Completion Report

Project Number: 25182 Loan Number: 1654 March 2009

PHI: Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project

CURRENCY EQUIVALENTS

Currency Unit – peso (P)

At Appraisal At Project Completion 19 October 1998 14 October 2008

P1.00 = $0.0232 $0.0212 $1.00 = P43.056 P47.095

ABBREVIATIONS

ADB – Asian Development Bank APIS – Annual Poverty Indicators Survey ARMM – Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao BSE – Bureau of Secondary Education CAR – Cordillera Administrative Region CoP – Community of Practice DEDP – division education development plan DepEd – Department of Education DORP – dropout reduction program EASE – effective alternative secondary education HSIF – High School Innovation Fund INSET – in-service training JBIC – Japan Bank for International Cooperation LGU – local government unit LIBOR – London Interbank Offered Rate LMP – learning management program M&E – monitoring and evaluation NAT – National Achievement Test NER – net enrollment ratio NPMO – National Project Management Office OHSS – open high school system PCR – project completion report RME – results monitoring and evaluation SEDIP – Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project SEDP – Secondary Education Development Project SIP – school improvement plan SRA – Social Reform Agenda SSA – secondary school alternatives TA – technical assistance TEEP – Third Elementary Education Project TNA – training needs assessment

NOTES

(i) The school year (SY) takes in parts of two calendar years and is cited in this report according to that year in which it begins.

(ii) In this report, “$” refers to US dollars.

Vice President C. Lawrence Greenwood, Jr., Operations Group 2 Director General A. Thapan, Southeast Asia Department (SERD) Director S. Lateef, Social Sectors Division, SERD Team leader W. Duncan, Head, Project Administration Unit, SERD Team member M. Camara-Crespo, Assistant Project Analyst, SERD In preparing any country program or strategy, financing any project, or by making any designation of or reference to a particular territory or geographic area in this document, the Asian Development Bank does not intend to make any judgments as to the legal or other status of any territory or area.

CONTENTS

Page

BASIC DATA i

MAP

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1 II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 1

A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 1 B. Project Outputs 2 C. Project Costs 8 D. Disbursements 8 E. Project Schedule 8 F. Implementation Arrangements 9 G. Conditions and Covenants 9 H. Related Technical Assistance 9 I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 10 J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 11 K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 12 L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 12

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE 13 A. Relevance 13 B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 13 C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 15 D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 15 E. Impact 16

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS 17 A. Overall Assessment 17 B. Lessons Learned 17 C. Recommendations 18

APPENDIXES 1. Performance Summary against the Design and Monitoring Framework 20 2. Actual Project Costs and Financing Plan 26 3. Yearly Disbursement of Loan Proceeds 27 4. Actual Project Implementation Schedule 28 5. Status of Compliance with Loan Covenants 30 6. Technical Assistance Completion Report 34 7. Trends in Student Achievement Scores 36 8. Dropout Rates for SEDIP Divisions, 2002/03–2006/07 40 9. Net Enrollment Ratios: 2002/03–2007/08 44 10. Completion Rates for SEDIP Divisions, 2002/03–2006/07 46 11. Overall Assessment 47

BASIC DATA A. Loan Identification 1. Country 2. Loan Number 3. Project Title 4. Borrower 5. Executing Agency 6. Amount of Loan 7. Project Completion Report Number

The Philippines 1654-PHI Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project Republic of the Philippines Department of Education $53.0 million (original loan amount) $32.12 million (net loan amount) PCR: PHI 1097

B. Loan Data 1. Appraisal – Date Started – Date Completed 2. Loan Negotiations – Date Started – Date Completed 3. Date of Board Approval 4. Date of Loan Agreement 5. Date of Loan Effectiveness – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 6. Closing Date – In Loan Agreement – Actual – Number of Extensions 7. Terms of Loan – Interest Rate – Maturity (number of years) – Grace Period (number of years)

16 March 1998 8 April 1998 22 October 1998 22 October 1998 11 December 1998 1 March 1999 31 May 1999 19 May 1999 0 31 December 2006 14 October 2008 2 LIBOR-based (15 December 2002) 27 7

8. Disbursements a. Dates Initial Disbursement

1 October 1999

Final Disbursement

14 October 2008

Time Interval

108 months

Effective Date

19 May 1999

Original Closing Date

31 December 2006

Time Interval

91 months

ii

b. Amount ($ million) Category

Original

Allocation

Last Revised

Allocation

Amount

Canceled

Net Amount

Available

Amount

Disbursed

Undisbursed

Balance Civil Works .203 .203 .203 .163 .040 Equipment .996 .996 .996 .808 .188 Textbook and Materials

21.584 13.584 8.000 13.584 12.226 1.358

School Mapping and Studies

.950 2.050 2.050 1.074 .976

In-Country Training

6.000 6.000 6.000 5.156 .844

Overseas Training

.192 .192 .192 .395 (.203)

High School Innovation Fund

2.000 2.000 2.000 1.921 .080

Consulting Services

2.333 5.025 5.025 4.859 .166

Interest/ Commitment Charge

10.516 5.516 5.000 5.516 5.516

Unallocated 8.226 0.000 4.434 Total 53.000 35.566 17.434 35.566 32.118 3.447

9. Local Costs (Financed) - Amount ($) 12.266 - Percent of Local Costs 53% - Percent of Total Cost 38% C. Project Data

1. Project Cost ($ million) Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual

Foreign Exchange Cost 61.9 42.7 Local Currency Cost 101.5 94.2 Total 163.4 136.9

2. Financing Plan ($ million) Cost Appraisal Estimate Actual Implementation Costs Borrower Financed 56.1 45.8 ADB Financed 53.0 32.1 Other External Financing 54.3 59.0 Total 163.4 136.9 IDC Costs Borrower Financed ADB Financed 10.5 5.5 Other External Financing Total 10.5 5.5 ADB = Asian Development Bank, IDC = interest during construction.

iii

3. Cost Breakdown by Project Component ($ million)

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual A. Base Cost Improving Teaching and Learning Process 108.3 93.5 Improving Access in Underserved Areas 5.5 4.6 Facilitating Decentralized Management 10.4 8.5 Project Recurrent Costs, Taxes, and Duties 9.7 24.8 B. Contingencies Physical 8.9 Price 9.1 C. Interest during Construction 11.5 5.5 Total 163.4 136.9 4. Project Schedule

Item Appraisal Estimate Actual Date of Contract with Consultants Q2 2000 Q4 2000 Civil Works Contract Date of Award Q4 2000 Q3 2000 Completion of Work Q4 2006 Q1 2008 Equipment and Supplies Q3 2000 Q1 2008 Dates First Procurement Q2 2000 Q3 2000 Last Procurement Q4 2006 Q1 2008

Q = calendar quarter. 5. Project Performance Report Ratings

Ratings Implementation Period

Development Objectives

Implementation Progress

From 10 December 1998 to 30 September 2002 Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 October 2002 to 30 November 2002 Unsatisfactory Partly Satisfactory From 1 December 2002 to 28 February 2003 Partly Satisfactory Partly Satisfactory From 1 March 2003 to 31 July 2003 Partly Satisfactory Satisfactory From 1 August 2003 to 14 October 2008 Satisfactory Satisfactory

iv

D. Data on Asian Development Bank Missions

Name of Mission

Date

No. of Persons

No. of Person-Days

Specialization of Members

Fact-finding 8–15 October 1997 6 30 a, c, e, f, g Appraisal 16 March to 8 April 1998 9 45 a, b, c, d, e, f, g Inception 3–12 November 1999 5 32 a, c, e, f, g Review Mission 1 24–26 October 2000 2 6 a, e Disbursement 1 13 August 2001 2 2 c, e Midterm 28 May to 10 September 2002 7 52 a, d, f Review Mission 2 18–29 August 2003 2 10 a, d Review Mission 3 30 August to 23 November 2004 3 20 a, d Review Mission 4 22 August to 1 September 2005 2 16 a, d Review Mission 5 22 August to 8 September 2006 2 8 a, d Review Mission 6 30 October to 16 December 2006 3 27 a, d, h Review Mission 7 4–6 July 2007 2 6 a, e Disbursement 2 18–19 September 2007 2 4 a, d Review Mission 8 24 October to 6 December 2007 1 8 a Project Completion Review

9–10 October 2008 2 2 a, f a May use reference letters in table, e.g., a – project officer, b – counsel, c – control officer, d – national officer, e –

project analyst, f – consultant, g – consulting services specialist, h – external relations officer.

I. PROJECT DESCRIPTION 1. The Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project (SEDIP) was approved on 11 December 1998 and became effective on 19 May 1999. The total project cost was estimated at $163.4 million, originally comprised of $53 million from the Asian Development Bank (ADB), $54.3 million from the Japan Bank for International Cooperation (JBIC),1 and $56.1 million from the Government of the Philippines. During implementation, $17.4 million was canceled from the ADB loan, reducing the ADB loan amount to $35.6 million. The JBIC loan covered all of the Project’s civil works. 2. The Executing Agency was the Department of Education (DepEd), while the implementing agency was the Bureau of Secondary Education (BSE). The Director of BSE was the project manager. The National Project Management Office (NPMO) implemented the Project.

II. EVALUATION OF DESIGN AND IMPLEMENTATION 3. The overall purpose (impact) of the Project was to improve equitable access to quality secondary education in poverty-affected rural provinces.2 The expected project outcomes were (i) improved quality and relevance of secondary education in the project provinces; (ii) increased rates of participation in, and completion of, secondary education in underserved areas within the project provinces; and (iii) better capacity of division education officials to establish the conditions for school-based management. The Project aimed to close the gap between SEDIP divisions and the rest of the country. Four key performance indicators were identified for measuring reduced disparity: (i) net enrollment ratio (NER), by 5%; (ii) completion rate, by 2%; (iii) dropout rate, by 2%; and (iv) student achievement (no specific target). 4. The Project was implemented in 27 poverty-affected provinces identified under the Government’s Social Reform Agenda (SRA) in 1995. 3 Fifteen of the provinces received complete project interventions while 12 received textbooks only. A. Relevance of Design and Formulation 5. The project design built upon and extended the accomplishments of the earlier ADB-funded Secondary Education Development Project (SEDP). SEDP had supported implementation of the free public secondary education policy and the new secondary education curriculum, both adopted in the 1990 school year (SY1990). A major expansion and upgrading of the public secondary education system resulted, but the performance of the system in rural and poverty-affected areas remained weak and inequitable as measured by enrollment and completion rates, as well as by learning outcomes.4 1 Loan PH200, Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Closing date is 31 December 2009. 2 The provinces were selected from the 27 poverty-affected provinces identified by the Government’s Social Reform

Agenda in 1995. 3 The 15 project provinces (and their administrative regions) that received complete interventions were Benguet

(CAR), Ifugao (CAR), Antique (VI) Guimaras (VI), Agusan del Sur (Caraga), Surigao del Sur (Caraga), Romblon (IV-B), Masbate (V), Oriental Negros (VII), Leyte (VIII), Southern Leyte (VIII), Biliran (VIII), Zamboanga del Sur (IX), Zamboanga Sibugay (IX), and North Cotabato (XII). The 12 project provinces that received only textbooks were Abra (CAR), Mountain Province (CAR), Kalinga (CAR), Apayao (CAR), Sulu (ARMM), Tawi Tawi (ARMM), Maguindanao (ARMM), Batanes, Aurora, Capiz (VI), Eastern Samar (VIII), and Basilian (ARMM). Originally, 14 project provinces were identified. In 2002, Zamboanga Sibugay was declared a separate province from Zamboanga del Sur. Hence, there were 15 project provinces.

4 NPMO. 2008. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.

2

6. A comprehensive education investment package to improve basic education in the poverty-affected rural provinces was thus conceived: the Third Elementary Education Project (TEEP), 5 to cover primary education, and SEDIP, to cover secondary education. The two projects were developed in close collaboration, covered the same provinces, and shared complementary approaches and strategies. TEEP began a year earlier than did SEDIP. 7. SEDIP built upon and extended SEDP’s accomplishments. While SEDP had provided nationwide and centrally defined support, SEDIP was designed to support strategies formulated by the Government to address the inequities affecting secondary education in the poverty-affected provinces. The main strategies of the Government supported by the Project included (i) directing greater support and resources to low-performing areas and schools; (ii) decentralizing education management functions to division and school levels to encourage schools to manage and deliver quality education, with particular attention to supporting school heads in carrying out pedagogical leadership; and (iii) a joint and coordinated effort to address common issues affecting elementary and secondary education.6

8. The project design focused on improving the learning environment by providing large amounts of reading and learning materials (textbooks, supplementary and library materials), supplemented by physical improvements (building new schools; upgrading classrooms, libraries, and science laboratories). The project design also encouraged secondary schools to identify innovative and locally suitable initiatives to address constraints on quality teaching and learning and to incorporate a system supporting students in assessing their own areas where learning needed improvement. The Project also supported a module-based alternative secondary education service program for students who were unable to attend school regularly.

9. The design appropriately incorporated capacity building to improve teaching and learning processes and to promote decentralization. Intensive in-service training for classroom teachers included new methods for teaching, better classroom management (especially for large classes), student-centered assessment, classroom-based progress monitoring and test development, and classroom equipment maintenance. Teacher training also included certificate programs in mathematics and science for teachers who had not specialized in these subjects, as well as specific training in identifying the needs of students at risk of dropping out. In-service training for school heads in the 15 provinces covered school analysis and school improvement planning, school management and administration, instructional support to teachers, and community participation in secondary school improvement. Formal and on-the-job training was provided to strengthen the capacity of DepEd division offices in the planning and management of secondary education, as well as external, in-country, and on-the-job training for staff of central and regional offices in sector and project monitoring and evaluation. On the whole, the design of the Project was timely, appropriate, and comprehensive. All civil works as well as classroom and laboratory equipment were covered by the JBIC financing. B. Project Outputs 10. The Project had three components, or outputs, with numerous subcomponents. Details of the Project’s key outputs and performance against the original targets are in Appendix 1. The 5 The World Bank-supported TEEP was approved in November 1996, started on 2 July 1997, and ended on 30 June

2004. It covered all of the poverty-stricken SRA provinces. The project aimed to i) build the institutional capacity of the Department of Education, Culture and Sports to manage the change process associated with TEEP; and ii) improve learning achievement, completion rates, and access to quality elementary education in 27 poor provinces. The project had parallel financing from JBIC.

