Final Narrative Report LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) ABC+: Advancing Basic Education in the Philippines USAID ARTI FROM THE AMERICAN PEOPLE INTERNATIONAL 0 The Asia Foundation Published by: ABC+ Manila Office League of Provinces of the Philippines LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Final Narrative Report ABC+ Advancing Basic Education in the Philippines Table of Contents EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................ 1 Key findings ................................................................................................. 2 Key Recommendations ................................................................................. 3 INTRODUCTION ........................................................................................................ 5 Objectives and Expected Outputs .................................................................. 5 Methodology ................................................................................................. 6 Data Sources ................................................................................................ 6 DATA FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS ............................................................................. 7 Brief Background on the Study Provinces........................................................ 7 On the RPT Collections and the SEF................................................... 8 On SEF Collections and Expenditures................................................. 12 SEF Expenditures........................................................................................... 12 SEF and Local Incomes and Expenditures........................................... 21 LGU Spending on Education and Other Revenue Streams................... 22 Indicative SEF Budgets for 2021......................................................... 23 SEF UTILIZATION AND PRIORITIES............................................................... 24 Education Key Stage Priority............................................................... 26 K to 3 and MTB-MLE Spending........................................................... 27 Membership to the Local School Board............................................................ 28 Frequency of PSB Meetings.......................................................................................... 29 Preparation of the SEF Budget and the Role of the Provincial School Board..... 30 On the BE-LCP and the Adoption of the Blended Learning Modalities for 2020- 2021 Academic Year........................................................................................ 33 Adopting to the New Normal in Education........................................................ 35 RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................... 39 Investment in community tutors, para-teachers and learning aides....... 41 Rationalizing the SEF Budgeting Process............................................ 41 Governor’s/Mayor’s Contingency Fund................................................ 42 Institutionalizing the SEF Planning Cycle............................................. 42 Preparing for the New Normal............................................................. 43 Local Chief Executives as Champions for Education............................ 43 Equitizing the DepEd Allocations Across Divisions and Districts........... 44 Vertical Coordination between provincial and municipal local school boards............................................................................................... 44 Harmonizing the School Improvement Plan with the Comprehensive Development Plan .................................................................................. 45 Ensuring Continuity of Local Education Plans Through Changes in Local Administration............................................................................ 45 Support for legislative actions to amend the LGC provisions on the SEF and the Strengthening of the LSB, and the Schedule of Market Values............................................................................................... 46 NEXT STEPS AND MOVING FORWARD .................................................................... 48 iii LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Acronyms BE-LCP Basic Education-Learning Continuity Plan BLGF Bureau of Local Government Finance COA Commission on Audit CSO Civil Society Organization DBM Department of Budget and Management DILG Department of the Interior and Local Government DOF Department of Finance GF General Fund GIDA Geographically Isolated and Disadvantaged Areas IRA Internal Revenue Allotment LGC Local Government Code LGU Local Government Unit LSB ocal school board MOA memorandum of agreement MOOE maintenance and other operating expenses MTB-MLE Mother Tongue-Based Multi-Lingual Education NGO non-governmental organization PHP Philippine peso PPA programs, projects, and activities PSB Provincial School Board RPT real property tax SDS Schools District Superintendent SEF Special Education Fund WASH Water, sanitation, and hygiene 1 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) The Asia Foundation (TAF) is an implementing partner of RTI International (RTI) (with SIL LEAD, and Florida