special education fund (sef) expenditures and school performance (final)

SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND (SEF) EXPENDITURES AND SCHOOL PERFORMANCE IN LAMBAYONG, SULTAN KUDARAT

ERNIE C. CERADOSULTAN KUDARAT STATE UNIVERSITY

EJC MONTILLA, TACURONG CITY

In the Philippines, the government puts premium in promoting basic education to all school-age children.

In fact, Section 5(5) of Article XIV of the 1987 Constitution explicitly provides that the State shall give “the highest budgetary priority to education.”

As a result, the Department of Education (DepEd) always get the lion’s share of the annual national budget.

Actually, the 2015 budget of Php P339.3 billion of the DepED is 12.6% higher than the Php P301.6 billion in 2014 (congress.gov.ph). This trend is very consistent for the last two (2) decades.

Nonetheless, this seemingly sizeable share deriving from the General Appropriations (national budget) cannot suffice the wide-ranging needs of the basic education sector.

PSMOOE

BUREAUS CO

OTHERS

ALS

DEPED

As a result, the local governments that are enjoying fiscal autonomy have to assist in funding public basic education.

By virtue of RA 5447, a law that created a Special Education Fund (SEF) and School Boards, all municipalities, cities and provinces have corresponding shares from the collections taken from the additional 1% real property tax.

NATIONAL GOVERNME

NT

LOCAL GOVERNMENT UNITS

Under the same law, school boards are mandated to decide the allocation of the SEF for the operation and maintenance of public schools within the province, city or municipality using the criteria approved by the Secretary of Education.

SCHOOL BOARD

In 1991, the Local Government Code was enacted into law amending some provisions of RA 5447.

A province, city, or municipality may levy and collect an annual tax of 1% on the assessed value of real property that will add to the basic real property tax. The proceeds will solely accrue to the SEF and it will be automatically released to the Local School Boards (LSB).

In the case of provinces, the proceeds are divided equally between the provincial and municipal school boards. MUNICIPAL

SB

PROVINCIAL SB

The LSB is mandated to determine the allocation of the School Board budget that will give priority to:

construction of school buildings and facilities;

repair and maintenance of school building and facilities;

establishment and maintenance of extension

classes; and sports activities.

Status of the SEF collection may vary from one LGU to another subject possibly on the available real properties, the accountability of the owners, and the culpability of the responsible collectors.

The effectiveness of the law may also be evaluated through the actual

expenditures of the said fund. Most likely, the manner of utilizing the SEF will have significant influence on the school performance in the locality.

MAP OF LAMBAYONG, SK

Thus, this study assessed the actual expenditures of the local government unit of Lambayong

Municipality in Sultan Kudarat, in relation to the school performance

of the three (3) school districts located therein.

CONCEPTUALFRAMEWORK

SEF Expenditures Construction of school

building, acquisition of instructional materials and equipment

Repair and maintenance of school buildings

Establishment and maintenance of extension classes

Sports activities

School Performance

Quality Access Efficiency

Enhanced School Effectiveness

Responsible SEF Budgeting

INDEPENDENT VARIABLE

DEPENDENT VARIABLE

EXPECTED OUTOMES

Figure 1. Research paradigm showing the relationships of variables and the expected outcomes

Statement of the Problem

To what extent is the actual expenditures of Special Education Fund (SEF) with respect to these priorities: (1) construction of school building/facilities and acquisition of instructional materials and equipment; (2) repair and maintenance of school buildings; (3) establishment and maintenance of extension classes, and (4) sports activities?

What is the level of school performance along with quality, access, and efficiency?

Is the utilization of SEF (expenditure) related to school performance?

What are the issues and problems regarding utilization of SEF?