6 NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.

3

Project performed very well in achieving its targets, as all targets were either met or exceeded. At the end of the Project, the overall physical accomplishment was 99.4%.

1. Output 1: Improved Teaching and Learning 11. Output 1 aimed at improving the quality and relevance of secondary education in the project provinces through the following sub-outputs: (i) better skills and competence of school heads in providing instructional support to teachers, (ii) improved teaching skills and subject matter knowledge among teachers, (iii) improved availability of learning resources, (iv) improved physical environment for learning, and (v) piloting of the High School Innovation Fund (HSIF). 12. More than 800 secondary school heads, against an original target of 650, were provided with two in-service training programs: (i) a learning management program (LMP) and instructional support; and (ii) student assessment tools, practices, and alternative approaches. 13. The LMP aims to create a learning community where every member learns and grows continuously by managing his or her own learning. School heads were provided with the opportunity to self-identify the skills and competencies they needed to acquire, or improve upon, in order to implement a school improvement plan (SIP),7 teacher professional development plans, and the teachers’ individual career plans. School heads were then trained to implement the LMP for their teachers and students. Teachers were given the opportunity to self-identify the teaching competencies they needed to improve upon, or learn, with regard to supporting students’ learning, implementation of the SIP, and their own personal career plans. In many schools, the LMP took on the form of a Community of Practice (CoP) where teachers sought support from one another with regard to their learning needs. Upon establishing CoPs, school heads in many schools visited during the Project Completion Review Mission had no role in sustaining them. Rather, teachers were inclined to sustain the CoPs themselves since they found sharing of classroom experiences and teaching materials useful. 14. Under the LMP, students were to self-identify skills and knowledge necessary for their mastery of the basic competencies in English, mathematics, science, Filipino, and social studies. In theory, the program for students was seen as a way of supporting and managing self-directed learning. In reality, however, implementation of the LMP for students was limited, according to division in-service training (INSET) coordinators interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission. It was reported that the main purpose of supporting self-directed learning was lost because teachers were overwhelmed by the formal process and paperwork that students needed to complete. The SEDIP staff development program evaluation also states that some SEDIP divisions had to carry out the LMP training more than once to ensure understanding of the forms.8 BSE and SEDIP divisions are reevaluating the LMP and making the necessary changes for improved teacher implementation and student participation. Division INSET coordinators in several divisions are looking to revise and incorporate the LMP into the second INSET program to be offered to school heads on student assessment methods. 15. Training on instructional support provided school heads with the opportunity to develop their competence as managers and instructional leaders. School heads interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission reported that the training made them more aware of their role in the teaching-learning process, particularly in terms of being a mentor to teachers in

7 School heads were trained to develop SIPs during in-service training provided under Output 3. See para. 29. 8 NPMO. 2008. SEDIP Staff Development Program Evaluation for Batch 1 and 2 Divisions: Final Report. Manila

(p. 25).

4

planning classroom instruction. Many also reported improved personnel relations, based on better communication with their teachers. Many school heads mentioned that they previously viewed their work as limited to managerial issues only. The Government’s project completion report (PCR) 9 found that 61% of school heads continue to develop and use instructional supervision plans. Teachers who were interviewed appreciated that their school heads were supporting the teaching-learning process by providing the necessary classroom materials. 16. More than 11,000 secondary school teachers (versus an original target of 9,700) received INSET in four areas: (i) modern teaching methods; (ii) classroom management; (iii) care and use of learning support materials; and (iv) student-centered assessment tools, practices, and alternative approaches. Teachers interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission mentioned that the most useful training program was on classroom management, because they were taught to think of the student holistically and to understand that students learn best through experience. Most science and mathematics teachers identified training on care and use of learning support materials to be most useful, since their classrooms were recipients of new science and mathematics equipment through the Project (JBIC financing). The Government PCR found that 90% of teachers surveyed consistently applied the knowledge and skills learned in classroom management, and in the proper care and use of learning support materials. 17. Division-based training needs assessments (TNAs) were conducted to identify specific training needs for teachers that were not covered by the Project’s four major teacher INSET programs. Divisions concentrated mainly on designing and conducting teacher training programs on test preparation. Teachers learned to construct standardized test items, conduct authentic assessment, and understand their roles as managers of student learning.10 A total of 8,804 teachers (against a target of 8,000) received TNA-based training. Students interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission commonly described the use of learning portfolios as a form of organizing class assignments. Teachers mentioned that before every grading period they asked students to rate themselves on their progress by looking at the work collected in their learning portfolios. The use of a rubric in the students’ rating process would have improved the reliability of this assessment. 18. In order to improve the teaching of science and mathematics at the secondary level, and in acknowledgment of the widespread mismatch between teachers’ specializations and the subjects they are assigned to teach, the Project provided a certificate course in science and mathematics for “mismatched” teachers through selected regional science and teaching centers. A total of 1,377 teachers who were teaching but not qualified in science and mathematics completed the certificate course (against a target of 1,300),. 19. Textbooks provision exceeded the target of 4.1 million books, as 5.9 million textbooks in mathematics, science, English, Filipino, and social studies were delivered to 850 schools. The number of teachers’ manuals (146,300) supplied to the same 850 schools also exceeded the original target (125,217). A total of 302,215 basic library collections—exceeding the target of 296,603 copies—were delivered to 850 schools. In 2007, to ensure proper care of textbooks and reduce losses due to wear and tear and negligence, a total of 792,324 book bags were provided to high school students in all of the SEDIP divisions. The book bags were not part of the original target deliverables. Also, to compensate for the general shortage of materials in the group of subjects making up values education, the Project reproduced and distributed to

9 NPMO. 2008. Results Monitoring and Evaluation (RME) Report: Leading Indicators and Initial Gains. Manila. 10 NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.

5

schools 359,674 effective alternative secondary education (EASE)11 modules. This was beyond the project targets. Despite the enormous effort expended in making textbooks available, the project target of a 1:1 student:textbook ratio was not achieved. In some provinces 80% of schools reported a 1:1 ratio, but in five provinces it was below 50%. The average for all schools was only 34%. This disappointing result was due to faster than expected enrolment growth; the establishment of many new so-called “annex” schools, which reduced efficiencies in textbook usage; the rise in floods, typhoons, and other natural disasters that damaged book collections; as well as possible miscounting as schools often did not understand that some of the books developed earlier under other projects were actually reprinted and resupplied by SEDIP. 20. Delays in textbook delivery were caused by failures in the bidding process due to noncompliant bidders. In addition, the Project’s procurement needs had to compete with DepEd’s other procurement requirements after a department-wide procurement committee was established. To solve this problem, DepEd created a special bids and awards committee tasked to handle the procurement requirements of foreign-assisted projects. To further minimize failures in the bidding process, DepEd also unbundled the contracting process for the development of manuscripts from the printing and delivery of textbooks. 21. Under the JBIC financing, the Project supported the construction and rehabilitation of school facilities and procurement of furniture and equipment for classrooms, science laboratories, and other school facilities. School requirements were assessed through a school mapping exercise. The Project’s school building program required local government units (LGUs) to provide 25% of the construction costs for the required school facilities. LGU involvement was incorporated into the school building program to promote partnership with local stakeholders. Most LGUs found it difficult to provide the equity funds, which resulted in postponed construction. Involving LGUs brought other forms of support for some schools, however, such as security to protect new school facilities from theft and vandalism. 22. The High School Innovation Fund (HSIF) initially encouraged schools to experiment with responsive and sustainable solutions to critical school problems prioritized in their SIPs. During project implementation, however, the scope of the HSIF shifted from innovative projects to remediation projects. The shift in focus was brought about by the very poor performance of mostly first- and second-year high school students. A significant number of students (from SY2003–SY2007) were found to have very poor reading and numeracy skills. HSIF provided financial assistance to schools with project proposals approved by their division review and evaluation committees organized by the SEDIP divisions. In all, 351 schools implemented HSIF projects reaching 61,736 student beneficiaries, mostly in the first year of high school. Most of the HSIF projects were for reading remediation (59%). Others were for science (15%); combined English, science, and mathematics (11%); and mathematics alone (8%). Schools reported a decrease in the number of students identified as readers at the “frustration level” and an increase in the number of students identified as readers at the “instructional” and “independent” levels. Similarly, there was an improvement in the comprehension level from “literal” to “interpretative.” As a result of the reading remediation programs, the students were also able to form good study habits, become more participative in class, and improve their school attendance. 23. HSIF coordinators interviewed during the Project Completion Review and other missions confirm that the reading remediation programs have continued to operate in the schools by using the materials initially provided, albeit with some modifications. For instance, instead of 11 For more on EASE modules, see para. 27.

6

running the program during weekends, when food and transportation costs need to be met, schools will continue the program during regular school hours to alleviate the extra costs. In many schools, the reading remediation program is now offered to all first-year students. 24. HSIF coordinators at the division level mentioned that the focus on remediation for first- and second-year high school students has further led to a stronger focus on reading skill development at the elementary schools. This is reflected as a bridge between elementary and secondary education in some division education plans. 2. Output 2: Increased Completion and Participation Rates 25. The Project implemented the dropout reduction program (DORP), which provided SEDIP divisions and schools with the steps needed to decrease the high dropout rates prevalent in the SRA provinces. The Project provided division- and school-level training programs for developing and implementing coordinated student dropout reduction plans. Exceeding the target of 180, 240 schools were able to establish programs for increasing student retention. From a total of 25,620 students identified as being at risk of dropping out, 99% or 25,487 students were positively affected by the DORP in their schools. 26. The secondary school alternatives (SSA) program constituted an integral part of the DORP. Its main feature was the effective alternative secondary education (EASE) modules, which were self-instructional distance education materials. EASE modules were meant to be used by students who could not come to school for parts of the school year, generally because they were required to work, as well as by advanced learners who found the formal school system too slow and preferred to study at their own pace. This intervention had only limited success because low achieving students lacked the literacy skills needed to cope with a self-instruction program, especially at first-year level. 27. The Project expanded the SSA intervention by providing a more comprehensive and systematic approach to dealing with high school dropouts. The EASE modules were complemented by the open high school system (OHSS) and other school-initiated interventions. The OHSS was another alternative for students unable to attend school at certain times. Similar to EASE, OHSS was based on self-instructional modules that students completed in their own time and at their own pace. OHSS also made use of non-print media. This was complemented by school-based initiatives that were customized to the needs of students identified as being at risk of dropping out, and it included school scholarships, specific financial support from donors e.g. for transport, the adopt-a-student program, peer monitoring and support, and home visits. These interventions were mainly implemented by the school guidance coordinator, counselor, and teachers school-wide. 28. During the Project Completion Review and other missions, a number of SSA and HSIF coordinators agreed that the HSIF supported the objectives of SSA. Both programs focus on first-and second-year high school students who are low achievers and are at risk of dropping out. Program coordinators observed that the individualized attention students receive in the HSIF program from teachers who work to meet their specific learning needs encourages them to stay in school. 29. Just as the HSIF reading remediation programs have received attention from elementary schools, so has SSA. Several SEDIP divisions have connected SSA to elementary schools in

7

their division education plans.12 3. Output 3: Decentralized Secondary Education Management 30. The Project provided school heads with training on school-based management, instructional supervision, and strategic planning to equip them with the skills and knowledge necessary for managing and leading schools in a decentralized system. A number of school heads interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission mentioned that the training they received has led them to change their perspectives and attitudes in terms of teacher management. School heads described themselves as being more proactive and supportive in guiding teachers to improve teaching and learning in the classroom. 31. School heads developed their SIPs as part of the training they received. Training in the development of the SIP was a critical input in preparing school heads for implementing school-based management. Almost all of the 850 project schools in the 15 SEDIP divisions have SIPs for SY2005–SY2007. At the close of the Project, most of the project schools had completed 3 years of SIP implementation.13 In working to develop the SIP, school heads created school planning teams which included teachers, students, parents, community members and village and LGU officials. The participatory process by which the SIP was formulated enabled school heads to build stronger relationships with key stakeholders. 32. To support SIP implementation, the Project employed appraisal, monitoring, and evaluation mechanisms at the division level. Selected division personnel were trained to appraise SIPs and to track SIP implementation. The review and appraisal parameters and processes were made available in the Guidebook for the Review of School Improvement Plans, prepared in 2003. The guide provides a standard set of review criteria and indicators. However, each division was encouraged to apply additional review criteria and indicators in order to address specific requirements. The Guide on Monitoring and Evaluation of SIP Implementation was also prepared to aid divisions in formulating customized monitoring and evaluation plans. 33. The Project also trained division staff to prepare division education development plans (DEDPs) to better manage basic education services and operation of the division offices. Divisions formulated their DEDPs in consultation with school heads and other stakeholders in the field. Division office staff interviewed during the Project Completion Review Mission stated that the training they received in developing DEDPs changed their perceptions about their role in educational planning and management, as well as the relationship with school heads. They expressed a greater understanding of the need for more interaction with school heads during monitoring and evaluation. 34. The Project also established an INSET mechanism in each of the project divisions, so that in-service training could thereafter be conducted at the division level rather than relying on national programs. The INSET mechanism aims to provide appropriate and timely capability building interventions to division personnel in order for them to be responsive to the requirements of decentralized education management. All divisions have INSET coordinators, and most have INSET co-coordinators to share the workload. Seven out of the 15 divisions have school-based INSET coordinators. The divisions adopted schemes such as the clustering and twinning of schools to better facilitate the monitoring and evaluation process, given the number of target schools and the limited number of people in the divisions charged to conduct

