enrollment and graduation by mode of delivery

2010 2015 2019
Number % Number % Number %
Enrolled 1,568,617 100.0 2,281,389 100.0 2,488,922 100.0
Institution-based 860,919 54.9 1,166,613 51.1 840,295 33.8
Enterprise-based 86,978 5.5 63,625 2.8 97,517 3.9
Community-based 620,720 39.6 1,051,151 46.1 1,109,245 44.6
Monitored - 0.0 - 0.0 441,865 17.8
Graduates 1,344,371 100.0 2,129,758 100.0 2,240,750 100.0
Institution-based 671,488 49.9 1,036,290 48.7 701,042 31.3
Enterprise-based 73,352 5.5 57,002 2.7 86,842 3.9
Community-based 599,531 44.6 1,036,466 48.7 1,030,095 46.0
Monitored - 0.0 - 0.0 422,771 18.9
Source: TESDA TVET Statistics (2015-2019); TESDA TVET Statistics (2008-2013)

The sectoral distribution of graduates appears to correspond to fast-growing sectors of

the economy. Tourism, social, and community development continue to be in the top 3 (Figure
3.2). This is in response to the vigorous growth of tourism in the country in recent years (ADB
2021), at least before the Pandemic. On the other hand, information and communications
technology shifted down from the top eight years ago (Orbeta and Esguerra 2016).

Figure 3.2. Graduates by Sector, 2019

517,142
OTHERS 497,668
216,535
Electrical and Electronics 172,286
157,421
Automotive and Land Transportation 142,286
127,850
Metals and Engineering 98,831
87,135
Information and Communication Technology 71,119
70,085
Garments 38,141
15,965
Maritime 8,887
7,790
Decorative Crafts 5,354
2,522
Furniture and Fixtures 971
842
Visual Arts 621
507
Pyrotechnics 496
193
Logistics 103
0 200000 400000 600000

Source of basic data: TVET Statistics 2017-2019, Technical Education and Skills Development Authority

The composition and reason for taking TVE have shifted. It is common knowledge that
high school graduates who do not want to pursue a university education are the traditional

17
target of VET. However, the 2019 SETG covering 2018 graduates shows that it is no longer
high school graduates that are the primary students of VET as is earlier observed in Orbeta and
Esguerra (2016) covering VET graduates in 2012. Figure 3.3 shows that the largest group of
VET graduates in 2018 are college graduates and beyond (36%). This is followed by university
undergraduates (23%). The old curriculum high school graduates and the new curriculum
junior high school (JHS) graduates are third at 16%.

Figure 3.3. Distribution of VET graduates, by level of educational attainment prior to

training, 2018 (Percentages)
Elementary and Post-sec, non-
below tertiary Short-cycle tertiary
2% 3% 5%

HS UGrad
6%
SHS
College Grad and
9%
beyond
36%

HS Grad (Old cur. &

JHS)
16%

College UGrad
23%

Source: TESDA 2019 Study on the employability of TVET Graduates

The commonly given reason for taking VET is for employment. This is shown, for instance, in
Orbeta and Esguerra (2016). However, recent data shows this is no longer the case consistent
with the change in the composition of the TVET graduates. Figure 3.4 shows that skills
upgrading/enhancement (42%) is the most popular reason for taking VET for 2018 graduates.
This is followed by employment (35%). It is worth noting that for 2012 graduates, skill
upgrading is only third at 7%. Also noteworthy is that personal use/interest/hobby (15%),
which are reasons not related to skills upgrading or employment, grew in prominence from a
mere 2% for graduates in 2012 (Figure 3.4).

18
Figure 3.4. Distribution of VET graduates, by reason of taking VET courses, 2017
(Percentages)
TVET qualification is Nothing to do For promotion
To increase in
popular (many are 0% 2%
income
enrolling) 2%
1%
Others
3%
Personal use/
interest/ hobby
For skills upgrading/
15%
enhancement
42%

For employment/
to get job
35%

Source: TESDA 2019 Study on the employability of TVET Graduates

Why are we here?