Methodology

Design: Descriptive-correlational Locale: Lambayong Sultan Kudarat Participants: LSB members, school heads, teachers & parents

Data collection methods: Documentary analysis (Municipal Treasurer’s & School District records)/interview

Presentation modes: Graphs & tables Statistical tools: Mean, Pearson r, frequency & ranking

Results and Findings

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

102,000.00 115,353.66

210,000.00

80,000.00 80,000.00

0 045000

0 0

320,000 320,000

90,000

320,000

600,000

210,480

278,000

56,605

233,000

320,000

1. Construction of school building/facilities and acquisition of instructional facilities, instruc-tional materials and equipments (M=Php 117,471.00)2. Repair and maintenance of school buildings (M=Php 9,000.00)3. Establishment and maintenance of extension classes (M=Php 330,000.00).4. Sports activities (M=Php 219,617.00).

FISCAL YEAR

SEF

EXPE

ND

ITU

RES

, IN

PES

OS

Figure 2. SEF Expenditures on Mandated Priorities in Lambayong, SK, 2009-2013

2 observable trends1. The expenditures both for establishment and maintenance of extension classes & sports activities.

FINDINGS

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

102,000.00 115,353.66

210,000.00

80,000.00 80,000.00

0 045000

0 0

320,000 320,000

90,000

320,000

600,000

210,480

278,000

56,605

233,000

320,000

1. Construction of school building/facilities and acquisition of instructional facilities, instruc-tional materials and equipments (M=Php 117,471.00)2. Repair and maintenance of school buildings (M=Php 9,000.00)3. Establishment and maintenance of extension classes (M=Php 330,000.00).4. Sports activities (M=Php 219,617.00).

FISCAL YEAR

SEF

EXPE

ND

ITU

RES

, IN

PES

OS


1. The expenditures both for construction of school building/facilities and acquisition of IF, IM and E & repair and maintenance of school buildings.

2 observable

trends

FINDINGS

FY 2009 FY 2010 FY 2011 FY 2012 FY 2013

102,000.00 115,353.66

210,000.00

80,000.00 80,000.00

0 045000

0 0

320,000 320,000

90,000

320,000

600,000

210,480

278,000

56,605

233,000

320,000

1. Construction of school building/facilities and acquisition of instructional facilities and ac-quisition of instructional materials and equipments (M=Php 117,471.00)2. Repair and maintenance of school buildings (M=Php 9,000.00)3. Establishment and maintenance of extension classes (M=Php 330,000.00).4. Sports activities (M=Php 219,617.00).

FISCAL YEAR

SEF

EXPE

ND

ITU

RES

, IN

PES

OS


Establishment and maintenance of extension classes got the highest expenditure.

Sports activities got the lowest.

LSB released the lowest SEF to schools in 2011 and highest in 2013. The average annual expenditure is Php 676,087.78.

FINDINGS

On NAT MPS: The NAT MPS increased thrice and decreased once within the last five (5) years.; the typical trend is upward; thus, impressive.

It has a lowest record of achievement (MPS=68.74) in 2011, while highest (MPS=74.36) in 2013.

The average NAT MPS of the elementary schools in Lambayong, Sultan Kudarat is 71.42; this is interpreted as “moving towards mastery.”

Figure 3. School Performance in terms of Quality, Lambayong, SK, 2009-2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

69.96 72.68 68.74 71.34 74.36

101.80 105.49111.63

98.14

46.53

NAT MPSLinear (NAT MPS)

2013 National NAT MPS: 65.11

FINDINGSM=71.42

On Pupil-textbook ratio:

The graph indicates a highest mark (111.66) in 2011, while lowest (46.53) in 2013.

The average ratio of pupil against textbook is 92.72. In DepEd standards, it already means that elementary schools are enjoying a “very high number of usable textbooks.”

However, the trend calls for an alarm because it exhibits a downward slope suggesting a consistent drop as year progresses.

Figure 3. School Performance in terms of Quality, Lambayong, SK, 2009-2013

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

69.96 72.68 68.74 71.34 74.36

101.80 105.49111.63

98.14

46.53

NAT MPSLinear (NAT MPS)

FINDINGSM=92.

72

In terms of gross enrolment rate (GER), Lambayong School Districts underwent only a single increase in 2011 and the highest ever in 5-year accounts.

In contrast, the lowest record is observed in 2010 with only 93.66. On the average, the GER for the period under study is 96.22; this is interpreted as “very high from Planning Standard.”