12 NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila. 13 NPMO. 2009. SEDIP Project Completion Report. Manila.

8

monitoring and evaluation. Selected school heads were trained and assisted in cluster monitoring.14 35. A major strategy supporting the INSET mechanism was the SEDIP training of trainers program that sought to develop division teams of competent trainers for developing, conducting, managing, and monitoring training programs for education supervisors, school heads, and classroom teachers. A total of 740 trainers were trained and developed by the Project. 36. Key personnel from the central, division (including schools and districts), and regional offices were also trained on the roles and responsibilities of the various levels of the system in a decentralized setting. The Decentralized Management Development Program was a 6-month program addressing human resource issues specific to the decentralization efforts. The program has become a nationwide effort and was extended to non-SEDIP provinces. A total of 551 DepEd personnel were reached: 288 from the division level (including 72 school heads and 34 district supervisors), 132 from the regional, and 131 from the national office. The program was developed based on the recommendations of the technical assistance (TA) on decentralized education management attached to the ADB loan.15 C. Project Costs 37. At appraisal, the project costs were estimated at $163.4 million equivalent and were to be financed by (i) an ADB loan of $53.0 million from ordinary capital resources, (ii) $54.3 million from the Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund, and (iii) $56.1 million from the Philippine Government. Two cancellations occurred during project implementation for a total of $17.4 million, comprising $8.0 from textbooks and materials, $5.0 million from interest and commitment charges, and $4.4 million from contingencies. At completion, the actual project cost was $136.9 million, made up of (i) ADB lending of $32.1 million (23.4%), (ii) Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund financing of $59.0 million (43.1%), and (iii) the Government’s contribution of $45.8 million (33.5%). The final project costs and financing plan are in Appendix 2. D. Disbursements 38. At completion, disbursements under the project loan amounted to $32.1 million (90.3% of the net loan amount). The breakdown of ADB disbursements is as follows: (i) textbooks and materials at $12.2 million, or 38% of total disbursements; (ii) in-country and overseas training at $5.5 million, or 17%); (iii) consulting services at $4.8 million, or 15%; (iv) HSIF at 1.9 million, or 6%; (v) school mapping and studies at $1.0 million, or 3%; (vi) equipment at $0.8 million, or 3%; (vii) civil works at $0.2 million, or 1%; and (viii) interest charges at $5.5 million, or 17%. The amount of $3.4 million was cancelled upon loan closing. The breakdown of annual disbursements is in Appendix 3. The imprest account was used efficiently. An amount equivalent to $8.1 million of ADB-financed expenditure was paid through the imprest account, of which $5.8 million was under the statement of expenditure procedure, which made implementation more efficient. The amount of $18.5 million (net of $5.5 million interest charges) was paid directly to suppliers. E. Project Schedule 39. SEDIP was approved on 11 December 1998 and became effective on 19 May 1999.

14 NPMO. 2008. SEDIP Staff Development Program Evaluation for Batch 1 and 2 Divisions Final Report. Manila. 15 The project completion report for the TA is in Appendix 6.

9

Project implementation began in 1999 and originally was to be completed by 30 June 2006. The Project was extended twice, however, the first time being for 1 year to 30 June 2007. A further 6-month extension was needed merely to accommodate the approval of three large procurement contracts (mainly for textbooks) that had been delayed by a 2-year textbook review and were then held up in the DepEd-wide procurement committee. The obstacle was overcome only after the Secretary of Education agreed to establish a separate procurement committee for SEDIP. The Project encountered many difficulties in the initial years of implementation, resulting in low disbursements and delayed delivery of outputs. At the time of the midterm review, at the end of 2002, the total physical accomplishment was 7% and implementation was estimated to be 2–2.5 years behind schedule. Disbursements were only 3% against the elapsed loan period of 44%. After a restructuring of the NPMO and project procedures recommended by the midterm review, as well as changes in the senior management of DepEd, implementation progressed rapidly. The Project was successfully completed on 30 June 2008. A detailed project implementation schedule showing physical achievement by component over time against the original implementation schedule is provided in Appendix 4. F. Implementation Arrangements 40. The Project was implemented by BSE, in DepEd. The NPMO managed and coordinated overall project activities. The NPMO was headed by a project manager (the director of BSE), assisted by a deputy project manager, who managed NPMO’s daily operations, and by chiefs of the different components supported by technical and administrative staff. The Project followed a quasi-mainstreamed approach through the integration of BSE staff in the NPMO and the direct involvement of regular BSE staff in leading implementation. Selected education program specialists from the BSE and DepEd’s Office of Planning Services headed the different programs. Contractual staff were employed for technical and administrative positions. 41. The 15 SEDIP divisions implemented the Project at the provincial level. Each division implementation office was headed by the schools division superintendent as project manager, who was assisted by the assistant schools division superintendent as deputy project manager. Education supervisors headed the different components. G. Conditions and Covenants 42. The status of compliance with the loan covenants was generally satisfactory despite some delays. At the time of the midterm review in December 2002, the majority of the covenants still lacked compliance. This was due to: (i) slow implementation of some time-bound activities; (ii) frequent changes of leadership in DepEd; and (iii) changes made to the project design. The covenant relating to the establishment of a Project Management Advisory Committee was waived, as such a committee was deemed unnecessary by DepEd. Policy guidance was instead given by DepEd's Executive Committee. By project completion, all covenants had been complied with. Appendix 5 reviews the final status of each loan covenant. H. Related Technical Assistance 43. A TA project investigating the decentralization of basic education management was attached to the ADB loan. In support of SEDIP’s third output, the TA aimed to (i) develop a 10-year plan for decentralization of the basic education system, and (ii) conduct a cost-benefit analysis of a decentralized basic education organization. The specific objectives were to (i) review and suggest modifications regarding policies and laws regulating basic education; (ii) define appropriate roles, responsibilities, and functions for different levels of governance (center,

10

regions, divisions, districts, schools); (iii) review and recommend long-term improvements as to financial and staff resource allocations; (iv) identify necessary changes in management and staffing at each level; (v) analyze the institutional culture appropriate for decentralization and identify strategies for its promotion; (vi) estimate the financial and staff implications of decentralization; and (vii) estimate the costs of different options for decentralization. The TA was relevant, as it supported the Government’s intention to decentralize education management, and the TA design and objectives were appropriate for this purpose. 44. The TA produced a comprehensive model and strategy for decentralizing the management of basic education. The final report consisted of six volumes covering decentralization and organizational structures, budget and financial management, the education management information system and legal issues, quality enhancement in basic education, and community-based school management. The reports built upon the views of a cross-section of education personnel (with a focus upon operational field staff, principals and teachers, village captains, local school boards, and parents) and were of satisfactory quality. 45. The centerpiece of the system was the locally managed school. The most important change recommended at school level was the formation of school advisory councils as partners to the principal in running the school. Policy development, standards setting, and regulation were to remain with the center, with almost all of the line functions relocated to the division level. The divisions were to refocus their attention upon quality promotion and school support activities, rather than administration and supervision. 46. At the same time, an Act on the Governance of Basic Education was developed and passed into law. This Act provides a broad framework for the decentralization of basic education. The TA final report was used as a basis for developing the implementing rules and regulations for the new Act. During 2003 and 2004, DepEd implemented many of the TA recommendations, including that to realign the functions of the center, regions, and divisions, with most management and administrative decisions pushed down to the levels of divisions and schools. The position of school principal was professionalized, as recommended, and principals were being given a greater role in financial management and teacher selection. School governance has been strengthened by establishing school advisory councils in all schools, in addition to the existing parent-teacher associations whose main purpose is fund-raising 47. The TA was rated successful. Its recommendations formed the basis for developing the implementing rules and regulations for the Governance of Basic Education Act. The recommendations continue to provide a valuable road map for the policies, strategies, and actions currently being followed by DepEd to further the decentralization process, including to formulate the nationwide DMDP. The TA’s completion report, circulated to the Board on 1 June 2004, is in Appendix 6. I. Consultant Recruitment and Procurement 48. Consultants were selected and engaged in accordance with ADB’s Guidelines on the Use of Consultants. The Project engaged two packages of consulting services: (i) Package A for ADB financing, covering education programs; and (ii) Package B for JBIC financing, covering school facilities development. Inputs for Package A were 65 person-months of international consulting services and 214 person-months of national consulting services. These person months were reduced from the original project design (106 international and 279 national person-months) due to a shortfall in the budget allocation.

11

49. The bulk of procurement under the Project was for textbooks and instructional materials, with an allocation of $13.5 million or 38% of the net loan amount. The Project exceeded the targets of 4.1 million textbooks (achieving 5.9 million) and 296,603 library books (delivering 302,215 to 850 schools). This was due mainly to the introduction of an international competitive bidding procedure after project approval and the recentralization of textbook procurement, which lowered the estimated costs substantially. 50. SEDIP procurement was built on the existing policies for procuring textbooks. DepEd's plan to decentralize textbook procurement to schools (reflected in the project design) had proved impractical by the late 1990s, as there was not enough time to institute the training and infrastructure needed for local-level textbook selection and management, or for the system to ensure accurate consolidation and transmission of orders. At the same time, the Government made a decision to introduce international competitive bidding procedures for textbooks as part of a comprehensive procurement reform process, thus implying centralized procurement. The policy to privatize textbook publishing was instituted in January 1999, directing that textbooks would henceforth be developed by the private sector, although the mandate for their approval for public use remained with the Instructional Materials Council Secretariat, the DepEd agency responsible for textbook management. To maintain consistency with all of these practices, the Project employed centralized procurement based on an open and competitive process for all textbook procurement. 51. To further streamline the process, DepEd unbundled the development of manuscripts from contracting for the printing and delivery of textbooks. That proved to be successful, since small publishers were then able to develop textbook manuscripts and printers could focus on printing without having to collaborate with publishers to develop manuscripts. 52. Serious delays occurred, however. In 2005, critical content quality issues were raised in the media. In response, DepEd launched an exhaustive content reevaluation of textbooks that lasted for 2 years. As all textbook procurement was prohibited during this time, there were serious delays in the Project’s procurement of textbooks. The establishment of a DepEd-wide procurement committee caused further delay since the Project’s procurement needs had to compete with department-wide procurement requirements. This was finally resolved by creating a special bids and awards committee for SEDIP. Hence, most of the textbook procurement occurred toward the end of the Project, and ultimately this necessitated a project extension. J. Performance of Consultants, Contractors, and Suppliers 53. During the initial years of project implementation (2000–2002), the NPMO was not happy with the performance of consultants engaged for Package A. The international consultants also found it difficult to work with the NPMO. The midterm review noted these difficulties. Late mobilization of the consulting team had caused a number of activities to start without any review or input from the consultants. In addition, the lack of communication and coordination between the project manager and team leader profoundly hampered implementation of the Project and resulted ultimately in resignation of the team leader. 54. By June 2003, after the midterm review and project restructuring, a new team leader for Package A was in place. The new NPMO staff identified the need for additional international expertise, and new domestic consultants were also hired. These changes had a positive influence on implementation from that time onwards, marked by much better capacity among NPMO and division staff in project management, and in planning for mainstreaming, institutionalization, and sustainability. The new NPMO was happy with the consultant team and

12

new team leader. Overall, therefore, the performance of the consultants was considered satisfactory. The consulting firm’s contract was extended and was coterminous with the Project. 55. The performance of suppliers was also satisfactory, with the quality of instructional materials and equipment meeting specifications in all cases. The instructional materials suppliers were on time, and the quality of printing was satisfactory. The equipment suppliers also performed satisfactorily, and there were no major delivery problems. K. Performance of the Borrower and the Executing Agency 56. Senior management support for the Project’s efforts to support the decentralization of secondary education management was weak from soon after the project start-up and for about 18 months. The midterm review found that the initial years of project implementation also did not reflect a decentralized approach, as its orientation was top-down and overly centralized. Moreover, the national framework to guide the implementation of decentralization, intended to be an output of the Project’s attached TA (see Appendix 6), had not been completed because the recommendations had not been accepted by the then-Secretary of Education. 57. In September 2002, a new Secretary was appointed who was committed to decentralization. Actions were soon initiated to implement many of the TA recommendations, paving the way for increased decentralization of education management as envisaged. After the midterm review, the new DepEd management instituted a series of further changes that demonstrated its strong commitment to getting the Project back on track and implementing it as designed. The changes included reinstating a decentralized approach to project management, replacing key NPMO personnel, and appointing a new director at BSE. The recommendations were used to develop the implementing rules and regulations for the Governance of Basic Education Act. From then on, project performance improved significantly, all outputs were successfully achieved, and there was continued strong support from senior management and the new BSE director. The Government’s performance can therefore be rated as satisfactory. L. Performance of the Asian Development Bank 58. Due to an initial lack of monitoring and supervision, ADB’s overall performance was only partly satisfactory. Between the inception and midterm missions, ADB conducted only one review mission with a duration of 3 days. Moreover, although the quarterly reports were submitted to ADB regularly, noncompliance with the loan covenants was not flagged prior to the midterm review. ADB’s lack of involvement after the political transition in 2001 paved the way for TEEP activities to take priority over SEDIP activities at the division offices. A number of opportunities for ADB to intervene at critical periods were missed. After the midterm review, however, ADB approved the necessary project management changes, worked closely with DepEd senior management in revising the design and monitoring framework and inputs, and fielded eight successful missions monitoring progress until the end of the Project. Regular meetings were held with the NPMO, especially in the years immediately following the midterm review when only one review mission per year was budgetted. At the NPMO’s request, ADB approved an 18-month extension of the Project that enabled it to achieve all of its deliverables.