EBT promotion activities are not doing enough; neither were the issues around it
resolved. The lack of progress in promoting EBT is not for the lack of trying. We enacted laws
on apprenticeships (PD 422), dual training (RA 7686), and, more recently, internship (RA
10869). We may have not exerted enough effort to understand the underlying incentives that
have affected its uptake. EBTs have incentive incompatibility issues (Orbeta and Esguerra
2016). On the one hand, firms do not want to finance it if competitors poach trained workers.
On the other hand, trainees may not have the resources to pay for the training. The strategic
behavior of firms using EBTs to avoid paying commensurate wages and benefits may be
challenging to monitor and, hence, difficult to enforce. This has resulted in an impasse on how
to move forward the agenda of more EBTs.

Emphasis was on equity to the neglect of the efficiency objective. TVET has the dual
objective of efficiency and equity as expressed in the National Technical Education and Skills
Development Plan (NTESDP). The emphasis on equity in the financing of TVET has promoted
community-based training, resulting in this mode becoming dominant among the modes of
delivery. However, while laudable, the emphasis on equity objectives should not be allowed to
diminish the pursuit of training that serves cutting-edge technology given the changing labor
market needs with the advent of the Fourth Industrial Revolution.

Seeking employable skills and protection from labor market changes has encouraged
college students and graduates to enroll in TVET. The rise in the proportion of college
19
students and graduates among the TVET trainees might be a response to the dynamic labor
market they are currently facing and/or anticipating. Those with college degrees and beyond
may no longer aim for employment but to add competencies to their repertoire of skills to
enhance their employability in the face of changes in the labor market and technologies.

Recommendations 7

Heighten the promotion, identify and address the issues preventing the expansion of
enterprise-based training. It is widely accepted that because it is demand-driven and has
better employment rates, EBTs is the preferred delivery method. In addition, EBTs have also
been touted as the answer to job-skill mismatch given its nature of being demand-driven
because firms conduct these. Finally, more EBTs are more attuned to rapid change in
production technologies with the fourth industrial revolution (ADB 2021; Dadios et al. 2018).
The recent emphasis on establishing industry boards is a step in the right direction. If this can
be the venue to improve the private sector participation in TVET, this will make TVET more
attuned to industry needs. TESDA has also recently implemented “EBT to the Max” with 1,876
training institutions and their partner companies participating 8. The initiatives should provide
valuable information on how to encourage participation of firms in EBT.

Keep training quality given the rising proportion of graduates from community-based
training modality. Keeping the training quality high will be a challenge if community-based
training continues to dominate VET output. With community-based training done mainly in
communities where training resources may be scarce or even absent, safeguarding the quality
of training will be a challenge. It is laudable that TESDA provides technical support for this
training mode.

Ensure that 21st-century (or transversal) skills are in TVET implemented curriculum.
TVET graduates are increasingly asked to deliver job-specific skills and allied competencies
that will enable them to work better with other employees and with intelligent machines.
UNESCO (2016) calls these 21st-century skills or transversal skills. These are group into six
domains, namely (a) critical and innovative thinking, (b) interpersonal skills (e.g., presentation
and communication skills, organizational skills, teamwork, etc.), (c) intra-personal skills (e.g.,
self-discipline, enthusiasm, perseverance/grit, self-motivation, etc., (d) global citizenship (e.g.,
awareness, tolerance, openness, respect for diversity, intercultural understanding, etc.), (e)
media and information literacy (ability to obtain and analyze information through ICT and
ability to critically evaluate information and media content), and (f) others (physical health,
religious values, not falling into the other five) (UNESCO 2016, p6). The challenge is
incorporating these skills in TVET. It is noted that TESDA has issued Circular No. 097 s. 2019
which specified that 21st Century Skills be part of the Competency Standards for Basic

7
Drawn heavily from Orbeta (2022)
8
See, for instance, https://www.tesda.gov.ph/Media/NewsDetail/20145

20
Competencies for all training. It needs to validate that these requirements are in the
implemented curriculum and have the desired effects.

Balance the training needs for equity and the upgrading required for cutting-edge
production technology. The dual objectives of TVET need to be fully understood. On the one
hand, is the need to train workers who will support cutting-edge production technology for
global competitiveness. On the other hand, TVET is also tasked with providing training for
new entrants into the labor market and marginalized sectors. These twin objectives require
different approaches, must be pursued with equal vigor, and one not sacrificed for the other.
Balancing these twin objectives will constitute a challenge.