State University) in the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) supported ABC+ Advancing Basic Education in the Philippines project in Regions V and VI. To the end of ensuring that ABC+ interventions are sustained, the participation of provincial governments in the planning and funding of early grade learning activities is important. TAF partnered with the League of Provinces of the Philippines (LPP) to develop this baseline study on local government engagement in Early Grade Learning (EGL) with the aim of identifying challenges and opportunities in financing the education requirements of early grade learners. The objectives of the baseline study were to: 1. Identify income streams and alternative funding sources to finance teacher training and learning materials specifically required for children at the primary level; 2. Identify gaps and challenges in planning, appropriating funds, and implementing basic education policies and PPAs; and, 3. Increase local stakeholders’ engagement in planning and implementing sustainable basic education services, programs, and policies. Data from government offices including the Department of Finance (DOF), Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG), and Commission on Audit (COA), were analyzed by LPP to EXECUTIVE SUMMARY 2 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) analyze funding to early grades. A rapid appraisal survey of SEF expenditures and local school board activities were conducted in the ABC+ Cohort 1 provinces. Key informant interviews were also conducted to probe the findings from surveying and other research. Due to quarantine restrictions associated with Covid-19, LPP relied heavily on online and phone interviews to approximate previously planned research. The baseline focused heavily on the existing funding available for education as provided for by the Local Government Code, the Special Education Fund (SEF), and the local school board, the governing body that decides on the SEF. Key findings An increasing trend in real property tax collections was observed in the data. In terms of SEF utilization, national data showed that it is broadly underutilized, with an uneven trend observed within the Cohort 1 provinces. While utilization rate of the Cohort 1 provinces is overall around 90%, Sorsogon had a utilization rate of 68%. Among the LGUs, cities better utilize the SEF as the Municipalities and Provinces share their SEF. The provinces showed the lowest SEF utilization rate. The majority of the SEF is spent for Miscellaneous and Other Operating Expenes (68%) where sports and donations account for the biggest share of expenditures, comprising 88% of aggregated MOOE expenditures, followed by training and scholarships—a distant third place, each at 4%. In terms of priorities for SEF spending, data showed that school sports activities, repair and maintenance of school buildings and IT equipment and services are the top priorities. The general fund is another funding source for education expenses. Based on data from interviews, th general fund is used for all other expenses that are not allowed by SEF guidelines. Data shows that SEF spending and education spending from the general fund is almost equal. While the early grades were seen as a priority by the provinces in this assessment, this does not translate to funding. Less than 1% was spent on projects related to early grades, which include for example chairs for kindergarten and printing of MTB￾MLE materials. The Provincial School Boards (PSBs) showed membership being expanded, at the time of research, to include key provincial functionalities – the planning and development officer, the accountant, and the budget officer were invited to be members of the PSB. There were also instances where non-government 3 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) organizations, local civil society organizations, and business groups were invited to join the PSB. According to the survey, the top three roles of the PSB include to review of the budget submitted by DepEd, to propose additional allocation of items, and to monitor expenditures. PSBs also provide support to low income municipalities. Because of COVID-19 the priorities for SEF allocation shifted. SEF budgets were realigned to support the continuity of education. The top priorities of the PSBs at the time of research include printing and reproduction of modules and worksheets for students, purchase of printing equipment to be used by schools, and provision of internet connectivity in schools. Key Recommendations Research and analysis lead to recommendations to better mobilize LGUs and local stakeholders to support and sustain ABC+-introduced improvements in EGL. These recommendations are as follows: • Improve the responsiveness of the SEF to accommodate needed expenses to ensure learning continuity. While the leagues were able to advocate for revisions to the SEF policy, this could further be improved by a review of the SEF policy and how it can be made more responsive to the current pandemic and what comes after. • Rationalize the SEF budgeting process. As observed there is a general underspending of the SEF budget. This can be attributed to the government procurement system that causes delays in the procurement of SEF approved projects. This calls for a rethink of the budgeting process of the SEF, especially for budget items that require a longer period of procurement. • Encourage the Local Chief Executives (LCE) to be education champions. LCEs respond to recognition and some form of recognition to education champions can be created to achieve this either independently or as part of the DILG Seal of Good Local Governance. • Equitizing DepEd allocations across divisions and districts. The SEF should be considered as an equalization fund to augment national government funds, rather than as a major source of funds for education—especially in the case of resource-challenged schools in geographically isolated and disadvantaged areas. 