13

III. EVALUATION OF PERFORMANCE A. Relevance 59. The Project was highly relevant at the design stage and remained so at the time of the Project Completion Review Mission in 2008. The Project was in accordance with both government policy and ADB sector strategies at the time of appraisal, and it continues to be so. It contributed to improving the quality of teaching and learning in secondary schools, keeping at-risk students in school, and decentralizing the basic education system in the project provinces. These priorities remain very relevant today. Focusing assistance on the country’s poorer provinces and giving priority to schools that were (i) unsupported by previous physical facilities projects, (ii) annex schools,16 (iii) newly established, and (iv) located in communities with poor socioeconomic conditions begins to strategically address the national concern. 60. The project design reflected lessons learned from the 1988 SEDP and the 1993 Nonformal Education Project,17 as well as earlier World Bank-funded projects. Experiences from these projects suggested the need to target and concentrate resources to the more needy and disadvantaged schools. School leadership was found to have contributed greatly to maximizing and sustaining impacts generated from the support provided. These lessons justified a more demand-driven project planning and management process with substantial beneficiary participation. Project preparation thus entailed detailed school-level analysis; focus group discussions; and a participatory provincial planning process involving school heads, division staff, and the LGUs in the pilot provinces. The project design was kept flexible to permit integration of further findings. Changes were made to the design during implementation in response to numerous implementation issues that caused delays and questioned the quality of outputs delivered. As weaknesses in project management personnel and the textbook procurement process were unforeseen, changes involving both were timely responses. B. Effectiveness in Achieving Outcome 61. The Project was considered effective. For the first outcome (improved teacher and learning processes), the data available indicates that the average competency scores of SEDIP students increased slightly during the Project (from 49.3% to 50.6%) and are well above the national average of 45.2% (see Appendix 7). For outcome 2 (increased participation), student dropout was reduced successfully (by almost 2 percentage points) through an array of very successful dropout reduction programs (see Appendix 8). Trends in enrolment rates are difficult to track from the beginning of the Project because new population projections reduced the overall rates from SY2004 onwards. Since then, the national enrolment rate has remained stable at around 45%, while for SEDIP divisions it increased from 37.5% to 40.1% (see Appendix 9). Completion rates decreased nationwide by 5.3%─ a disappointing development. However, the decline was slower (at 3.9%) in the SEDIP provinces. By SY2007, more SEDIP students (57%) completed high school than for the country as a whole (55%, see Appendix 10). The Project was successful, therefore, in ameliorating the decline in completion rates, even though the SEDIP provinces are among the poorest in the country.

16 Annex schools are small schools in rural areas that are established and financed by communities. Current DepEd

regulations do not recognize annex schools as independent public schools unless enrollment reaches 100 per grade. One-quarter of the public schools in project pilot provinces were annex schools.

17 ADB. 1993. Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors on a Proposed Loan to the Republic of the Philippines for the Non-Formal Education Project. Manila (Loan 1254-PHI).

14

62. Scores on the National Achievement Test (NAT) show improved student performance in SEDIP divisions from SY2003 to SY2004, followed by a decline in SY2005 in parallel with a national decline. Since SY2003, SEDIP divisions have outperformed the national average score by 5.4% overall. As the NAT was not administered nationally in SY2007, the Project arranged for a special testing in each of the 15 SEDIP divisions as well as in 12 non-SEDIP divisions. The SEDIP divisions outperformed non-SEDIP divisions by 4.2% on the total score. Both SEDIP and non-SEDIP divisions showed “near mastery” in mathematics and English and “low mastery” in science and Filipino, but the SEDIP divisions showed much stronger mastery of mathematics and science (see Appendix 7). 63. For outcome 3 (strengthened capacity for decentralized education management), there was clear improvement. Almost all schools (93%) adopted school improvement planning in their regular operations. Before the Project, this practice was nonexistent in the project schools. School heads confirmed that school improvement planning helped them to implement their plans and attain their objectives. It also proved useful in resource generation and networking, and it helped the schools to generate support from their stakeholders. The closer links between the schools and their communities were clearly evident during ADB’s project supervision missions. School improvement planning is the basis for successful school-based management. Around 70% of school heads claimed their performance had improved as a result of the training in school-based management. An evaluation of the staff development program found that school heads understand their new roles in decentralization and can better influence school improvements through their changed relations with teachers, parents, and their communities. Teacher interviews also confirmed that the behavior of school heads had improved in terms of regular consultations, the involvement of school personnel in decision making, and improved management skills and style. Furthermore, working conditions in the schools had improved. 64. At division level, the Project strengthened the capacity for strategic planning, which was evident in preparation of the district education development plans. The divisions were able to conduct consultations with schools and stakeholders, gather the relevant data, apply planning tools, develop a logical framework, cost the plan, and allocate resources. Field visits during the Project were able to track the growing confidence and competence of division staff as they gradually took on their responsibilities for division education management, which had not existed at the Project’s beginning. A most important development was establishment of the division INSET mechanism, which provided a pool of division-based trainers able to lead INSET activities during the Project and into the future. The project developed trainers for INSET, HSIF, SSA, and division education planning. The division trainers acted as training managers, facilitators, resource persons, and training staff. Teachers surveyed for the PCR showed a high level of satisfaction with the trainers’ performance in managing training and oral presentation skills. Division trainers were also considered strong in facilitating workshops, formulating training designs, and conducting training programs. The survey data also showed, however, that the monitoring of training results by the division trainers and staff needs improvement. 65. Project Impact. The Project was associated with an increase in net enrollment rates for public schools in the project divisions. The disparity between the average SEDIP net enrollment ratio (NER) of 40.3% and the national average NER of 45% for 2002–2008 was reduced by 4.9%. That essentially meets the impact target of a 5% reduction. In line with national trends, the completion rate declined in the SEDIP divisions, but less so than at the national level. In the end, the SEDIP and national indicators were in fact reversed. While the SEDIP divisions had had lower completion rates at the beginning of the Project, by the end they outperformed the national rate. The disparity between the average completion rate for the SEDIP and national rates for 2002–2007 was reduced by 1.4%, which is approaching the targeted 2% reduction.

15

66. All indicators (NAT scores, dropout rate, completion rate, and net enrollment ratio) used to measure project outcomes have been subject to the national trend. The decreases and increases seen in national averages are mirrored in SEDIP division averages. The performance of the Project has been greatly affected by socioeconomic factors related to national developments such as an increasing level of poverty and persistent child labor. Section E provides a more detailed discussion about the issues affecting the Project’s performance and impact. C. Efficiency in Achieving Outcome and Outputs 67. The Project is rated less efficient. There were substantial implementation delays up to the midterm review, by which time there had been almost no progress. Contract awards and disbursement by 30 June 2002 were 9% and 3%, respectively, against an elapsed loan period of 44%. This lack of progress put the Project at risk. Implementation up to that point had been top-down and overly centralized, undermining the objective of support to decentralization. DepEd leadership had been strongly opposed to decentralization. This changed after the project midterm, allowing a thorough overhaul of project management and a reexamination of the project design and the design and monitoring framework. 68. As a result, the implementation strategy had to change from the original plan for two sequential batches of provinces to simultaneous implementation in all provinces, which was not desirable, but unavoidable. Piloting of the SEDIP interventions in Batch 1 pilot divisions, therefore, ran parallel to Batch 2. Thus, the opportunity was missed to benefit from lessons learned. Before the midterm review, a number of activities were to have been completed in the pilot provinces. However, most activities were either not started or were of poor quality. 69. The new DepEd leadership was able to move the Project forward and realize its objectives successfully. The Project progressed rapidly until completion and was ultimately able to achieve all of the output targets. The need for project extensions arose not because of weak project management but because the procurement of all books—which took up a large part of the budget—was put on hold for 2 years while DepEd undertook a major review and revision of all books in use after numerous complaints of errors. D. Preliminary Assessment of Sustainability 70. The Project is most likely to be sustainable at both the division and national levels. During the Project’s final year, activities were focused on mainstreaming the project programs into the secondary education system. Objectives for mainstreaming were identified and strategies developed for program institutionalization. Readiness assessments were conducted in each province to identify gaps in mainstreaming readiness and the steps necessary to ensure successful mainstreaming. Perception surveys to assess the success of selected school-level programs were also carried out. Subsequently, several of the most successful project programs were mainstreamed into the 2008 and 2009 education budget. The Project’s High School Innovation Fund, for example, has been mainstreamed as a national program. The dropout reduction program has been mainstreamed at secondary level. Teacher and school head training in implementing the OHSS Program and Project EASE has become available nationally. The development of SIPs by school heads continues to be supported by division-level monitoring. A training program on school improvement planning will be available nationally. It is to be supported by a specific budget allocation of P50,000 per school. Also, the divisions now have an established in-service training mechanism to build capacity of teachers and school heads on a regular basis, according to local needs.

16

71. DepEd management has begun to absorb the Project’s Decentralized Management Development Program as a national program and continues to support decentralized management actively. The development of SIPs by school heads now forms the basis of school-based management, which is the foundation of DepEd’s current policy agenda. Also, the divisions now have an established in-service training mechanism to build the capacity of teachers and school heads on a regular basis according to local needs. The development of division education development plans will also be mainstreamed. E. Impact 72. The Project’s intended impact was improved, equitable access to quality secondary education in the project provinces. The impact in reducing the gap between the project provinces and the rest of the country was moderate, as described in para. 61. However, the Project has made significant impact in terms of decentralizing education management and supporting students at risk of dropping out. 73. The Project made considerable strides at the institutional level in strengthening decentralized management as a way to improve the delivery of secondary education in the project provinces. Education managers exhibit a change in perception about their roles as managers and their work with schools. School heads embrace the concept of instructional leader, and division-level managers are open to widening their work into the field for more direct contact with school heads. The Project’s capacity building efforts have increased transparency, accountability, predictability, and participation at each level of education management. Stakeholder involvement at the community level has also increased. In some SEDIP divisions, school heads are working with mayors, LGU officials, parents, and alumni in making school improvements and ensuring students come to school and stay in school. 74. Among the Project’s interventions for improving the quality of secondary education, the HSIF closely tied in with efforts made by the SSA program. As an unintended impact of the Project, the reading remediation programs that a majority of SEDIP schools implemented under HSIF supported first- and second-year students at risk of dropping out. At-risk students supported by the SSA program participated in HSIF reading remediation programs and received individualized attention from teachers that helped them gain the skills necessary to remain in school. Receiving support from both SEDIP interventions at the same time provided students with key skills and confidence in their ability to achieve in school. 75. As mentioned in Section B, the Project’s performance was affected by socioeconomic factors leading to lower access and quality of secondary education at the overall national level. According to the latest Annual Poverty Indicators Survey (APIS)18 completed in 2004, at least 90% of both poor and nonpoor families with children 6 to 12 years of age have children enrolled in elementary grades. However, only 6 out of 10 poor families with children 13 to 16 years of age have children enrolled in secondary school. That compares with 8 out of 10 nonpoor families. There was a drop in the percentage of families with children aged 13 to 16 who are enrolled in high school among the lowest 30% income group between the 2002 and 2004 APIS. In addition, 23% of poor families are likely to have working children between the ages of 5 and 17 years old compared with only 8% of nonpoor families. An increase in child labor was seen in

18 The 2004 APIS is the fourth in a series of nationwide poverty indicator surveys undertaken by the National

Statistics Office. The APIS is designed to provide access and impact indicators that can be used as inputs to the development of an integrated poverty indicator and monitoring system for the assessment of the government programs on poverty alleviation. A total of 42,789 sample households were interviewed during July 2004.

17

the lowest 30% income stratum from 2002 to 2004. 76. The lower secondary school enrollment among children of poor families and the increase in child labor among the poor remain persistent problems not only in the SEDIP divisions but nationally, as indicated by the negative trends seen for each of the indicators used to measure project outcomes. Mindanao is a region where this is a growing problem. In 2000, the poverty level in the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao was 57%, in Central Mindanao 48%, in Northern Mindanao 33%, and in Southern Mindanao 31%.19 The high levels of poverty have remained unchanged for years now, and parents lament that even if basic education were free, they could not afford the related costs for transport, school projects, and other requirements. Out-of-school youth attribute their parents’ lack of support for education to extreme poverty and illiteracy. Some parents force their children to drop out of school so they can help them earn a living. Illiterate parents, moreover, cannot guide their children with schoolwork, and they tend to place less importance on education.20 77. Compounding the problem are teachers’ lack of knowledge and awareness of the culture and beliefs of Muslims, which discourages Muslim students from staying in school.

IV. OVERALL ASSESSMENT AND RECOMMENDATIONS A. Overall Assessment 78. Based on the preceding assessment of the Project as highly relevant, effective, less efficient, and likely sustainable, the Project overall is rated successful (see Appendix 11). The Project supported the decentralization of education management for the secondary education system and strengthened capacity at the national, regional, division, and school levels to manage and deliver secondary education to the poorest provinces in the country. It was instrumental in establishing school-based interventions to support students at risk of dropping out from secondary school. The Project strengthened partnerships between school heads and key stakeholders at the community level. Although the Project did not meet all the key performance indicators, it put in place key interventions specific to the needs of poorer students (such as SSA and HSIF at the school level) while empowering school heads to plan school improvement that is relevant to the students they serve. Despite implementation delays in the early years of the Project, most of the Project’s objectives were achieved. 79. At the output and outcome levels, the Project was successful. Nevertheless, the very high rates of poverty (many project schools in Mindanao report 70–80% of their pupils are very poor), combined with severe under-resourcing of teachers and schools nationwide, undermined project success at the impact level. B. Lessons Learned 80. Holistic approach to education development reaches beneficiaries. The Project highlighted the importance of employing a holistic approach to education development. Project interventions aiming to improve teaching and learning focused on teacher capacity building, availability of learning resources, improvements in physical environment, and remediation

19 SEAMEO INNOTECH. 2007. Access to and Demand for Secondary Education in the Philippines, Draft Final

Report. Manila (July). 20 SEAMEO INNOTECH. 2007. Policy Research on Access to Basic Education for Muslim Learners. Draft Final

Report. Manila (May).