Develop capacity for flexible delivery of TVET that considers access capacities of clients.
The need to develop the ability to deliver TVET in times of emergencies has been highlighted
by Covid-19 Pandemic. It is common knowledge that more than 25 typhoons visit the country
annually disrupting many activities, training delivery included. On the one hand, this calls for
developing capacity for flexible training modalities. In addition to building the right
infrastructure is developing teachers’ ability to produce appropriate online content and deliver
them using these new platforms. The experience with the TESDA Online Program provides
the experience of developing the capacity to provide training during emergencies when it is
impossible to conduct face-to-face training. It also is worth noting the experience of
YouthWorks Philippines, which highlighted the challenges of Technical Vocational
Institutions (TVIs) delivering remote learning for TVET students. The key informant
interviews with TVIs revealed they could transfer the theory part of the training but are severely
challenged with putting online the practical aspect of the training (Orbeta and Corpus 2021).
On the side of trainees, the survey revealed the challenges of online access consist of lack of
access devices and resources to fund connection to the internet. The project had to procure
tablets and lend these to the participants to ease the shortage of access devices and provide
connectivity allowance to enable training participants to access online training materials
(Orbeta et al. 2021).

Develop capacity in TESDA for regulating and testing modalities to encourage private
sector participation. The rapidly changing production technologies and their extensive effects
on the labor market mean that the regulation function of TESDA will increasingly become
complex. We also expect the primary function of TESDA to shift towards more regulating the
TVET system and providing training and labor market information. Another critical capacity
TESDA need is the ability to experiment and rigorously validate alternative modes of
cooperating with and encouraging the private sector participation in all aspects of the TVET
system. Finally, it has also been pointed out that TESDA needs organizational reforms,
including public financial management and sustained quality assurance (Asian Development
Bank, 2021).

Develop labor force indicators that better capture the TVET sector. The current labor force
data does not fully capture the extent of TVET in the economy (Orbeta et al., 2021). While the
labor force survey captures the highest grade completed, including post-secondary non-tertiary
education, this only includes those who took their TVET training in TVIs. It does not include

21
those in the enterprise- and community-based training. As noted above, community-based
trainees constituted 45% of trainees in 2019. This gap needs to be addressed to provide a more
comprehensive picture of TVET.

Develop and regularly publish more granular indicators of the training offering and
performance of TVIs. Informed household decisions on pursuing technical education and
firms' hiring decisions require good granular information. TESDA is providing aggregated
information on the sector. However, these are not sufficient to inform households’ and firms’
decisions. Households and firms would need TVI- and training-level information to decide
what training to pursue, which graduates to hire, and from which TVI. At the minimum, there
is a need for TVI- and training-level information on training offerings, costs, passing rates in
national certifications, and employment rates.

22
4. Higher Education

Where are we now?

Attendance is high given our income level. The enrollment rate in Philippine higher
education is on par with middle-income countries' average (Figure 4.1). This is, however,
rapidly eroding as neighboring countries continue to rise while the country's enrollment rate
has stagnated, as shown in the figure.

Figure 4.1. Tertiary Enrollment (%) Comparison Between the Philippines, Regional Peers
and the Average of middle-income Countries

Source: World Bank World Development Indicators

Quality is uneven, with very few universities are rated in the top 1000 universities of the
world. Even if graduates have served in global labor markets for decades (King 2020), only a
handful of universities landed in the top 1000 universities of the world. The passing rate in
PBEs is below 40% (Figure 4.1). In terms of inputs, only half of the faculty have graduate
degrees, and less than 20% have Ph.D. degrees. Less than 30% of the HEIs have accredited
programs. This may have been carried forward with struggling quality in basic education.

Table 4.1. Quality Indicators

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018
Performance (% Passing) in licensure examination
Across all disciplines 36 34 36 43 39 40 39 38 37 38
(Overall takers)
Across all disciplines 50 50 54 61 60 60 59 56 57 56
(First-time takers)
Faculty Qualification
% with graduate 45 50 54 50 53 53 53 54 54 54
degrees
% with PhD 10 11 13 11 12 13 13 13 14 17

23
 Accreditation
% of HEIs with 20 20 22 22 24 25 27 28 29 29
Accredited Programs
Source: Commission on Higher Education (CHED)