4 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) • Vertical coordination between provincial and municipal LSBs. The municipalities and provinces share the SEF and funding should be coordinated between them. A mechanism should be developed to provide a venue for the provincial and municipal LSBs to come together and jointly plan and prioritize funding support for their public schools. • Harmonize the school improvement plan (SIP) and community development plan (CDP). These two processes are independent of each other and harmonizing them could mean more synergy and a more diverse funding source from both DepEd and the LGU. • Ensure continuity of the LSB projects through changes in the LCE. 2022 being an election year poses a challenge in the continuity of LSB priorities with changes in leadership at the provincial, city, and municipal level. Expanding the membership of the LSB to include tenured personnel in the LGU and the participation of civil society organization is one way to do this. • Support for Legislative Action to Amend LGC Provisions of the SEF, Strengthen the LSB, and Harmonize the Schedule of Market Values. Initiatives are underway in the 18th Congress of both the Senate and House of Representatives that aim to rationalize SEF expenditures by broadening the scope of SEF usage—for example, by giving local school boards the leeway to effectively plan for budget allocations and appropriations, based on the needs of the education sector. The results of this research are not intended to serve as a single point of reference or reflection, but should rather be used in a continuous process of analysis as based on a quickly changing context and base of evidence from which to draw. 5 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) 01 The League of Provinces of the Philippines, in partnership with The Asia Foundation, and with funding from the United States Agency for International Development, is spearheading the Leading Partnerships and Participation for Learning, Education, and Development (LPP-LED) in the Bicol and Western Visayas Regions. The project aims to strengthen the respective provinces’ capacity to establish systems, rationalize plans, mobilize and manage resources in support of improved learning outcomes of children at the primary level. Likewise, to complement their education-related programs with the DepEd’s priority programs. The LPP-LED project is part of USAID’s ABC+ project and will work with the provincial governments in sustaining improvements introduced by ABC+. LGUs and other local stakeholders will be encouraged to work collaboratively and harmoniously in providing the necessary support and resources for a child’s educational development. To do this, the LPP conducted a baseline study to understand entry points for early grades learning support in the following provinces: Albay, Camarines Norte, Sorsogon, and Negros Occidental. These provinces are Cohort 1 provinces of the ABC+ project. Objectives and Expected Outputs General Objective The LPP LED aims to support early grade learning (EGL) outcomes in selected regions through education programs, projects, and activities (PPAs) in partnership with provinces (including their component municipalities), and other local stakeholders. The baseline will identify existing funding mechanisms and how it can be improved so that some funding can be allocated to improving early grades learning. INTRODUCTION 6 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Specific Objectives 1. Identify income streams and alternative funding sources to finance teacher training and learning materials specifically required for children at the primary level 2. Identify gaps and challenges in planning, appropriating funds, and implementing basic education policies and PPAs, and 3. Increase local stakeholders’ engagement in planning and implementing sustainable basic education services, programs, and policies Expected Outputs 1. Scoping mission report to identify the education policies at the pilot sites, prepare a stakeholders map, and identify funding for the local school board (LSB) budget 2. Report on the rapid appraisal survey on special education fund (SEF) budget spending in the LPP-LEDproject pilot provinces and complementary funding from the respective municipalities. Methodology and Data Sources The LPP utilized the following methods to gather data: • Data mining and analysis • Rapid appraisal of SEF expenditures and the local school board’s composition • Key informant interviews Interviews with LGU officials were originally planned by the LPP team. However, the declaration of community quarantines due to