18

through the HSIF program. These interventions show some short-term progress. Teachers now think of themselves as guides in the classroom who facilitate learning experiences rather than passive disseminators of information. Nonetheless, teacher-related progress, learning materials, and improved physical environments led to limited progress regarding student achievement. It is concluded that interventions aimed directly at improving student achievement need to be more holistic. The Project’s HSIF program aimed to provide assistance to improved student learning based on local needs, and, though it supported the objectives of SSA, it was not part of a strategy that clearly defined at-risk students and their specific needs. Project experience with DORP suggests that quality of interventions specifically for at-risk students can be best improved through a more holistic and strategic plan. 81. Demand-driven approach to project implementation serves local needs. The Project was designed to give priority to schools that previously received no interventions for improvement. In many instances, the allocations proved appropriate and met local needs. This type of resource allocation promoted partnerships between school and community stakeholders (e.g., LGUs and parent associations). 82. Systemic approach to devolving education management empowers key decision makers. The Project highlighted the importance of taking a systemic, holistic approach to education planning and management that promotes decentralization. The Project demonstrated that partnership between and among school heads and division-level management is feasible under a devolved system. Likewise, partnerships between division-level and regional management were also made possible. The Project underscored the critical role of division and regional offices in continuously providing technical assistance and guidance to school heads. 83. Coterminous implementation with other projects can prove a burden for implementers. SEDIP and the World Bank-funded TEEP were designed as a package to cover elementary and secondary education in the same divisions, and thereby to achieve synergies in implementation and amplifying the project impacts. This did happen to a large extent, but implementation difficulties arose because the divisions lacked the human, physical, and financial resources to deal with two large projects at once. As TEEP started a year before SEDIP, this negative impact was felt most by SEDIP. The initial capacity and financial assessments were carried out separately for each project and did not adequately predict the combined demands of both projects upon the divisions. C. Recommendations

1. Project Related 84. Improve strategy for supporting secondary school enrollment. DepEd should consider the differing needs and specific situations of (i) enrolled secondary students at risk of dropping out, (ii) out-of-school youth aged 12–16, and (iii) nontraditional students of varying ages who want to enroll for alternative secondary schooling. The project interventions aiming to increase secondary school enrollment focused mainly on secondary schooling alternatives through the DORP, implemented at school level. The relevance of some SSAs (i.e., EASE modules) was questioned in terms of student profiles. The strategy used did not thoroughly consider students’ specific needs and the reasons preventing them from enrolling. Further study of these differing needs and situations would enable stronger strategic support. 85. Redefine performance indicators to measure efficacy of teachers and school heads. Teachers and school heads exhibited changes in understanding how their roles impact

19

the teaching and learning process and in their attitudes toward their work. Both were empowered by the capacity building they received and the school-level activities they engaged in requiring greater decision making. However, the project design called for measuring student achievement to gauge teacher and school head progress in improving teaching and learning. This performance indicator was not a fair measure in this regard, and therefore it is recommended that future project designs consider measuring the level of efficacy of teachers and school heads in doing their work at the school level. Efficacy would be a better measure of teacher and school head capability and confidence upon training. 86. Further strengthen capacities for decentralized education management. The efforts to mainstream project activities should be continued with particular emphasis on further work to strengthen the capacity of school heads and other education managers at the division and regional levels, particularly in planning and monitoring and evaluation. The division capacity for monitoring the results of division-level training by the division trainers and division staff also needs further strengthening.

2. General 87. Strengthen project implementation. The Project performed well by exceeding the planned targets. However, future project performance may be enhanced by (i) ensuring that competent project managers are present at the national and local levels for the entire duration of the project, and (ii) ADB closely monitoring and supervising project activities. 88. Prioritize monitoring and evaluation. In designing projects, the capacity of the executing agency should be carefully assessed at appraisal, and any gaps affecting project implementation should be filled by taking appropriate steps toward capacity building. This would contribute to more efficient project start-ups, which would in turn enhance project results. In this regard, monitoring and evaluation should be given higher priority in project implementation.

20 Appendix 1

PERFORMANCE SUMMARY AGAINST DESIGN AND MONITORING FRAMEWORK

Design Summary

Targets

Outputs and Outcomes

Project Goal: Improve equitable access to quality secondary education in the School Reform Agenda (SRA) provinces

Reduce disparity in net enrollment ratio (NER) by 5% and completion rates by 2% between national and SRA provinces

Disparity between average NER for SEDIP divisions (40.3%) and nationally (45.0%) from 2002–2008 was 4.9%. Disparity between the average completion rate for SEDIP divisions and nationally from 2002–2007 was 1.4%.

Outcomes 1. Improved Teaching and Learning Process

Increased achievement rate Positive perception by stakeholders that teaching and learning process has improved

Since SY2003, SEDIP divisions have outperformed the national average by an average disparity of 5.4% on the National Achievement Test. Students from SEDIP schools perceived their teachers to have very good classroom management skills but that they need to improve their performance in starting a new topic, using teaching methods, exchanging ideas, interacting with class, and providing students with necessary learning support. The level of practice among SEDIP teachers was highest on resolving attendance problems and class disagreements.

2. Increased Participation and Completion Rates

Increased participation rate Reduced dropout rate

The Project did not lead to an increase in NERs among SEDIP division public schools. The Project led to a 1% decrease in dropout rate from SY1997 (6.8%) to SY2002 (5.8%) and remained steady through SY2006 (5.8%).

3. Improved Capacity of Division Education Officials

Educational planning from school to region is participatory, integrated, and synchronized with budget cycle. Schools, divisions, and regions regularly review and revise strategic improvement plans. Schools, divisions, and regions are able to mobilize resources for gaps in their financing plans.

Appendix 1 21

Design Summary

Targets

Outputs and Outcomes

Review and development of relevant policies appropriate to each level of governance consistent with decentralized management

Outputs 1. Improved School Effectiveness and Learning Outcomes 1.1 School heads’ capacity to provide instructional support to teachers enhanced

650 school heads trained on learning management and instructional support to teachers 650 school heads trained in student assessment 650 school heads developed and have implemented learning management programs

More than 800 secondary school heads, versus an original target of 650, were provided with training on student assessment (857), and on the learning management program and instructional support to teachers (836). Consequently, a total of 738 school heads were able to develop and implement a program. 61% of the school heads are applying instructional supervision and continue to prepare and use their instructional supervision plans developed for teachers’ supervision.

1.2 Teachers’ subject knowledge and teaching skills improved

9,700 teachers trained on general and content-specific skills, including:

• modern teaching methods,

• classroom management, • care and use of learning

support materials, • student-centered

assessment, remediation, and test development

More than 11,000 secondary school teachers, versus an original target of 9,700, were trained in four major areas: modern teaching methods (11,067), classroom management (11,078), care and use of learning support materials (10,803), and student-centered assessment (11,048). 84% of the teachers are applying skills learned from the SEDIP training programs in their classes. In comparing teachers’ perceived applicability of the SEDIP training programs, the training in classroom management was deemed the most useful. 90% of teachers surveyed for the results monitoring and evaluation (RME) Initial Gains Study cited it as the most useful. This is followed by 89% of teachers citing training on the demonstration of proper care and use of learning support materials as the most useful. The application of modern teaching methods was considered useful by 83% of teachers, and 75% considered the student-centered assessment as the most useful.

22 Appendix 1

Design Summary

Targets

Outputs and Outcomes

8,000 teacher-participants trained in areas determined by training needs assessment (TNA) 1,300 non-major teachers in science and math completing regional science and teaching center certificate courses 100% of teachers who are non-majors demonstrating improved knowledge or skills in the subject areas they received during training

More than 8,804 selected teachers participated in the TNA-based training. For non-majors in science and mathematics, a total of 1,377 teachers completed the certificate course on the said subjects.

1.3 Availability of learning resources improved

4,112,810 textbooks in math, science, English, Filipino, and social studies delivered to 850 schools 125,217 teachers’ manuals delivered to 850 schools 296,603 basic library collections delivered to schools Number of supplementary materials delivered to schools 1:1 teacher to teacher guide ratio. Percentage of students utilizing textbooks

Textbook provision exceeded the target of 4.1 million, with 5.9 million textbooks delivered to 850 schools. Similarly, a total of 146,300 teachers’ manuals against the 125,217 target was provided to the same 850 schools. A total of 302,215 basic library collections, exceeding the target of 296,603 copies, was delivered to 850 schools. To ensure proper care of textbooks and reduce losses due to wear and tear and negligence, a total of 792,324 pieces of book bags were provided to all high school students in the 27 SRA divisions. Also, the Project was able to reproduce and distribute 359,674 EASE modules in Makabayan for schools without secondary school alternatives (SSAs) 37% of the SEDIP schools have 1:1 student to textbook ratio.

1.5 High School Innovation Fund (HSIF) piloted

325 schools with HSIF projects 351 schools from the 15 divisions were able to avail themselves of the HSIF for their school projects. The HSIF grant amounted to P71,444,547.67. A total of 792 projects were completed, most of which were on reading remediation (comprising 59% of all projects). Others

Appendix 1 23

Design Summary

Targets

Outputs and Outcomes

were on science (15%); combined English, science, and math (11%); and math (8%). These projects reached a total of 61,736 student beneficiaries.

2. Improved Access to Education in Underserved Areas 2.1 Secondary schooling alternatives provided

20 packages developed for EASE modules 3,600 EASE packages delivered to 180 schools 900 teachers trained to implement SSA modules and to identify students at risk of dropping out of school 180 schools with retention programs

The Project established programs for increasing student retention in 240 schools, versus a target of 180. The three major interventions in this program were (i) effective alternative secondary education (EASE), (ii) open high school system (OHSS), and (iii) school initiated interventions. The Project trained 1,200 teachers on SSA. All 20 packages were developed for the EASE modules. More than the target number of EASE modules (7,680 vs. 3,600 target) were delivered to the 240 schools covered by the Project.

3. Capacity of Schools, Divisions, Regions, and Central Office to Support Decentralized Management Strengthened 3.1 Competence of school heads in school improvement planning and school-based management developed

650 school heads trained on strategic planning 650 school heads developing school improvement plans (SIPs) synchronized with Department of Education budget cycle 650 school heads developed SIPs 650 school annual improvement plans reviewed and updated 650 school heads trained on school-based management Management and operational practice at school level consistent with school-based management

More than 800 school heads were trained on strategic planning (829) and school-based management (829). School improvement plans (854) were developed and consequently reviewed and updated.

3.2 Planning and management capacity at division level strengthened to become self-managing

112 division personnel trained on strategic planning 15 divisions develop DEDPs, and annual plans 15 annual plans regularly

Division personnel (156 versus 112 target) were trained on strategic planning. The 15 SEDIP divisions were able to develop their respective division education development plans (DEDPs), which are now being implemented. These were reviewed and accepted by the

24 Appendix 1

Design Summary

Targets

Outputs and Outcomes

reviewed and updated Established mechanism in tracking SIP implementation Established division-based INSET mechanism 740 trainers trained for 15 divisions Division INSET processes (TNA, monitoring and evaluation, and follow-up INSET) established in 15 divisions 450 division personnel trained on roles and responsibilities of various levels of decentralized system

respective Regional DEDP Review Teams. Each division also established a mechanism for monitoring and evaluating SIP implementation. The division in-service training (INSET) mechanism was established in the 15 divisions. Division INSET trainers reached a total of 790, versus a target of 740. Versus a target of 450, only 277 division personnel were trained on roles and responsibilities of various levels of the decentralized system. The established target was too high because it exceed the actual number of division personnel.

3.3 Competence of regional offices developed in policy and standard setting, as well as in monitoring and evaluating performance

Regional office personnel trained on roles and responsibilities of various levels of decentralized system 45 regional office personnel trained on RME 9 regional offices implementing RME 27 regional office personnel trained overseas on secondary subsector M&E 9 regional offices established mechanism for tracking DEDP implementation

Selected regional and central offices personnel were trained on RME, with 9 regional offices implementing RME. Regional education supervisors assisted the National Project Management Office in conducting three RME studies—Perception Study, Leading Indicators, and Initial Gains—in the 15 divisions. Selected personnel from the regions, the divisions, and from the central office were trained overseas on subsector M&E. The mechanism for tracking DEDP implementation in the 9 regional offices was also established. The DEDP M&E is a regional quality control mechanism that keeps track of the educational performance indicators (results level); the quality of outputs provided by the divisions; and implementation progress in terms of time, cost and resources. It uses four approaches: (i) appraisal, (ii) start-up review, (iii) progress monitoring, and (iv) outcome monitoring.

3.4 Competence of central office personnel developed to conduct and manage policy

3 central office personnel trained on roles and responsibilities of various levels of decentralized system

3 central office personnel received training in decentralized management and 3 central office personnel received training on secondary subsector M&E.

Appendix 1 25

Design Summary

Targets

Outputs and Outcomes

research, as well as to monitor and evaluate performance.

Developed capacity of 20 BSE personnel to manage subsector policy research 2 policy studies conducted and managed by BSE: Curriculum Instruction and Structural School-Based Management 3 central office personnel trained overseas on secondary subsector M&E

20 education specialists from the Bureau of Secondary Education were trained on policy research, after which they conducted and managed two policy studies: (i) A Review on the Implementation of the Basic Education Curriculum, and (ii) Organizational Structure and Staffing Models for School-Based Management.

3.5 Education management information system (EMIS) established in schools, divisions, regions, and central office

EMIS installed and used in 15 schools (leader school of each division) EMIS installed in 15 division offices, 9 regional offices, and central office 15 division offices analyzed and consolidated information and reported back to schools, regions, and central office

The EMIS was installed and utilized initially in the 15 division offices and 15 leader schools across the divisions. Gradually, the system is being introduced in and adopted by the rest of the schools in the 15 divisions.

