Philippines - Third Elementary Education Project

Report No. PIC4282 Project Name Philippines-Third Elementary Education... Project Region East Asia & Pacific Sector Education Project ID PHPA4602 Borrower Republic of the Philippines Implementation Agency Department of Education, Culture & Sports (DECS) Contact: Mrs. Erlinda Pefianco, UnderSecretary Rizal Building 1, University Life Complex Meralco Avenue, Pasig, Metro Manila, Philippines Telephone: (632) 631-84-94 Fax: (632) 631-84-92 Date Initial PID May 22, 1995 Date This PID Prepared June , 1996 Projected Appraisal Date July, 1996 Projected Board Date November 12, 1996 1. Country Background. Following a decade of reform and restructuring, the economy is well on the path to recovery. Growth has averaged 6 percent since 1994, and the prospects for sustaining this trend are better than they have been since the early 80s. Poverty remains the major development problem, affecting over one-third of households. It is particularly acute in the rural areas, where two- thirds of the poor live, and over half of the population is poor. Rural poverty reflects not only lower average incomes, but also more severe income disparities than in the country as a whole. The Government has declared poverty reduction one of its priorities and has formulated a strategy, the Social Reform Agenda. The SRA aims to redistribute the benefits of growth and to involve the poor more actively in the development process. It is a geographically targeted program which combines measures to expand economic opportunities, provide quality basic social services to the poor, and promote democratic governance in depressed rural areas. The proposed operation is the first SRA project of the Government of the Philippines (GoP). 2. Sector Background. One of the most mature in Asia, the Philippine education system can boast impressive quantitative achievements. However, educational outcomes vary widely, and national and even regional averages hide major, poverty-related provincial disparities in access to quality education and in educational outcomes. Practically all children enter elementary school, but one-third drop-out. They come disproportionately from poor households and economically depressed areas. Urban/rural differences in student and school scores are also particularly pronounced.  3. A number of factors contribute to the high drop-out among poor rural children. First, they are less prepared for school for lack of early childhood development opportunities and less teachable due to poor health and nutrition. They also have no choice but to go to public schools, which offer lower quality education, especially in the rural areas, because of a pupil-based resource allocation system which places small rural schools at a disadvantage. Second, although no fees are charged in public education, one-third of the costs are privately borne, so that public education is particularly costly to poor households. Third, poor children often have to work; one-fourth do so for a living; there is even some child labor, mainly among boys. As a result, about 1.5 million 7-12 year olds are not in school. By contrast with most countries, girls are more schooled than boys. On the other hand, among the poor, children of ethnic minorities, of migrant workers, of nomadic tribes and boy laborers face particular educational barriers due to size, culture, isolation, or lifestyle. The incidence of poverty is 65 percent among household heads with five years or less of education. 4. Strategy. Concerned with quality and equity , GoP proposes to focus on schools and classrooms to improve learning achievements and retention. The core principle is to target resources on poor provinces, communities and schools to give them the basic inputs they need; to complement this, in-service training and a grant mechanism would be used to promote school-based improvement and to pilot innovative approaches to input management. To support the school focus and improve sustainability, decision-making and operational responsibility would be decentralized from the regional to the Divisional (= province level) Offices or lower, and partnerships would be created with Local Government Units (LGUs), communities, parents associations, and Non- Governmental Organizations (NGOs) in all aspects of the life of the school, from resource mobilization to curriculum adaptation. Finally, to better target resources, decide whether to institutionalize or drop the pilots, increase accountability and transparency, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports (DECS) intends to promote a culture of measurement and information-based decision making. The strategy will be tested in the most challenging conditions under the project and if successful, generalized. 5. Project Objectives and Approach. The project would: (a) build the institutional capacity of DECS and other stakeholders to manage the change process associated with the underlying strategy; and (b) improve learning achievements, completion rates and access to quality elementary education in 26 poor provinces, especially their most disadvantaged schools and communities. This is a process project characterized by a flexible design under which detailed planning of interventions would be done by the stakeholders during implementation. Six pilot provinces have prepared their own 'Divisional Elementary Education Development Plans' (DEDPs), following a highly participatory approach. Two more batches of 8 and 12 provinces would be prepared during the first and second years of implementation, building on the lessons learned at each step. 6. Project Description. The project has two investment components. Under the first objective, it would: (a) create a national structure for project management and capacity-building, the Project Implementation -2 -  Support Unit; (b) build capacities in support of policy and decision- making ; and (c) build capacities in support of decentralized implementation and effective schools. Under the second objective, it would: (i) build the capacities of