Inequitable access persists. Equity in access remains elusive. In 2019, while 49% of the
richest decile attend higher education, only 17% from the poorest decile can do so (Figure 4.2).
The poor are underrepresented even in public HEIs. It is entirely understandable that an even
more skewed distribution in favor of richer students can be found in private HEIs (Figure 4.3b).
The solution offered by the state is to provide free tuition in public state universities and
colleges (SUCs) and local universities (LUCs). In addition, it also provided for tertiary
education subsidy (TES) for the poor in private HEIs. It remains to be seen whether this will
increase the participation of students from poorer households. The pre-implementation analysis
has expected that this may exacerbate the inequities as the better academically prepared
students from the richer families may bump off less prepared students from poor households
in the competition for limited slots (Orbeta and Paqueo 2017). In the initial assessment of the
program's implementation, the interviews with higher education leaders revealed doubts on the
program's sustainability (Ortiz et al., 2019). It also noted birthing pains in the implementation.

Figure 4.2. Net enrollment rate in higher education by income decile, 2019
60

49
50

41
40
35
32
30 26 27
26
23
20
20 17

10

0
Poorest Second Third Fourth Fifth Sixth Seventh Eigth Nineth Richest

Source of basic data: APIS 2019 (18-21 year olds)

24
Figure 4.3. Distribution of enrollment in public and private HEIs, by income decile (2019)
a. Public HEIs b. Private HEIs
25 25
20
20 20 19
15 15
15 13 15 13
11 11 10 10 10
9
10 7 7 10 6
6 5 6
5 5 4 3

0 0

Source of basic data: APIS 2019

Underdeveloped research and innovation system. The Science, Technology, Research and
Innovation for Development (STRIDE) program assessed the Philippine innovation ecosystem
by looking at five components, namely: (a) education and human capital development; (b)
research and knowledge creation; (c) collaboration between universities and industry; (d)
intellectual property, protection, licensing, and commercialization of technologies; and (e)
start-up companies based on technological innovation using a survey of perception of
ecosystem stakeholders (Klich and Dix 2020). From the stakeholders' perspectives, education
and human capital development were deemed acceptable by global standards. However, it
highlighted that STEM graduates lack exposure to research culture, and the training is too
focused on getting students to pass board examinations.

In terms of university-industry collaboration in research and development, an earlier review

revealed that we are still in an emergent stage in the common forms of collaboration such as
(a) collaborative research and development (R&D), (b) commission research, (c) technology
licensing, and (d) the creation of spin-off companies (Vea 2014). The study recommends (a) a
massive S&T manpower-building program, (b) the creation of a university of science and
technology, and (c) transforming existing public universities into research universities.

In terms of S&T manpower, Albert et al. (2020) find that we are not producing enough S&T
graduates, and often S&T graduates are not doing R&D jobs and/or do not persist in jobs
requiring S&T skills. It is noteworthy that Orbeta et al. (2016) pointed out that science
graduates are paid lower compared to other college graduates.

The private education sector is steadily being marginalized. The share in enrollment of
private HEIs has declined by 16 percentage points in the last 20 years or by about one
percentage points per year from AY 1999-2000 to 2019-2020 (Table 4.2). It is worth noting
that the share of private HEIs was even higher in earlier decades, reaching about 90% in AY
1970-71 (Orbeta 2002).

The growth in public schools comes from the satellite campuses of SUCs and LUCs. In the
private sector, the growth comes from the non-sectarian group.

25
 Table 4.2. Composition and Enrollment of Higher Education Institutions
1999-2000 2009-2010 2019-2020
Number % Number % Number %
Number of HEIs
Total HEIs (including SUC Satellite
1563 100.0 2,180 100.0 2,396 100.0
Campuses)
Public 391 25.0 607 27.8 667 27.8
State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) 107 6.8 109 5 112 4.6
SUC Satellite Campuses 159 10.2 389 17.8 421 17.6
Local Colleges and Universities (LUCs) 37 2.4 93 4.3 121 5
Others (include Special HEIs) 88 5.6 16 0.7 13 0.5
Private 1172 75.0 1,573 72.2 1,729 72.2
Sectarian 306 19.6 322 14.8 339 14.2
Non-sectarian 866 55.4 1,251 57.4 1,390 58
Enrollment
Total Enrollment 2,373,486 100.0 2,774,368 100 3,408,425 100
Public 717,445 30.2 1,087,983 39.2 1,575,645 46.2
Private 1,656,041 69.8 1,686,385 60.8 1,832,780 53.8
Source: CHED

Why are we here?