EASE = effective alternative secondary education, EMIS = education management information system, HSIF = High School Innovation Fund, M&E = monitoring and evaluation, NER = net enrollment ratio, OHSS = open high school system, RME = results monitoring and evaluation, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project, SIP = school improvement plan, SRA = School Reform Agenda, SSA = secondary school alternatives, TNA = training needs assessment. Source: Asian Development Bank.

26 Appendix 2

A. Base Costs a

1. Staff Developmenta. In-Country Training 0 14,238 14,238 0 5,156 5,156 0 0 0 0 9,082 9,082b. Overseas Training 395 0 395 395 0 395 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal (A1) 395 14,238 14,633 395 5,156 5,551 0 0 0 0 9,082 9,082

2. Textbook and Materials 9,870 2,998 12,868 9,870 2,356 12,226 0 0 0 0 642 642

3. Consulting Services a. International 10,442 4,248 14,690 1,431 0 1,431 9,011 4,248 13,259 0 0 0 b. National 0 3,428 3,428 0 3,428 3,428 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal (A2) 10,442 7,676 18,118 1,431 3,428 4,859 9,011 4,248 13,259 0 0 0

4. Civil Works 0 56,435 56,435 0 163 163 0 28,136 28,136 0 28,136 28,136

5. Furniture and Equipment a. Furniture 0 3,335 3,335 0 0 0 0 2,001 2,001 0 1,334 1,334 b. Equipment 15,998 482 16,480 808 0 808 15,190 422 15,612 0 60 60

Subtotal (A3) 15,998 3,817 19,815 808 0 808 15,190 2,423 17,613 0 1,394 1,394

6. High School Innovation Fund 0 1,921 1,921 0 1,921 1,921 0 0 0 0 0 0

7. School Mapping and Studies 515 559 1,074 515 559 1,074 0 0 0 0 0 0 8. Project Implementation 0 4,846 4,846 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 4,846 4,846

9. Incremental Recurrent Cost 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

10. Taxes and Duties b 0 1,722 1,722 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 1,722 1,722

Subtotal (A) 37,220 94,212 131,432 13,019 13,583 26,602 24,201 34,807 59,008 0 45,822 45,822B. Contingencies

1. Physical Contingency c 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 02. Price Escalation d 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

Subtotal (B) 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0

5,516 0 5,516 5,516 0 5,516 0 0 0 0 0 0

Total 42,736 94,212 136,948 18,535 13,583 32,118 24,201 34,807 59,008 0 45,822 45,822

Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Total CostForeign

ExchangeLocal

CurrencyLocal

Currency

ADBTotal

e Interest during construction is estimated at 6.91% for ADB and 2.2% for OECF loans.

c Physical contingencies for ADB-financed civil works are calculaled at 10%; for OECF-financed civil works costs, calculations are made at 10% of base cost and price escalation.d For other ADB-financed items, price escalation is calculated at 2.7% and 7.0% for foreign exchange and local currency costs. For OECF-financed items, price escalation is calculated at 2% of total costs.

Total

b Taxes and duties are 5% of local costs.

C. Interest and Other Charges e

a Base costs are at 1998 prices.

ADB = Asian Development Bank, OECF = Overseas Economic Cooperation Fund of Japan.

TotalForeign Exchange

ACTUAL PROJECT COSTS AND FINANCING PLAN ($ '000)

Cost Categories

GovernmentForeign

ExchangeLocal

CurrencyTotal

OECFForeign

ExchangeLocal

Currency

Appendix 327

1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 Total

01 Civil Works 26,683 4,467 14,030 14,506 4,931 28,311 70,346 163,274

02 Equipment 63,959 6,605 54,991 420,258 47,252 121,700 84,951 8,332 808,048

03 Textbook and Materials 3,119 823,194 1,133,993 57,338 1,022,795 159,423 4,259,466 4,766,969 12,226,297

04 School Mapping and Studies 1,669 95,072 279,269 428,096 44,418 62,690 53,208 109,719 1,074,141

05A In-Country Training 97,454 128,360 244,031 543,545 1,380,822 1,003,060 928,239 830,506 5,156,020

05B Overseas Training 18,131 0 1,398 0 187,037 151,435 37,407 0 395,411

06 High School Innovation Fund 1,528 13,402 75,566 752,578 412,157 568,487 96,711 1,920,429

07 Consulting Services 442,000 157,076 542,763 201,399 436,386 771,398 912,622 814,991 580,315 4,858,950

08 Interest and Commitment Charges 25,009 111,915 280,572 448,172 582,180 606,114 727,711 930,197 1,221,004 583,126 5,516,000

Total 25,009 553,915 648,663 2,050,161 2,524,693 2,581,809 4,938,942 3,753,284 7,996,064 7,046,024 32,118,570

Percentage to Total 0.08 1.72 2.02 6.38 7.86 8.04 15.38 11.69 24.90 21.94 100.00

Source: Asian Development Bank estimates.

Item

YEARLY DISBURSEMENT OF LOAN PROCEEDS($)

28 Appendix 4

19991 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

Project ManagementSelect/assign/appoint NPMO staff Select/assign/appoint regional/ district staff Issue DepEd order on project management Prepare project implementation guidelines Implement project – batch 1 Implement project – batch 2 Prepare quarterly report Prepare annual report Prepare/submit financial report Secure/submit audited financial report Prepare budget proposal for next year Prepare project completion report

Monitoring and EvaluationGeneral monitoring Annual review Overall batch 1 evaluation – midterm Final evaluation

Consulting ServicesPrepare detailed invitation documents Secure bank approval Prepare long/shortlist Send invitation for proposal Evaluate proposal Negotiate contract Engage consultants Field team leader Field in-service training coordinator Field other specialist

DSEDPa

Revisiting/refining DSEDP – batch 1 Prepare DSEDP - batch 2

Textbooks and MaterialsOrientation on procurement procedures Selection of books by schools Consolidation at division Ordering by region Delivery of textbooks to schools

Policy StudiesCurriculum review

School staffing review

Activity2008

ACTUAL PROJECT IMPLEMENTATION SCHEDULE

2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007

Appendix 4 29

19991 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2 3 4 1 2

Staff DevelopmentConsolidate in-service training and capacity building strategies

Finalize training designs

Prepare terms of reference for training providers

Prepare long/ shortlist

Send invitation for proposal

Evaluate proposal

Negotiate contract

Engage training providers

Course/material design and development

In-country training implementation – batch 1

In-country training monitoring and evaluation

Refine training design

In-country training implementation – batch 2

Overseas training

In-country follow-up

Physical Facilities DevelopmentRefurbishing of IMCS

Plan for school mapping

Engage school mapping implementers

School mapping – batch 1

School mapping – batch 2

Finalize school building plans – batch 1

Finalize school building plans – batch 2

LGU memoranda of understanding – batch 1

LGU memoranda of understanding – batch 2

Implement civil works – batch 1

Implement civil works – batch 2

Furniture and EquipmentConsolidate requirements

Prepare specifications

Tendering – batch 1

Evaluate proposal

Contract

Implementation of procurement

Tendering – batch 2

Evaluate proposal

Contract

Implementation of procurement

DepEd = Department of Education, DSEDP = Division Secondary Education Development Plan, IMCS = Instructional Materials Council Secretariat, NPMO = national project management officea The Division Education Development Plan (DEDP), formerly known as the Division Secondary Education Development Plan or DSEDP, was the main Project intervention in assisting the Division to effectively and efficiently manage basic education services. Source: Asian Development Bank.

2003 2004 2005 2006Activity 2000 2001 2002 2007 2008

30 Appendix 5

STATUS OF COMPLIANCE WITH LOAN COVENANTS

Covenant Reference in Loan

Agreement

Status of Compliance

Sector 1. Sustained provision of textbooks The Borrower shall, during the course of Project implementation, develop measures to ensure sustained provision of textbooks and teachers' manuals to the public secondary high schools in Project provinces after the completion of the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 11

A total of 4,286, 499 (104%) textbooks, 125,217 (100%) copies of teacher’s manuals, and 67,351 (23%) copies of supplementary materials were delivered to 850 schools.

2. Removal of compensation requirement The Borrower shall cause DECS to remove the requirement for teachers to compensate for damages and loss of the instructional materials in order to ensure unrestricted utilization of such equipment and materials.

Schedule 6, para 12

Complied with through the issuance of DECS Order No. 23, s. 2001 dated 31 May 2001 (Loss of Textbooks by Students).

3. Resource allocation formula The Borrower shall continue to review, with the assistance of outputs under the Bank-financed Technical Assistance for Decentralization of Basic Education Management and the policy study to be conducted under the Project, and revise the secondary education financial and human resource allocation formula as appropriate to permit more equitable resource allocation to support and sustain the process of improving the quality of teaching and learning in disadvantaged and smaller rural schools.

Schedule 6, para. 13

The TA report includes the allocation formula which was accepted and being used by DepEd.

4. School mapping and OSY survey The Borrower shall ensure that division offices of DECS and the LGUs jointly undertake a school mapping exercise and OSY survey in the target provinces during the first year of Project implementation to determine the requirements for and the most rational location of new schools. OSY surveys shall also be carried out for the remaining eight Project provinces during the third year of Project implementation. Upon completion of the school mapping and OSY survey, division offices and the LGUs shall jointly develop a school facilities development program and an implementation plan for each Project province, and also determine, through memoranda of understanding, the beneficiary LGU's responsibilities with regard to the construction, management and supervision of school buildings and the cost sharing arrangements.

Schedule 6, paras. 14 and

15

OSY survey and identifying OSY location were carried out as part of SME. School mapping completed. The beneficiary LGU takes the responsibility in construction, management and supervision of school buildings and the cost sharing arrangements (25%- LGU, 25% - GOP, 50% - JBIC). The NPMO, on the other hand, provides the technical assistance.

5. Indigenization of curriculum and school staff The Borrower shall cause DECS to analyze and utilize the outputs of the policy research to be conducted under the Project to further develop policies,

Schedule 6, para. 16

The two policy studies – i.e., the first policy study on the implementation of the 2002 Basic Education Curriculum, including localization of the curriculum,

Appendix 5 31 LOAN COVENANTS

implementation strategies and guidelines on indigenization of curriculum and school staff.

and the second policy study on the Organizational Structure and Staffing Models for SBM, are already completed.

6. High school Innovation Fund The Borrower, shall, within 3 months after the Effective Date, establish HSIF Review Committees in each division office of DECS in the Project provinces to ensure that (i) proposals for allocation of funds from HSIF are objectively assessed; (ii) educational objectives are maximized; (iii) priority is given to smaller and less performing schools; and (iv) standard proposal formats are prepared.

Schedule 6, para. 17

HSIF Review Committee established in July 2000. A series of training-workshop on project management for HSIF was undertaken by OTI, Philippines, Inc. who conducted the pilot run for 18 schools. A total of 351 (108%) HSIF projects completed.

7. The existing ExeCom shall provide the policy guidance, including coordination of the Project activities with other ongoing projects in basic education.

Schedule 6, para. 2

ADB approved on 17 January 2006 minor change in implementation arrangement, i.e. to replace the PMAC with ExeCom.

8. Borrower shall ensure that a computerized EMIS is developed, tested and installed in the Pilot Provinces during the first year of Project implementation and is continually refined throughout the Project implementation period. The Borrower shall also ensure that EMIS is installed in the remaining Project Provinces by the third year of Project implementation.

Schedule 6, para. 6

Project MIS installed in all divisions in Batches 1 and 2 provinces. There had been trainings conducted. On top of this, the project developed the ability of the divisions to submit project reports n line via the FTP (File Transfer Protocol). This system can be used later by Department’s BEIS. In addition, the project had developed the SMIS to help out the school in its information system. The system is web-based and is designed as a multi-user and network-ready system to handle student, personnel tracking, asset inventory management, and school planning and monitoring.

9. Monitoring and Evaluation Monitoring and evaluation functions shall be carried out at each level of Project implementation structure.

Schedule 6, para. 7

The NPMO, Regional and Division offices have been capacitated in conducting monitoring and evaluation. The regions were already involved in the conduct of Results Monitoring and Evaluation focusing on Perception Survey, Leading Indicators and Initial Gains Studies. The divisions were involved in Progress Monitoring and Evaluation. The SEDIP’s Staff Development Program Evaluation Study was conducted and completed by a service provider.

10. The Borrower shall, within six months after the Effective Date, update the baseline information of key secondary education indicators in the Pilot Provinces for effective monitoring and evaluation of the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 8

Baseline data of 2000 are being used.

32 Appendix 5

Financial 1. Counterpart funds - The Borrower shall make available, promptly as needed, the funds required for the carrying out of the Project and for the operation and maintenance of the Project facilities.

Section 4.01(b)

Sufficient counterpart funds are available.

2. Without limiting the generality of Section 4.02, the Borrower shall, for its share of the cost, make adequate annual appropriations for the construction of the school buildings from its regular School Building Program.

Schedule 6, para. 10

The total equity generated for the school building program amounted to P743.08 million (101%) against targeted equity requirement of P737.74 million. Batch 1 LGUs generated P356.27 million (99%) against equity requirement of P 360.37 million, while Batch 2 LGUs generated P386.81 million (103%) against equity requirement of P337.37 million.

Others 1. Established, Staffed, and Operating PMU/PIU DECS shall have overall responsibility for the management and supervision of the Project. The BSE of DECS shall have the primary responsibility for the implementation of the Project.

Schedule 6, para. 1

BSE has now the primary responsibility for the project.

The Borrower shall establish the NPMO within BSE to coordinate all of the Project activities. NPMO shall be headed by a Project Manager and assisted by an Assistant Project Manager, chiefs of programs and an adequate number of technical and administrative support staff. Additionally, NPMO shall be staffed with at least six education program officers seconded from BSE and an adequate number of contractual staff to be recruited by DECS, as agreed between the Borrower and the Bank.

Schedule 6, para. 3

NPMO was established.