COVID-19 limited the interviews to virtual interviews and phone interviews. Data Sources • Department of Finance Bureau of Local Government Finance (BLGF) fiscal data • Provincial and municipal data • Department of the Interior and Local Government Full Disclosure Portal data • Commission on Audit auditing reports • Special Education Fund Expenditure Reports • Official government data sources 7 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Brief Background on the Study Provinces The four provinces selected for the baselines were the cohort 1 provinces of ABC+ regions as selected during the start of the project. These provinces correspond to the divisions where ABC+ started their support in year 1. This was done to understand the provinces and so that ABC+ interventions introduced in the cohort 1 DepEd divisions can be supported at the regional level. • Albay is a first-class income province1 of 2,576 square kilometers with 16 municipalities. According to the 2015 Census of Population and Housing,2 Albay had a population of 1.3 million, and a population density of 510 persons per square kilometer. • Camarines Norte is a second-class income province of 2,320 square kilometers with 13 municipalities. Camarines Norte had a population of about 583,000 and a population density of 250 persons per square kilometer (2015). 1   According to Executive Order no. 249, first class LGUs are those that have obtained an  average annual income of thirty million pesos or more while second class income LGUs are those  that have obtained an average annual income of twenty million pesos or more but less than  thirty million pesos. For details, see the EO no. 249: https://www.lawphil.net/executive/execord/ eo1987/eo_249_1987.html  2  All population  and population density figures in this section are from the 2015 Census of  Population and Housing. For details, see the Philippines Statistics Authority website: https://psa. gov.ph/population-and-housing/node/120080 02DATA FINDINGS AND ANALYSIS PROVINCE INCOME POPULATION LAND AREA POPULATION CLASS 2010 2015 CSQ. KM.) DENSITY 2015 8 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) • Sorsogon is a second-class income province of 2,119 square kilometers with 15 municipalities. Its population was 793,000, with a population density of 370 persons per square kilometer (2015). • Negros Occidental is a first-class income province of 7,965 square kilometers with 19 municipalities. Its population was 1.35 million, with a population density of 380 persons per square kilometer (2015). Table 1. Key Demographics of Study Provinces On the RPT Collections and the SEF Over this five-year study, from 2014 to 2018, real property tax (RPT) collections have been increasing in all four provinces. Although collections declined in some years, they subsequently rose again. Table 2 shows the total combined RPT collections for the General Fund (GF) and the SEF in Cohort 1 provinces. Table 2: Combined Real Property Tax (General Fund) and Special Education Fund Collections ALBAY CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES SUR NEGROS OCCIDENTAL PROVINCE ALBAY CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES SUR NEGROS OCCIDENTAL • 1st 2nd 2nd 1st • • 1,223,432 542,915 740,743 1,286,666 2015 1,314,826 583,313 792,949 1,354,995 . .. - Q. 2,575.77 510 2,320.07 250 2,119.01 370 7,965.21 380 TOTAL RPT COLLECTIONS CGF+SEF> - CPHP, millions> 2014 2016 2017 2018 2019 62.90 78.87 57.71 63.17 91.96 75.25 20.44 24.64 34.21 31.04 38.32 36.82 24.77 17.97 21.21 25.05 25.87 29.15 115.60 116.48 124.40 142.97 141.06 158.16 9 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 1: Six-year Annual Real Property Tax Collections (Year-on-Year) In the Philippines, provinces, cities, and municipalities are responsible for the collection of real property tax. Unlike cities, where 100% of the RPT collected accrues to Local Government Units (LGUs), the provinces and municipalities get an equal share of the RPT. The RPT applies to all forms of real property—land, buildings, improvements to land and buildings, and machinery. Real properties owned by the government, charitable institutions, churches, cooperatives, and those used in the supply of water and electric power are exempt from paying RPT. Equipment used for pollution control and environmental protection is also not subject to this local tax. Real property is appraised based on the prevailing current and fair market value where the property is situated. The Local Government Code (LGC) sets the upper limits of the assessment levels, depending on the classification of the real property. The province and its component municipalities determine the corresponding assessment and tax rate for the RPT that accrues to the LGU. However, the LGC has pegged the additional levy for the SEF at 1% of the assessed value. The total RPT collection comprises two portions: that which accrues to the General Fund and the mandatory, additional 1% levy for the SEF. Figure 2 shows the annual SEF collections of the four provinces from 2014–19. 