Low quality starts from basic education. The low quality in higher education can be traced
to low quality in basic education. The inputs in the form of low teacher qualifications also
contribute to low quality (Table 4.1). The HEIs chosen self-regulation mechanism does not
also cover much of the offered programs. Finally, Tan (2011) traced the poor-quality education
to the government's populist policy which expanded the number of universities and their
enrollment. She argued that given low income in the country, households and the government
can only afford low-cost low-quality higher education.

The recent changes in public financing programs will not solve the equity in access issue.
The equity of access issue cannot be readily solved at the tertiary level since most of the poor
do not reach college. This is the basic reason college education will always be skewed in favor
of the richer households (e.g., Figure 4.2) even if we assume the same propensity to enroll in
higher education across income classes. Recent financing reforms such as free tuition in SUCs
and LUCs will not increase access for the poor as public HEIs do not have large proportion
from poor households (Figure 4.3a). Increasing access for the poor need to start from basic
education and/or large-scale affirmative action targeted at poor households with children who
are high school graduates and willing to pursue and able to complete college education.

Education policy is marginalizing the private sector. The growth in the SUCs and LUCs is
one reason why the private sector has a declining share. The growth in public schools comes
from the satellite campuses of SUCs and LUCs. The private schools were also negatively

26
affected by the widening salary gap between teachers in public and private HEIs resulting from
the salary standardization interventions affecting government HEIs. This has caused the
migration of faculty from private to public HEIs.

The Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education (RA 10931) 9 that provides free tuition in
SUCs and LUCs is expected to reduce their share some more. It was pointed out in the initial
assessment in Ortiz et al. (2019) that after the implementation of the SHS program in SY 2016-
2017, which made JHS students go through SHS before going to college showed some
indication of this. Figure 4.4 shows the Figure 3 in Ortiz et al. (2019) with updated data. It says
that by 2019 the public HEIs have enrollment that is already 112 percent (802/715) of their
pre-SHS enrollment (2014), while private schools have only 69 percent (400/577) of their pre-
SHS enrollment.

Figure 4.4. First-year enrollment in public and private HEIs, 2011-2019

The lack of exposure to research culture and academe-industry linkages that are in still
in an emergent stage. The drivers that are expected to spur innovation are absent. As
mentioned earlier, the assessment done in Vea (2014) revealed that the country is in an
emergent stage in the four forms of industry-academe collaboration, namely: collaborative
R&D, commission research, technology licensing, and the creation of spin-off companies.
STEM graduates lack exposure to research culture and their training are too focused on getting
students to pass board examinations (Klich and Dix 2020).

9
This law was approved by President Duterte over the objection of his economic team.

27
Recommendations 10

Address low and uneven quality. There are clear indications that quality is highly uneven
among the HEIs. Only a handful of the more than 2,000 HEIs are listed among the top
universities in the world university rankings, and this is a mix of public and private HEIs.
Enforce the standing rule of closing programs that successively do not result in passing
professional board examinations. Encourage more HEIs to become Centers of Excellence
(COE) and Centers of Development (COD). Promote voluntary accreditation.

Address inequitable access with better financing scheme. The free tuition policy in SUCs
and LUCs under RA 10931 will not solve the inequitable access. As shown earlier, the students
in public HEIs are not predominantly poor but come from the middle class and include children
in upper-income classes. In addition, it may even worsen the inequity as better academically
prepared children of richer households will outcompete less academically prepared children of
poor households for limited slots in SUCs and LUCs (Orbeta and Paqueo 2017). The UniFAST
law (RA 10867) proposal of using grants-in-aid to fully fund the education of children of poor
households would be better targeted and much more sustainable. The experience of the
Students Grants-in-Aid Program for Poverty Alleviation (SGP-PA), which fully funds children
of 4Ps families that are eligible for college, provides evidence that children from poor
households can catch up with their peers by the second year in college (Silfverberg and Orbeta
2017).