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

96.9190.56 93.91 92.18 94.84

98.2893.66

98.31 97.25 96.58

58.25 61.42

49.04 51.72 48.54

84.90 84.5680.24 76.45

83.31

Participation Rate Gross Enrolment RatioCompletion Rate Linear (Completion Rate)

Figure 4. School Performance in terms of Access, Lambayong, SK, 2009-2013

FINDINGSM=96.

22

The trend of participation rates among elementary schools indicates a “saw-tooth” characteristic; it keeps on falling and rising every year showing unpredictability of pupils’ participation in school.

On average, the participation rate is 93.68 percent; this is “very high from planning standards.”

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

96.9190.56 93.91 92.18 94.84

98.2893.66

98.31 97.25 96.58

58.25 61.42

49.04 51.72 48.54

84.90 84.5680.24 76.45

83.31



FINDINGSM=93.68

For graduation rate, the graph and the data show that it steadily declines from 2010 to 2012, but then it starts to improve in 2013.

Nevertheless, the figure during the fifth year (83.31) is still lower than its initial level (84.90) in 2009. In 5-year period, the mean for graduation rate is 81.89 which is interpreted as “high from planning standards.”

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

96.9190.56 93.91 92.18 94.84

98.2893.66

98.31 97.25 96.58

58.25 61.42

49.04 51.72 48.54

84.90 84.5680.24 76.45

83.31



FINDINGSM=81.89

As to completion rate, it is apparently at the bottom as compared to other Access indicators. Its average from 2009 to 2013 is merely 53.79 or approximately 54 which means “low from planning standard.”

Unlike other performance indicators, the completion rate is consistently decreasing, hence, not stable and critical. The computed mean suggests that only 54 out 100 pupils who started Grade 1 have finished elementary after 6 years

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

96.9190.56 93.91 92.18 94.84

98.2893.66

98.31 97.25 96.58

58.25 61.42

49.04 51.72 48.54

84.90 84.5680.24 76.45

83.31

Participation Rate Gross Enrolment Ratio Completion RateGraduation Rate


FINDINGSM=53.79

The cohort survival rate of public elementary schools is “low from Planning Standard “as manifested in the result (M=56.41). This means a little more than ½ of the Grade 1 entrants reached the final grade after entering the elementary.

The result shows the highest CSR in 2009 and lowest in 2013; it is erratic. Generally, the trend is downward indicating relative inefficiency.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

59.8356.55 55.15

59.39

51.13

1.38 1.114.15 3.15 2.49

Cohort Survival Rate Linear (Cohort Survival Rate)

Figure 5. School Performance in terms of Efficiency, Lambayong, SK, 2009-2013

FINDINGSM=56.

41

On average, the drop-out rate is 2.46 or nearly 3 percent; that is, “low from planning standard.” This accounts is a bit higher than the national target of only 0-1 per year.

Similarly, the trend is unpredictable; nevertheless, the overall inclination is upward implying relative inefficiency.

2009 2010 2011 2012 2013

59.8356.55 55.15

59.39

51.13

1.38 1.114.15 3.15 2.49

Cohort Survival Rate Linear (Cohort Survival Rate)

Figure 5. School Performance in terms of Efficiency, Lambayong, SK, 2009-2013

FINDINGS

M=2.46

All indicators for quality, access and efficiency are directly related to SEF expenditures. Thus, when expenses are increased most likely the school performance will also improve. On the contrary, the prevailing correlation is not generally impressive since it is not meaningful to drop-out rate.

Performance Indicators Pearson rAccess

NAT MPS 0.98*Pupil-Textbook Ratio 1.00*

Quality Completion Rate 1.00*Graduation Rate 0.99*Gross Enrolment Ratio 0.96*Participation Rate 0.98*

Efficiency Cohort Survival Rate 0.99*Drop-Out Rate 0.96*

Critical value of r at .05 level of significance = .878

Table 1. Correlational Analysis of SEF Expenditures and School Performance

FINDINGS

The late processing of project proposal tops the list of the problems and issues encountered in utilizing SEF in Lambayong municipality; concerned offices in the LGU gives more priorities to other transactions.