350.00 300.00 I • 250.00 • • • 200.00 • 150.00 • • 100.00 • a • • • • a 50.00 • • • • I 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - ALBAY - CAMARINES NORTE - SORSOGON - NEGROSOCCIDENTAL 10 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 2: SEF Collections Figure 3, which compares the RPT collections that accrue to the General Fund and the amount earmarked for the SEF, shows that SEF collections are generally higher than the RPT itself. This is because the LGC allows LGUs, through their respective councils to set both the market value assessment levels for real properties and their tax rate provided they do not go beyond the upper limits set by law). LGUs are required to collect no less than 1% of the assessed value of real property as an additional levy for the SEF. 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 • • a 50.00 r C • ~ I • . • • • • • • • 0.00 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - NEGROSOCCIDENTAL 68.00 68.52 73.18 101.84 86.13 102.78 - SORSOGON 14.40 10.58 12.43 14.86 15.61 17.35 - CAMARINES NORTE 12.27 14.72 20.44 18.41 22.52 25.94 - ALBAY 34.09 42.42 30.14 33.68 50.54 51.00 - ALBAY - CAMARINES NORTE - SORSOGON - NEGROSOCCIDENTAL 11 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 3: Comparative RPT collections for GF vs. SEF Table 3 shows the year-on-year breakdown of RPT collections that goes into the General Fund and the SEF in the provinces included in this study: Table 3: Breakdown of RPT Collections: General Fund and SEF 100.00% 80.00% 60.00% 40.00% 20.00% 0.00% ALBAY CAMARINES NEG ROS SORSOGON NORTE OCCIDENTAL ------------------------------- GENERAL FUND - CPHP, millions> PROVINCE I 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 ALBAY 28.81 36.45 27.57 29.49 31.41 24.25 CAMARINES NORTE 8.17 9.92 13.78 12.63 15.80 10.88 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 47.6 47.96 51.23 41.12 54.94 53.38 SORSOGON 10.33 7.39 8.77 10.19 10.25 11.80 -------~----------------------- SPECIAL EDUCATION FUND - CPHP, millions> PROVINCE ALBAY 34.09 42.42 30.14 33.68 50.54 51.00 CAMARINES NORTE 12.27 14.72 20.44 18.41 22.52 25.94 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 68.00 68.52 73.18 101.84 86.13 102.78 SORSOGON 14.40 10.58 12.43 14.86 15.61 17.35 I PROVINCE 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 12 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) On SEF Collections and Expenditures Table 4 summarizes SEF collections and expenditures over the six-year study period: Table 4: SEF Collections vs. SEF Expenditures (2014–19) SEF Expenditures In contrast to the fairly consistent upward trajectory of SEF collections shown earlier in Figure 2, expenditures levels vary, year-on-year, as shown in Figure 4. Figure 4: Comparative SEF Expenditures There was a notable spike in SEF expenditures in 2016. This was because special education funds were allocated to supplement funds from the national government for senior high school (grades 11 and 12), and particularly for laboratories, workshops, equipment, and materials. SEF COLLECTIONS - (PHP, millions) SEF EXPENDITURES - (PHP, millions) PROVINCE 2014 2015 2016 2201 7 2201 8 2019 2014 I 20 1 s I 201 6 I 201 7 ALBAY 34.09 42.42 CAMARINES NORTE 12.27 14.72 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 14.40 10.58 SORSOGON 68.00 68.52 250.00 200.00 150.00 100.00 50.00 ..... NEGROSOCCIDENTAL ..... SORSOGON ..... CAMARINES NORTE ..... ALBAY 2014 59.71 6.56 7.84 28.87 30.14 20.44 12.43 73.18 2015 49.42 10.49 16.93 18.25 ..... ALBAY ..... CAMARINES NORTE 33.68 50.54 51.00 28.87 18.25 60.43 37.63 18.41 22.52 25.94 7.84 66.93 19.76 11.33 14.86 15.61 17.35 6.56 10.49 11.05 9.09 101.84 86.13 102.78 59.71 49.42 77.19 47.76 2016 2017 2018 2019 77.19 47.76 72.86 137.74 11.05 9.09 8.34 12.22 19.76 11.33 27.13 23.26 60.43 37.63 28.22 43.24 ..... SORSOGON ..... NEGROSOCCJOENTAL 2018 [ 2019 I 28.22 43.24 27.13 23.26 8.34 12.22 72.86 137.74 13 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) In 2017, SEF spending for personal services, maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE), and capital outlays declined. Figures 5, 6, 7, 8, 9, and 10 show the comparative breakdown of SEF collections and expenditures for 2014, 2015, 2016, 2017, 2018, and 2019, respectively. Figure 6: 2015 Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures Figure 5: 2014 Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures ■ ■ ■ ■ 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Collections Expenditures 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 Collections Expenditures ALBAY ALBAY 34.09 28.87 ALBAY ALBAY 42.42 18.25 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 12.27 7.84 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 14.72 16.93 SORSOGON SORSOGON 14.40 6.56 SORSOGON SORSOGON 10.58 10.49 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 68.00 59.71 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 68.52 49.42 14 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 7: 2016 Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures Figure 8: 2017 Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures 80.00 , / 70.00 / ,,----------------- 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 ■ Collections ■ Expenditures ■ ■ 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 40.00 20.00 0.00 Collections Expenditures ALBAY ALBAY 30.14 60.43 ALBAY ALBAY 33.68 37.63 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 20.44 19.76 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 18.41 11.33 SORSOGON SORSOGON 12.43 11.05 SORSOGON SORSOGON 14.86 9.09 