Develop the R&D culture in Philippine HEIs and address the underdeveloped innovation
ecosystem. The lack of research culture in Philippine HEIs may be because of several reasons
such as lack of funding and overload in teaching, leaving little time for doing research. In
addition, even if research is done, it may not yield its full benefits if there is no functioning
innovation ecosystem that transforms research into a product or idea commercialization (World
Bank 2002). Hence, a fully functioning innovation ecosystem is critical for encouraging
university research. The system will include: (a) knowledge-producing organizations in the
education and training system; (b) the appropriate macroeconomic and regulatory framework,
including trade policies that affect technology diffusion; (c) innovative firms and networks of
enterprises; (d) adequate communication infrastructures; and € other factors such as access to
the global knowledge base and certain market conditions that favor innovation (World Bank
2002, p24).

Promote the constitutionally mandated complementarity between public and private

HEIs by harnessing the strengths of the private education sector. Instead of continuously
marginalizing the private education sector, it would serve the education system better if ways
of harnessing their strengths were found. This has been shown in better agility to respond to
changing market demand and offering courses of comparable quality relative to the public HEIs
but at a lower price. Implement well the tertiary education subsidy (TES) that targets poor
students enrolled in private schools. Make tertiary education financing follow the student.

10
Drawn from Bautista, Paqueo and Orbeta (forthcoming).

28
Develop and regularly publish more granular indicators of the performance of HEIs.
Right decisions of households on whether to pursue higher education, which HEIs or programs
to enroll in depend on good information about schools and programs. At the minimum, this
should include HEI- and program-level passing rates in professional board examinations,
employment rates of their graduates, and tuition fees.

Learn from the experience during the Covid-19 Pandemic to determine the appropriate
role of technology in remote learning considering existing infrastructure and what can be
expected in the new few years. The Covid-19 Pandemic and the decision of the President to
prohibit face-to-face learning has forced the education system into remote learning delivery.
Unfortunately, unlike in basic education, there is no readily available comprehensive data on
the mode of learning prevailing in higher education. Suppose we use the data from the basic
education shown earlier (Figure 2.6), which showed a tendency for higher proportion on online
as one goes up the grades as the gauge. In that case, we can expect that higher education will
have a higher proportion in online mode. This expectation is borne by the SWS survey showing
a higher proportion of college students in online mode than those in lower grades (SWS 2021).
Another factor that points to a higher proportion online among college students is that most
come from richer households. Similarly, there may be a higher proportion online in private
than public HEIs given the distribution by socioeconomic class of internet connectivity and
availability of access devices in the household. However, information 11 from a cluster of HEIs
serving low-income students revealed that what works for their clients is a low-tech approach
to remote learning consisting of printed modules with remote coaching using a low-volume
data plan. This range of experiences should provide CHED guidance on what will be effective
for remote learning given the level of connectivity and availability of access devices in
Philippine households. The Bayanihan 2 (RA 11494) allocated 3 billion to fund smart campus
projects of SUCs. While they may be good over the longer term, these projects should also
consider that online access to students today will not only consist of providing learning
materials online but is also dependent on the internet connectivity and availability of access
devices at home.

11
Interview with PHINMA Education executives.

29
5. Bibliography

Albert, J., A. Tabunda, C. David, K Francisco, C. Labina, J. Cuenca, and J. Vizmanos (2020)
"The Future S&T Human Resource Requirements in the Philippines: A Labor Market
Analysis," PIDS DP 2020-32. https://www.pids.gov.ph/publications/7159

Asian Development Bank (2021). TVET in the age of Industry 4.0: Future of skills
development in the Philippines. Manila, Philippines.

Asian Development Bank (forthcoming) "Assessment of the Educational Service

Contracting, Senior High School Voucher Program, and Joint Delivery Voucher
Program for Senior High School Technical-Vocational-Livelihood Specializations"

Bautista, C., V. Paqueo and A. Orbeta (forthcoming) "Philippine Higher Education: A Case
for Public-Private Complementarity," in David Malone, Devesh Kapur, and Lily
Kong (eds.) Oxford Handbook of Higher Education in Asia.

Broer, M., Y. Bai, and F. Fonseca (2019) Socioeconomic Inequality and Educational
Outcomes: Evidence from Twenty Years of TIMSS. Springer Open.

Christensen, C., M. Horn and C. Johnson (2011) Disrupting Class. McGraw Hill.

Dadios E., A. Culaba, J. Albert, V. Paqueo, A. Orbeta, R. Serafica, A. Bandala, J Bairan

(2018) "Preparing the Philippines for the Fourth Industrial Revolution: A Scoping
Study", PIDS Discussion Paper DP 2018-11.