The Project shall be implemented by the division offices of DECS in the Project Provinces at the provincial level. The division offices shall be responsible for: (i) development and refinement of the Division Secondary Education Development Plans; (ii) annual division performance analysis and planning, including computerized entry, consolidation and analysis of school EMIS data, and dissemination of consolidated data to schools and regional offices; (iii) securing LGU’s participation in conducting the school building development plan and carrying out the civil works; (iv) procurement of school furniture, small equipment and minor supplies; (v) consolidation of textbook orders from schools; (vi) ensuring that all secondary schools in the Project Provinces undertake annual school performance review and prepare annual school improvement plans in coordination with the Parent- Teacher Community Associations; and (vii) implementation of division and school-based in-service training for principals and teachers; (viii) appraisal and approval of applications for, and monitoring of the High School Innovation Fund (HSIF); (ix) monitoring and

Schedule 6, para. 4

Complied with.

Appendix 5 33 LOAN COVENANTS

BEIS = Basic Education information System, BSE = Bureau of Secondary Education, DECS = Department and Education Culture and Sports, DepEd = Department of Education, EMIS = education management information system, ExeCom = Executive Committee, GOP = Government of the Philippines, HSIF = High School Innovation Fund, JBIC = Japan bank for International Cooperation, LGU = local government unit, MIS = management information system, NPMO = National Project Management Office, OSY = out of school youth, PIU = Project Implementation Unit, PMAC = Project Management Advisory Committee, PMU = Project Management Unit, SBM = school based management, SEDIP = Secondary Education, SME = small and medium sized enterprises, SMIS = School Management Information System, TA = technical assistance. Source: Asian Development Bank.

evaluation of Project implementation and impact at school and division levels; and (x) financial management and administration of the Project funds channeled to the division offices. Construction and rehabilitation of school facilities shall be implemented by the relevant LGUs in close coordination with the schools and the division offices. The superintendents of the division offices shall be responsible for the management of overall Project implementation in each division. DECS shall assign a full-time Project coordinator to oversee the day-to-day operation of the Project. A Project implementation advisor shall be recruited, on a contract basis, for each division to assist the division superintendent and the Project coordinator. In addition to the existing staff of division offices who shall support the Project implementation, DECS shall assign additional contractual staff, including one planning officer, one accountant, two clerks, one civil works officer, and one procurement officer for each division office.

Schedule 6, para. 5

Complied with.

2. Fielding of Consultants The services of consultants shall be utilized in the carrying out of the Project particularly with regard to: (a) decentralized education management; (b) in-service training coordination; (c) monitoring and evaluation; (d) education and textbook management information system; and (e) secondary education development plan implementation at the division level.

Consulting services commenced in Jan 2001.

3. Midterm review shall be undertaken by the Borrower and the Bank upon completion of the third year of project implementation.

Midterm review fielded on May–September 2002.

4. The Borrower shall furnish to the Bank quarterly progress reports on the carrying out of the Project and on the operation and management of the Project facilities.

Complied with.

34 Appendix 6

Appendix 6 35 LOAN COVENANTS

36

Appendix 7

TRENDS IN STUDENT ACHIEVEMENT SCORES

Table A7.1: National and SEDIP Division National Secondary Assessment Test Scores, SY1997–2000

1997–1998 1998–1999 1999–2000 2000–2001 Average National 48.7 46.1 54.3 53.4 50.6 SEDIP 46.9 44.3 53.8 53.2 49.6

Disparity (1.8) (1.8) (0.6) (0.2) (1.1) Disparity

Southern Leyte 48.3 47.5 60.6 61.4 54.4 3.8 Biliran 49.0 45.7 61.5 63.2 54.9 4.2 Leyte 48.7 45.6 62.5 66.4 55.8 5.2 Agusan del Sur 41.5 43.1 57.7 63.3 51.4 0.8 Romblon 50.2 42.5 53.5 55.8 50.5 (0.1) Ifugao 55.7 52.5 56.6 52.1 54.2 3.6 Benguet 57.4 51.0 56.4 54.4 54.8 4.2 Surigao del Sur 46.1 39.3 50.6 52.6 47.2 (3.5) Zamboanga del Sur/ Zamboanga Sibugay 52.3 49.6 55.1 48.7 51.4 0.8

Negros Oriental 41.0 52.5 47.1 44.8 46.3 (4.3) Guimaras 45.4 42.1 50.2 50.0 46.9 (3.7) Masbate 48.4 47.2 50.6 46.2 48.1 (2.5) Antique 43.7 42.7 50.4 50.3 46.8 (3.9) North Cotabato 40.6 38.4 46.3 44.3 42.4 (8.2)

( ) = negative. SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.

Appendix 737

Table A7.2: National and SEDIP Division National Secondary Assessment Test Scores, SY2003–2005

SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 Average National 44.4 46.8 44.3 45.2 SEDIP 49.3 53.3 49.2 50.6

Disparity 4.9 6.5 4.9 5.4 Disparity

Southern Leyte 49.5 62.1 65.6 59.1 13.9 Biliran 53.8 56.9 57.7 56.1 11.0 Leyte 52.6 53.4 56.3 54.1 8.9 Agusan del Sur 60.5 55.7 52.5 56.2 11.1 Romblon 51.6 55.8 56.0 54.5 9.3 Ifugao 50.2 48.6 46.3 48.4 3.2 Benguet 46.2 48.7 47.7 47.5 2.4 Surigao del Sur 47.2 55.5 48.6 50.4 5.3 Zamboanga del Sur 40.8 48.6 40.8 43.4 (1.7) Zamboanga Sibugay 49.2 43.0 50.6 47.6 2.4 Negros Oriental 48.5 44.2 47.4 46.7 1.5 Guimaras 43.2 48.3 43.7 45.1 (0.1) Masbate 49.1 38.3 37.6 41.6 (3.5) Antique 39.0 43.8 44.2 42.3 (2.8) North Cotabato 40.8 43.2 43.3 42.4 (2.7) ( ) = negative. SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.

38

Appendix 7

Table A7.3: National Achievement Test for SEDIP and Non-SEDIP Divisions, SY2007

SEDIP Divisions Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total Test Romblon 66.3 59.3 52.6 47.5 61.5 57.4 Masbate 43.9 44.0 33.4 40.9 43.9 41.2 Antique 53.1 53.2 44.9 45.0 58.5 50.9 Guimaras 73.5 61.9 51.9 50.2 65.5 60.6 Negros Oriental 53.8 52.0 39.4 42.8 49.9 47.6 Biliran 66.3 60.9 50.1 46.1 62.6 57.2 Leyte 65.2 58.9 49.7 48.8 63.1 57.1 Southern Leyte 78.1 65.4 56.6 51.0 67.8 63.8 Zamboanga del Sur 61.9 56.0 46.7 43.9 53.6 52.4 Zamboanga Sibugay 56.4 54.2 44.6 42.6 50.4 49.6 North Cotabato 59.4 54.4 42.9 42.2 53.0 50.4 Benguet 64.0 61.1 46.6 47.1 59.2 55.6 Ifugao 66.1 61.5 48.8 47.0 59.5 56.6 Agusan del Sur 61.4 57.1 49.2 49.9 58.7 55.3 Surigao del Sur 66.1 60.3 53.4 47.3 61.5 57.7 Average 60.9 56.3 46.5 45.8 57.1 53.3 Non-SEDIP Divisions Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total Test Marinduque 60.3 56.3 45.0 47.4 56.4 53.1 Aklan 47.4 45.4 38.1 42.9 52.6 45.3 Iloilo 52.5 50.2 39.1 44.5 52.2 47.7 Dumaguete City 70.4 71.3 69.9 52.0 55.9 63.9 Ormoc City 60.2 57.5 45.7 45.0 57.4 53.2 Tacloban City 50.6 53.6 39.9 43.2 51.6 47.8 Pagadian City 56.0 56.6 45.3 49.9 54.2 52.4 Zamboanga City 47.5 48.9 38.0 39.3 43.8 43.5 Baguio City 53.3 56.9 37.6 45.9 54.7 49.7 Mt. Province 57.6 55.5 39.2 43.5 54.7 50.1 Agusan del Norte 75.4 64.3 56.5 47.7 62.7 61.3 Surigao del Norte 67.6 60.1 51.3 49.2 58.8 57.4 Average 54.3 52.5 41.4 44.5 52.7 49.1

Item Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total Project 60.9 56.3 46.5 45.8 57.1 53.3 Non-Project 54.3 52.5 41.4 44.5 52.7 49.1 Disparity 6.6 3.8 5.1 1.3 4.4 4.2

SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.

Appendix 739

Table A7.4: National Achievement Test - Fourth Year, School Year SY2007

Math English Science Filipino Araling Panlipunan Total Test

Division

Number of Examinees Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD Mean SD

SEDIP Divisions Romblon 3,296 66.3 21.3 59.3 14.7 52.6 17.3 47.5 10.1 61.5 16.6 57.4 12.3 Masbate 5,417 43.9 17.6 44.0 14.1 33.4 12.3 40.9 10.3 43.9 15.1 41.2 10.7 Antique 6,095 53.1 21.4 53.2 16.6 44.9 17.0 45.0 10.3 58.5 17.5 50.9 12.7 Guimaras 1,527 73.5 17.6 61.9 11.1 51.9 15.4 50.2 8.5 65.5 12.1 60.6 9.6 Negros Oriental 6,651 53.8 20.2 52.0 13.9 39.4 16.1 42.8 10.6 49.9 15.9 47.6 11.9 Biliran 1,677 66.3 20.0 60.9 14.0 50.1 16.4 46.1 9.0 62.6 14.9 57.2 11.3 Leyte 14,403 65.2 21.4 58.9 14.5 49.7 16.6 48.8 10.6 63.1 14.7 57.1 11.6 Southern Leyte 3,456 78.1 16.8 65.4 11.0 56.6 13.0 51.0 9.0 67.8 12.5 63.8 8.3 Zamboanga del Sur 7,709 61.9 20.2 56.0 15.1 46.7 15.6 43.9 10.1 53.6 14.5 52.4 10.9 Zamboanga Sibugay 4,418 56.4 19.0 54.2 14.1 44.6 14.7 42.6 10.9 50.4 14.7 49.6 10.4 North Cotabato 8,802 59.4 21.8 54.4 15.1 42.9 15.2 42.2 11.1 53.0 16.4 50.4 12.2 Benguet 3,372 64.0 19.5 61.1 12.3 46.6 15.6 47.1 9.3 59.2 13.0 55.6 10.2 Ifugao 1,942 66.1 18.8 61.5 13.2 48.8 15.0 47.0 9.8 59.5 14.4 56.6 10.8 Agusan del Sur 6,021 61.4 22.9 57.1 16.1 49.2 19.6 49.9 10.3 58.7 18.8 55.3 13.9 Surigao del Sur 4,834 66.1 20.2 60.3 13.7 53.4 15.8 47.3 9.5 61.5 14.3 57.7 11.0

Subtotal 79,620 60.9 21.8 56.3 15.2 46.5 16.9 45.8 10.7 57.1 16.6 53.3 12.6 Non-SEDIP Divisions Marinduque 2,902 60.3 19.8 56.3 14.4 45.0 15.6 47.4 9.8 56.4 14.1 53.1 11.3 Aklan 6,147 47.4 20.5 45.4 16.2 38.1 15.6 42.9 11.3 52.6 16.5 45.3 11.9 Iloilo 22,419 52.5 21.9 50.2 15.7 39.1 15.7 44.5 10.6 52.2 15.8 47.7 12.8 Dumaguete City 865 70.4 23.7 71.3 9.6 69.9 11.2 52.0 11.5 55.9 19.2 63.9 10.8 Ormoc City 2,125 60.2 20.8 57.5 14.1 45.7 15.6 45.0 11.9 57.4 15.3 53.2 11.5 Tacloban City 2,740 50.6 22.2 53.6 14.5 39.9 15.5 43.2 10.8 51.6 18.7 47.8 11.8 Pagadian City 1,658 56.0 20.8 56.6 14.0 45.3 13.6 49.9 13.5 54.2 14.2 52.4 10.8 Zamboanga City 7,193 47.5 22.6 48.9 14.9 38.0 16.4 39.3 11.2 43.8 17.0 43.5 13.5 Baguio City 3,781 53.3 19.3 56.9 12.7 37.6 13.4 45.9 9.6 54.7 15.0 49.7 11.0 Agusan Del Norte 2,250 75.4 18.7 64.3 12.7 56.5 15.8 47.7 8.9 62.7 16.1 61.3 10.1 Surigao Del Norte 3,299 67.6 21.8 60.1 14.4 51.3 16.2 49.2 11.3 58.8 17.8 57.4 13.0

Subtotal 55,379 54.2 22.5 52.4 15.8 41.5 16.6 44.5 11.2 52.7 16.7 49.0 13.2 Total 140,003 58.3 22.3 54.8 15.6 44.5 16.9 45.3 10.9 55.3 16.8 51.6 13.0

SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project., SD = standard deviation. Source: National Education Testing & Review Center, Department of Education.

40

Appendix 8

DROPOUT RATES FOR PROJECT DIVISIONS, SY20023–SY2006

Table A8.1: Change in Dropout Rate

National Dropout Rate (First Year High School)

SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000

11.1 12.1 12.4 11 Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin

School Year 1998 through 2001 (Dropout from year 1 of secondary school).