Result: delayed release of budget hampering the effective delivery of BE services

Problems

Rank

Late processing of Project Proposals

1

Delayed releasing of budget 2Insufficient procurement of

sports facilities4

Transparency of utilization of fund

3

Improper use of fund 5

Table 2. Problems and Issues in the Utilization of SEFFINDINGS

C0nclusions Being a 2nd class municipality, it cannot suffice all the needs of the schools under its jurisdiction; thus, for the period 2009 to 2013, substantial allotment was given to the establishment and maintenance of extension classes while repair and maintenance of school buildings was appropriated only once. SEF cannot address all requirements of public schools.

School performance in access, quality and efficiency vary annually and across indicators.

In terms of access, the upward trend of NAT MPS is encouraging; it signifies a progressive basic education.

Although very close to planning standard, the sinking curve of the pupil-textbook ratio causes much apprehension to teachers, school administrators and DepEd officials.

As to quality, schools are quite good in completion, participation, and gross enrolment rates since they are close or very close to the planning standards, except for graduation rate.

Cohort survival and drop-out rates are low from planning standards indicating that schools perform inefficiently.

C0nclusions

The SEF expenditures are directly related to each performance indicator. Most likely, the enduring effort of the local government unit to increase annual expenditures blended with sound planning and transparent utilization would produce highly performing schools.

The late processing of documents associated to SEF utilization resulting to delay of budget release are parts of effective educational planning.

LSB did not involve stakeholders in planning so that sectoral concerns are not considered, allocation for each priority is viewed in limited sides, and that collective decision was not observed.

C0nclusions

On SEF utilization, the Local School Board should exercise full accountability, thus, ensure that proper consultation with stakeholders is carried out particularly in planning. Transparency issue and misappropriation per priority can be avoided when this scheme is truly practiced.

The DepEd representative to the LSB should establish close coordination with the LGU counterpart so that equal or proper treatment of documents will be ensured during transactions with concerned offices.

Recommendations

It is endorsed that elementary teachers may devise strategies at classroom level to motivate pupils to love school and learning, to value education, and to strive to graduate, despite the many challenges that they are facing while studying.

School officials are encouraged to continue exerting more efforts such as strengthening the Drop-Out Reduction Program (DORP) or designing other effective mechanisms to improve cohort survival rate and reduce drop-out rates. As found out, no amount of budget from LGU-SEF can stop the percentage of pupils leaving schools.

Recommendations

It is proposed that efficient collection of real property taxes will be advocated by the LGU to possibly increase the fund. The local government in its own initiative could look for other sources of fund to augment the multifarious needs of elementary schools which cannot be fully provided by DepEd.

Further studies may be carried out on the following: some LGU advocacies toward the efficient collection of Special Education Fund;

effectiveness of common drop-out reduction programs of DepEd;

potential sources of LGU fund for textbook assistance to public schools; and

determinants of low cohort survival and graduation rates.

Recommendations

References Manasan, R., Celestino, A. & Cuenca, J. (2011). Mobilizing

LGU Support for Basic Education : Focus on the School Education Fund (SEF). Discussion Paper Series No. 2011-07, PIDS: Makati City.

Robredo, Jesse M. (n.d.) “Reinventing Local School Boards in the Philippines.”

Quismondo, Tarra (March 31, 2012). Philippine education spending still below UN standard. Philippine Daily Inquirer@inquirerdotnet.

UNICEF. (2012). Global Initiative on Out‐of‐School Children: Philippine Country Study.

House of Representatives (2014). 2015 Budget Briefer. Retrieved from www.congress.gov.ph

NEDA XII. SOCCSKSARGEN: Regional Development Plan (2011-2016)

DepEd Data Factsheets (2014). Retrieved from www.deped.gov.ph.

http://www.twitter.com/inquirerdotnet

http://www.congress.gov.ph/

http://www.deped.gov.ph/

Thank you for listening.