Department of Education (2021) TIMSS 2019: National Report of the Philippines.

Presentation

Department of Education (2020a) Department Order 12 series 2020. Adoption of the Basic
Education Learning Continuity Plan for School Year 2020-2021 In Light of the
Covid-19 Public Health Emergency.

Department of Education (2020b) Department Order 31 series 2020. Interim Guidelines for
Assessment and Grading in Light of the Basic Education Learning Continuity Plan.

Department of Education (2019) PISA 2018: National Report of the Philippines.

Filmer, D., H. Rogers, N. Angrist, and S. Sabarwal (2019) "Learning-Adjusted years of

schooling (LAYS): Defining a new macro measure of education," World Bank Policy
Research Working Paper 8591.

Garces, E., Thomas, D., & Currie, J. (2002). Longer-Term Effects of Head Start. American
Economic Review, 92, 999–1012.

Hanushek E.A. (1978) "Conceptual and empirical issues in the estimation of educational
production functions", Journal of Human Resources, Vol. 14 (3), pp. 351-388.

Hanushek, E. 2021 "Addressing cross-national generalizability in education impact

evaluation," International Journal of Educational Development.

30
King, E. (2020) "Building Human Capital: Lessons from Country Experiences - Philippines"
The World Bank.

Klich, A. and M. O'Donovan Dix (2020) Philippines Innovation Ecosystem Assessment 2019
Update. USAID and RTI. https://stride.org.ph/wp-
content/uploads/2020/09/2019_STRIDE-Philippines-Innovation-Ecosystem-
Assessment-Update_6.30.20.pdf

Maluccio, J. A., Hoddinott, J., Behrman, J. R., Martorell, R., Quisumbing, A. R., & Stein, A.
D. (2009). The Impact of Improving Nutrition During Early Childhood on Education
among Guatemalan Adults. The Economic Journal, 119, 734–763.

Metila, R., Pradilla, L. A., & Williams, A. (2017). Investigating best practice in Mother
Tongue-Based Multilingual Education (MTB-MLE) in the Philippines, Phase 3
progress report: Strategies of exemplar schools.

Monje, J (2019) "Issues and concerns in the implementation of PBB at DepEd," PIDS Policy
Notes 2019-14.

Monje, J., A. Orbeta, K. Francisco-Abrigo and E. Capones (2021) "Starting Where the
Children Are": Process Evaluation of the Mother Tongue-Based Multilingual
Education Program Implementation. PIDS Research Paper Series 2021-02.

OECD (2019), PISA 2018 Results (Volume III): What School Life Means for Students'
Lives, PISA, OECD Publishing, Paris, https://doi.org/10.1787/acd78851-en.

Orbeta, A. (2002) "Education, Labor Market and Development: A Review of the Trends and
Issues in the Philippines for the past 25 Years" PIDS Research Paper Series 2002-10
https://www.pids.gov.ph/publications/2775

Orbeta, A. (2022) "Vocational Education and Training in the Philippines" in Lorraine

Symaco and Martin Hayden (eds) International Handbook on Education in Southeast
Asia. Springer International Handbooks of Education.

Orbeta, A. and E. Esguerra (2016) "The National System of Technical Vocational Education
and Training in the Philippines: A Review and Ideas for Reforms" in A. Isgut and J.
Weller (eds) Protection and Training: Institutions for Improving Workforce
Integration in Latin America and Asia. UN ECLAC and ESCAP.

Orbeta, A. and J. Corpus (2021) "Profile of training and skilling programs in the Philippines."
PIDS Discussion Paper 2021-14.

Orbeta, A., J. Corpus, and N. Araos (2021) "Who are the youth NEET in the Philippines
Today." (forthcoming PIDS Discussion Paper).

Orbeta, A., K. Melad and M. Potestad (2020) "Correlates of test performance of 15-year-old
Students in the Philippines: Evidence from PISA" PIDS DP No 2020-57.

Orbeta, A., K. Melad, and N. Araos (2021) “Reassessing the Impact of Pantawid Pamilyang
Pilipino Program: Results of the Third Wave Impact Evaluation” PIDS Discussion
Paper Series No 2021-05.