Table A8.2: National and SEDIP Division Dropout Rate (First Year High School)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 Sy2005 SY2006 Average

National 11.1 13.9 15.5 15.2 18.0 15.8 14.9 SEDIP 13.7 15.5 15.8 19.1 15.4 15.9

Disparity (0.2) 0.0 0.6 1.1 (0.4) 1.0 Disparity Romblon 8.0 12.4 13.2 16.9 11.9 12.5 (2.4) Biliran 9.8 11.8 14.9 13.9 13.5 12.8 (2.1) Guimaras 12.0 12.3 13.6 19.5 13.0 14.1 (0.8) Antique 14.7 14.3 13.5 19.0 15.4 15.4 0.5 Agusan del Sur 18.8 19.9 16.9 17.6 14.3 17.5 2.6 Southern Leyte 9.0 10.2 12.0 14.3 13.9 11.9 (3.0) Leyte 12.3 16.7 12.0 17.7 14.2 14.6 (0.3) North Cotabato 17.6 19.7 23.5 27.0 19.4 21.4 6.5 Surigao del Sur 10.9 14.1 13.8 20.9 14.6 14.9 (0.1) Zamboanga Sibugay 14.7 15.4 19.0 21.2 17.8 17.6 2.7 Zamboanga del Sur 10.0 15.2 20.0 17.2 16.9 15.9 0.9 Masbate 20.4 19.5 17.6 21.6 19.6 19.7 4.8 Negros Oriental 19.3 15.2 13.8 16.2 14.9 15.9 1.0 Ifugao 15.2 21.2 21.3 27.3 17.6 20.5 5.6 Benguet 12.8 14.6 12.1 16.3 13.7 13.9 (1.0) ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Sources: Basic Education Information System , Department of Education; for 1998–1999 National Dropout Rate: Department of Education Culture and Sports

Statistical Bulletin School Year 1997–1998; Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.

Appendix 841

Table A8.3: National and SEDIP Division Simple Dropout

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average National 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.6 SEDIP 6.8a 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.2

Disparity -0.8 (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.9) (0.4) Disparity Romblon 4.3 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 (2.2) Biliran 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.6 0.0 Guimaras 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.6 (1.0) Antique 5.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.5 5.5 (1.1) Agusan del Sur 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.8 5.9 6.1 (0.4) Southern Leyte 6.2 4.6 6.3 6.2 4.2 5.5 (1.1) Leyte 5.1 4.9 5.4 6.3 5.7 5.5 (1.1) North Cotabato 8.0 8.7 9.6 9.5 8.8 8.9 2.4 Surigao del Sur 6.6 7.1 6.0 6.8 6.5 6.6 0.0 Zamboanga Sibugay 5.1 6.0 5.7 6.6 4.8 5.6 (0.9) Zamboanga del Sur 4.7 5.2 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.9 (1.7) Masbate 6.6 6.6 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.4 (0.2) Negros Oriental 7.9 8.6 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.6 1.0 Ifugao 5.3 5.8 6.9 5.5 5.7 5.8 (0.7) Benguet 4.7 5.2 5.9 6.5 5.7 5.6 (1.0) ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. a SEDIP Simple Dropout for 1997–1998 is per project Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors. Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

Table A8.4: Change in Dropout Rate

National Dropout Rate (First Year High School)

SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000

11.1 12.1 12.4 11 Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin

School Year 1998–1999 through 2001–2002 (Dropout from year 1 of secondary school).

42

Appendix 8

Table A8.5: National and SEDIP Division Drop Out Rate (First Year High School)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average National 11.1 13.9 15.5 15.2 18.0 15.8 14.9 SEDIP 13.7 15.5 15.8 19.1 15.4 15.9

Disparity (0.2) 0.0 0.6 1.1 (0.4) 1.0 Disparity Romblon 8.0 12.4 13.2 16.9 11.9 12.5 (2.4) Biliran 9.8 11.8 14.9 13.9 13.5 12.8 (2.1) Guimaras 12.0 12.3 13.6 19.5 13.0 14.1 (0.8) Antique 14.7 14.3 13.5 19.0 15.4 15.4 0.5 Agusan del Sur 18.8 19.9 16.9 17.6 14.3 17.5 2.6 Southern Leyte 9.0 10.2 12.0 14.3 13.9 11.9 (3.0) Leyte 12.3 16.7 12.0 17.7 14.2 14.6 (0.3) North Cotabato 17.6 19.7 23.5 27.0 19.4 21.4 6.5 Surigao del Sur 10.9 14.1 13.8 20.9 14.6 14.9 (0.1) Zamboanga Sibugay 14.7 15.4 19.0 21.2 17.8 17.6 2.7 Zamboanga del Sur 10.0 15.2 20.0 17.2 16.9 15.9 0.9 Masbate 20.4 19.5 17.6 21.6 19.6 19.7 4.8 Negros Oriental 19.3 15.2 13.8 16.2 14.9 15.9 1.0 Ifugao 15.2 21.2 21.3 27.3 17.6 20.5 5.6 Benguet 12.8 14.6 12.1 16.3 13.7 13.9 (1.0) ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Sources: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education; for 1998–1999 National Dropout Rate: Department of Education Culture and Sports

Statistical Bulletin School Year 1997–1998; Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.

Appendix 843

Table A8.6: National and SEDIP Division Simple Dropout

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average National 6.6 6.4 6.5 6.6 6.7 6.6 SEDIP 6.8a 5.8 6.0 6.2 6.4 5.8 6.2

Disparity (0.8) (0.4) (0.3) (0.2) (0.9) (0.4) Disparity Romblon 4.3 3.9 4.5 4.5 4.5 4.3 (2.2) Biliran 5.9 6.2 6.8 7.3 6.6 6.6 0.0 Guimaras 6.2 5.9 5.6 5.3 5.0 5.6 (1.0) Antique 5.0 5.1 5.6 6.2 5.5 5.5 (1.1) Agusan del Sur 5.4 6.1 6.4 6.8 5.9 6.1 (0.4) Southern Leyte 6.2 4.6 6.3 6.2 4.2 5.5 (1.1) Leyte 5.1 4.9 5.4 6.3 5.7 5.5 (1.1) North Cotabato 8.0 8.7 9.6 9.5 8.8 8.9 2.4 Surigao del Sur 6.6 7.1 6.0 6.8 6.5 6.6 0.0 Zamboanga Sibugay 5.1 6.0 5.7 6.6 4.8 5.6 (0.9) Zamboanga del Sur 4.7 5.2 4.9 5.0 4.7 4.9 (1.7) Masbate 6.6 6.6 6.2 6.7 5.9 6.4 (0.2) Negros Oriental 7.9 8.6 7.2 6.9 7.3 7.6 1.0 Ifugao 5.3 5.8 6.9 5.5 5.7 5.8 (0.7) Benguet 4.7 5.2 5.9 6.5 5.7 5.6 (1.0) ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. a SEDIP Simple Dropout for 1997–1998 is per project Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors. Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

44

Appendix 9 NET ENROLLMENT RATIOS: 2002/03–2007/08

Table A9.1: Change in Net Enrollment Ratio (Participation Rate)

National Net Enrollment Ratio - Public and Private Schools

SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000 SY2001

64 65.2 65.4 72.3 73.4 Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin School Year

1997–1998 through 2001–2002. Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.

Table A9.2: SEDIP Divisions Net Enrollment Ratio Against National Net Enrollment Ration (Public plus Private Schools)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY 2005 SY 2006 Average

National 63.9a 59.0 60.2 60.0 58.5 58.6 60.0 SEDIP 47.3a 49.3 50.3 50.3 48.7 48.1 49.0

Disparity (16.6) (9.7) (9.9) (9.7) (9.8) (10.5) (11.0) Disparity

Romblon 58.8 61.2 59.7 59.7 57.0 59.3 (0.8) Biliran 53.6 54.9 54.6 54.5 55.9 54.7 (5.3) Guimaras 61.0 60.6 59.2 54.5 54.4 57.9 (2.1) Antique 58.7 59.8 56.8 54.9 49.3 55.9 (4.1) Agusan del Sur 43.1 43.1 43.5 45.1 48.9 44.7 (15.3) Southern Leyte 56.4 59.2 58.1 57.1 54.8 57.1 (2.9) Leyte 48.1 48.5 48.4 47.0 46.5 47.7 (12.3) North Cotabato 48.1 48.1 53.6 49.2 44.1 48.6 (11.4) Surigao del Sur 47.6 45.7 45.8 46.0 44.3 45.9 (14.2) Zamboanga Sibugay 43.1 44.0 45.1 41.9 42.1 43.2 (16.8) Zamboanga del Sur 41.9 44.0 43.4 40.7 42.7 42.5 (17.5) Masbate 40.7 42.3 43.1 40.3 41.9 41.7 (18.4) Negros Oriental 38.3 39.1 39.3 37.1 37.8 38.3 (21.7) Ifugao 46.3 50.1 52.1 51.3 49.2 49.8 (10.2) Benguet 53.3 53.5 52.1 51.7 52.0 52.5 (7.5) ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. a National and SEDIP Net Enrollment Ratio for 1997–1998 are per project Report and Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors (1998),

Appendix 3. SEDIP Net Enrollment Ratio for 1997–1998 is for 14 project provinces. (Provinces do not include Zamboanga Sibugay which became separate Division from Zamboanga del Sur in 2002.)

Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

Appendix 945

Table A9.3: Change in Net Enrollment Ratio for Public Schools

National Net Enrollment Ratio - Public Schools Only

SY 1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000 SY2001

43.4 47.3 48 50.7 50.2

Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin School Year 1997–1998 through 2001–2002. Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.

Table A9.4: SEDIP Divisions Net Enrollment Ratio Against National Net Enrollment Ratio (Public Schools Only)

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 SY2007 Average

National 43.4 45.6 47.0 43.5 44.5 45.4 45.3 45.0 SEDIP 41.0 42.5 37.5 40.7 40.0 40.1 40.3

Disparity (4.6) (4.5) (6.0) (3.8) (5.4) (5.2) (4.9) Disparity

Romblon 52.7 54.5 46.1 53.7 50.9 52.3 51.7 6.7 Biliran 51.5 52.8 44.5 52.4 51.9 52.4 50.9 6.0 Guimaras 54.7 53.9 43.9 48.1 46.1 46.0 48.8 3.8 Antique 47.7 48.6 41.9 45.0 41.5 41.3 44.3 (0.6) Agusan del Sur 37.4 40.0 36.2 41.0 44.1 46.2 40.8 (4.1) Southern Leyte 39.3 42.9 40.4 41.6 39.6 38.5 40.4 (4.6) Leyte 41.2 41.9 39.3 40.9 40.1 40.7 40.7 (4.3) North Cotabato 43.2 43.1 35.8 40.6 39.7 40.2 40.4 (4.5) Surigao del Sur 39.7 40.0 36.1 39.0 37.1 35.5 37.9 (7.1) Zamboanga Sibugay 38.6 39.5 33.4 37.0 36.2 36.5 36.9 (8.1) Zamboanga del Sur 33.6 37.9 34.7 36.0 37.1 36.1 35.9 (9.1) Masbate 34.1 36.7 31.1 35.1 36.1 38.0 35.2 (9.8) Negros Oriental 34.7 35.8 31.1 33.7 33.9 34.0 33.9 (11.1) Ifugao 31.5 33.9 34.4 34.0 32.9 32.0 33.1 (11.8) Benguet 34.7 36.0 33.4 33.1 32.5 32.0 33.6 (11.3) ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education.

46

Appendix 10

COMPLETION RATES FOR SEDIP DIVISIONS, 2002/03–2006/07

Table A10.1: Change in Completion Rate

National Completion Rate SY1997 SY1998 SY1999 SY2000 SY2001

66 66.1 66.3 69 69.6 Source: Department of Education Culture and Sports Statistical Bulletin School Year

1997–1998 through 2001–2002. Office of Planning Service, Department of Education.

Table A10.2: National and SEDIP Division Completion Rate

SY1997 SY2002 SY2003 SY2004 SY2005 SY2006 Average

National 66.0 58.6 56.1 56.5 50.0 55.5 55.3 SEDIP 61.8 61.4 57.3 56.3 49.6 59.0 56.7

Disparity (4.2) 2.8 1.2 (0.2) (0.4) 3.5 1.4 Disparity Romblon 75.4 64.0 61.1 54.1 68.3 64.6 9.2 Biliran 69.6 66.0 57.6 61.9 63.7 63.8 8.4 Guimaras 64.7 64.2 61.1 47.1 65.7 60.6 5.2 Antique 58.6 60.0 62.1 49.1 58.3 57.6 2.3 Agusan del Sur 49.3 49.4 55.3 53.1 62.3 53.9 (1.5) Southern Leyte 73.1 68.6 63.1 59.3 61.2 65.1 9.7 Leyte 64.2 52.6 63.9 52.2 61.3 58.8 3.5 North Cotabato 51.5 47.9 39.6 34.1 48.7 44.4 (11.0) Surigao del Sur 68.0 56.9 61.2 45.3 59.2 58.1 2.8 Zamboanga Sibugay 58.2 57.2 50.0 45.6 54.4 53.1 (2.3) Zamboanga del Sur 69.6 58.0 48.5 53.8 54.9 57.0 1.6 Masbate 48.4 49.0 48.4 44.2 50.8 48.2 (7.2) Negros Oriental 47.8 57.5 60.8 53.0 60.3 55.9 0.5 Ifugao 58.4 47.0 45.0 35.1 53.0 47.7 (7.6) Benguet 64.8 61.0 66.4 55.8 63.1 62.2 6.9 ( ) = negative, SEDIP = Secondary Education Development and Improvement Project. Source: Basic Education Information System, Department of Education; National and SEDIP (for 14 project provinces) 1997–1998 Completion Rate, Report and

Recommendation of the President to the Board of Directors.

Appendix 11 47

OVERALL ASSESSMENT SUMMARY TABLE

Criterion Weight (%) Assessment Rating Value Weighted Rating Relevance 20 Highly Relevant 3 0.6 Effectiveness 30 Effective 2 0.6 Efficiency 30 Less Efficient 1 0.3 Sustainability 20 Most Likely 3 0.6

Overall Rating

Successful

2.1

Highly successful: Overall weighted average is greater than 2.7. Successful: Overall weighted average is between 1.6 and less than 2.7. Partly Successful: Overall weighted average is between 0.8 and less than 1.6. Unsuccessful: Overall weighted average is less than 0.8. Source: Operations Evaluation Department. Asian Development Bank 2006. Guidelines for Preparing

Performance Evaluation Reports for Public Sector Operations. Manila.