DECS, LGUs, and other stakeholders in the 26 targeted provinces; and (ii) develop and implement, on a phased basis, locally-prepared, customized Divisional Elementary Education Development Plans (DEDPs) in these 26 provinces. With local variations, the DEDPs are expected to: improve learning through the provision of textbooks/instructional materials, in-service training (INSET) and school-based management, and grants from a School Improvement and Innovation Facility (SIIF); raise completion rates through the provision, rehabilitation and repair of fully equipped small multigrade schools, community mobilization, and demand-side interventions; expand access to quality elementary education through the provision of additional fully equipped school places. Six pilot DEDPs have been prepared following a highly participatory process involving educators, LGUs, parents, communities and NGOs. Two more 'batches' of 8 and 12 provinces are to be prepared in PY1 and PY2. 7. Project Implementation. Overall responsibility for project management and implementation would lie with DECS, in close partnership with LGUs. The project would implement a process of decentralization under which DECS Divisional Offices would become the basic operational units, with the central and regional levels playing a support role. At the center, policy guidance and interagency coordination would be provided by a Project Steering Committee (PSC). A TEEP Managing Council (TMC) would have the authority to approve sub-projects, annual plans and budgets, and oversee the work of the Project Implementation Support Unit (PISU). The PISU, consisting of regular DECS staff assisted by national consultants, would coordinate, support and monitor project implementation by DECS, and would manage the capacity-building effort. A partly rotating arrangement would ensure that after five years, PISU is fully merged into the DECS structure, and the Department has a critical mass of re-tooled staff. Detailed implementation would be the responsibility of DECS' Divisional Offices (DOs) reinforced by technical specialists on a temporary basis. Other noteworthy features include: (a) delegation of the School Building Program (SBP) to the Municipal Engineering Offices; (b) the use of various local "democratic oversight" bodies (provincial and municipal School Boards, School Management Councils at the school level); (c) the eligibility of NGOs and communities as contractors in various parts of the project; (d) a decentralized flow of funds; and (e) a structured process for systematically learning from experience. 8. Project Sustainability. At the macro level, strong growth projections, GoP's commitment to elementary education and the support of the central agencies to the SRA and educational decentralization create a positive environment for project sustainability. Project studies show that with a modest level of budget targeting the project is sustainable. 9. Lessons Learned. Filipinos have a good mastery of civil works techniques, and even a change in approach as proposed can be easily absorbed. On the other hand, qualitative objectives and interventions such as targeting and monitoring and evaluation and require thorough, practical preparation and more supervision. Stakeholder participation in project design is essential for effective implementation. Geographic -3 -  and chronological phasing, in line with absorptive capacity, is preferable to a wholesale nationwide introduction of reforms. Projects involving decentralization require a strong, although flexible institutional framework and early institutionalization. Incentives have to be sustainable. Other relevant lessons include the importance of: (a) a free-standing, properly staffed, project management unit; (b) making good use of consultants; and (c) simplifying disbursement arrangements. 10. Poverty Category. The project falls under the category 'Program of Targeted Interventions'. It is geographically targeted, and within the targeted provinces, phasing would begin with the most disadvantaged districts. The School Improvement and Innovation Facility would direct proportionately more grants at marginalized schools. A pilot voucher scheme would target the poorest households. 11. Program Objective Category. The project would improve access to quality elementary education in provinces featuring both low incomes and unfavorable education indicators. Women, who constitute 88 percent of the teachers, and young children are the prime beneficiaries. The project also addresses the needs of disadvantaged groups -- especially children of indigenous, migrant or nomadic communities and boys engaged in child labor -- and would have an economic fallout through community school construction. These interventions are cost-effective and, combined with other social and agricultural investments, are expected to accelerate poverty reduction in depressed rural areas. 12. Environmental Aspects. The project would have no adverse impact on the environment. It would comply with national regulations such as the logging ban regarding the use of construction material. Indigenous people would benefit: they would be consulted about their perceived educational needs, during DEDP preparation and implementation, and the project includes provisions for indigenization of the curriculum and instructional materials. School-mapping would be participatory, and, should there be cases when families have to be displaced for school construction, the Framework for Resettlement defines a legal process to ensure that the affected groups would be duly compensated. Historically, such cases have been few and far apart. Environmentally- oriented proposals would be eligible for school grants under the SIIF. Contact Point: Public Information Center The World Bank 1818 H Street N.W. Washington D.C. 20433 Telephone No.: (202)458-5454 Fax No.: (202)522-1500 Note: This is information on an evolving project. Certain components may not necessarily be included in the final project. Processed by The Public Information Center week ending September 20, 1996. -4-