31
Orbeta, Aniceto C., and Vicente B. Paqueo. 2017. Who benefits and loses from an untargeted
tuition subsidy for students in SUCs? Policy Notes No. 2017-03, Quezon City:
Philippine Institute for Development Studies.
https://dirp4.pids.gov.ph/websitecms/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidspn1703.pdf.

Orbeta, A., K. Gonzales and S. Cortes (2016) "Are higher education institutions responsive to
changes in the labor market," PIDS Discussion Papers 2016-18.

Ortis, K., K. Melad, N. Araos, A. Orbeta, and C. Reyes (2019) "Process Evaluation of the
Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931): Status and Prospects
for Improved Implementation," PIDS DP 2019-36.
https://pidswebs.pids.gov.ph/CDN/PUBLICATIONS/pidsdps1936.pdf

Paqueo, Orbeta and King (2020) "Strengthening the Complementarity of Private and Public
Education: Towards Greater Inclusion, Efficiency, and Freedom of Choice," Report
Submitted to the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities (PACU) and the
Private Education Assistance Committee (PEAC)

Paqueo, V., A. Orbeta and E. King (2020) "Strengthening the Complementarity of Private
and Public Education: Towards Greater Inclusion, Efficiency, and Freedom of
Choice". Report prepared for the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities
and the Private Education Assistance Committee (PEAC).

Patrinos, H. and N. Angrist (2018) "Global dataset on education quality: A review and update
(2000-2017)." World Bank Policy Research Working Paper 8592.

Philippine Institute for Development Studies (2020) 2019-2020 Economic Policy Monitor.

Prado, E. L., & Dewey, K. G. (2014, March). Nutrition and brain development in early life.
Nutrition Reviews, 72, 267–284.

Silfverberg, D. and A. Orbeta (2017) "Review and Assessment of Students Grants-in-Aid

Program for Poverty Alleviation (SGP-PA) and Expanded SGP-PA: Evidence of
Performance in the First Two Years," PIDS Research Paper Series 2017-02
https://www.pids.gov.ph/publications/5896

Social Weather Stations (2021) "Fourth Quarter 2020 Social Weather Survey on Learning
Delivery Modalities (Part 1)," Available:
https://www.sws.org.ph/swsmain/artcldisppage/?artcsyscode=ART-20210224084847

Tabunda, A., J. Albert, and I. Angele-Agdeppa (2016) “Results of an Impact Evaluation

Study on DepED's School-Based Feeding Program,” PIDS DP 2016-15.

Tan, E. (2011) "What’s wrong with Philippine higher education,” The Philippine Review of
Economics, Vol 48(1), 147-184.

Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA) (2018). National Technical
Education and Skills Development Plan (NTESDP) 2018-2022.

_______ 2019 Study on the Employment of TVET Graduates.

32
_______ (2020a). Philippine TVET Statistics 2017-2019 Report. Available from:
https://www.tesda.gov.ph/Uploads/File/Planning2020/TVETStats/20.12.03_BLUE_T
VET-Statistics_2017-2019_Final-min.pdf. Accessed February 1, 2021.

Todd P. and K. Wolpin (2003) “On the Specification and Estimation of the Production
Function for Cognitive Achievement,” Economic Journal 113 (February), F3-F33.

Ulep, V. (2021) “Breaking the Curse: Addressing Chronic Malnutrition in the Philippines
Using a Health System Lens,” PIDS DP 2021-41.

UNESCO (2016) “School and teaching practices for twenty-first century challenges: Lessons
661 from the Asia-Pacific region, regional synthesis report” (Available:
https://unesdoc.unesco.org/ark:/48223/pf0000244022)

Vea, R. (2014) “Industry-Academe Collaboration for Research and Development” PIDS DP

2014-10. https://www.pids.gov.ph/publications/5350

World Bank (2002) “Constructing knowledge societies: New challenges for tertiary
education.” The World Bank. Washington D.C.

World Bank (2020) The Human Capital Index 2020 Update.

World Bank. 2018. World Development Report 2018: Learning to Realize Education’s
Promise. Washington, DC: World Bank. doi:10.1596/978-1-4648-1096-1.

Yamauchi, F. (2006). “Early childhood nutrition, schooling, and sibling inequality in a

dynamic context: evidence from South Africa.” Economic Development and Cultural
Change, Vol 56, pp. 657–682.

33