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 73.18 77.19 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 101.84 47.76 15 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 9: 2018 Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures Figure 10: 2019 Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures ■ ■ 90.00 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 ■ Collections ■ Expenditures 140.00 120.00 100.00 80.00 60.00 ✓ /l 40.00 / ,,,,-I 20.00 0.00 Collections Expenditures ALBAY ALBAY 50.54 28.22 ALBAY ALBAY 51.00 43.24 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 22.52 27.13 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 25.94 23.26 SORSOGON SORSOGON 15.61 8.34 SORSOGON SORSOGON 17.35 12.22 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 86.13 72.86 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 102.78 137.74 16 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Being a special use fund, all unutilized fund balances of the SEF are carried on to the next year’s budget cycle. It can either be a part of the annual budget or as a supplemental budget. It is not uncommon for the LSBs to be approving several supplemental budgets for the SEF over a given year whenever additional collections come in. On a year-on-year basis, as can be seen in Figure 11, SEF utilization has an uneven trend. There are some years wherein the expenditures far exceed that of the collections. The same also shows a general trend of either overspending or underspending among the four provinces. This can be attributed to the time it takes to complete infrastructure projects that results into multi-year spending. Likewise, LSBs usually allocate unused funds from previous year’s collection for the next year in the form of supplemental budgets. Figure 12 is the cumulative 5-year SEF collections and expenditure of the provinces that were studied, while Figure 13 is the cumulative percentage of SEF utilization. Figure 11: SEF Utilization (2014-2019) 200% 150% 100% 50% 0% 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 - NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 151% 87% 68% 76% 55% 89% - SORSOGON 120% 62% 84% 74% 58% 68% - CAMARINES NORTE 211% 53% 83% 107% 50% 93% - ALBAY 150% 68% 61% 179% 74% 90% 17 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 12: 5-year Cumulative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures Figure 13: Cumulative SEF Percentage Utilization (2014-2019) Except for the Province of Sorsogon with a cumulative utilization rate of 68% over the six-year period, the other study provinces were relatively high at between 89-93%. Correlating this to national data for all provinces for the years 2014-2018, Table 5 and Figure 14 shows a consistent underutilization of the SEF, averaging at 62.12% average utilization. 600.00 / 500.00 ~--------------- 400.00 300.00 200.00 100.00 0.00 ■ Collections ■ Expenditures 100.00 , / 90.00 / _,, 80.00 70.00 60.00 50.00 40.00 30.00 20.00 10.00 0.00 ALBAY ALBAY 241.87 216.64 ALBAY CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 114.30 106.24 CAMARINES NORTE SORSOGON SORSOGON 85.24 57.75 SORSOGON NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 500.45 444.67 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 18 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Part of this underutilization could be attributed to the SEF budget cycle. The budget of the next fiscal year is based on current year collection, part of which are based on estimated collections for the second semester of the year. The other part are the budgetary allocation items which remain unobligated at the end of the fiscal year. These unobligated budget items are found mostly in the MOOE. Likewise, there were also expenditure items where the allocation far exceeded the obligation cost by as much as 75% Table 5: Total 5-year SEF Utilization Rate for Provinces Figure 14: Comparative SEF Collections vs. Expenditures for All Provinces YEAR 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 RECEIPTS 3,757,769, 194.08 3,956,576,247.61 4,326,524,006.42 5,509,951,306.65 5,808,866,070.81 6,000,000,000.00 / s,ooo,ooo,000.00 4,000,000,000.00 3,000,000,000.00 2,ooo,ooo,000.00 1,ooo,ooo,000.00 0.00 2014 I ■ Receipts 3,757,769 ■ Expenditures 2,855,673 EXPENDITURES SEF UTILIZATION 2,855,673,480.63 76.00% 2,818,070,490.83 71.20% 2,631,454,762.67 60.80% 2,934,662,956.01 53.30% 3,153,776,028.64 54.30% 2015 2016 2017 2018 I I I I 3,956,576 4,326,524 5,509,951 5,808,866 2,818,070 2,631,454 2,934,662 3,153,776 54.3% 19 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) The study attempted to look further across LGU levels to determine SEF spending patterns. Table 6 on the 2018 SEF Receipts and Expenditures shows that the trend on underspending can also be found in cities and municipalities. Table 6: Comparative SEF Utilization Across Provinces, Cities and Municipalities for 2018 A cursory study of Figure 15 also reveals that cities are collecting more from the SEF than the provinces and municipalities put together. This may be attributed largely to the fact that residential, commercial and industrial real properties have a higher market value than agricultural lands. Likewise, the density of residential, commercial and industrial real properties are found more in metropolitan cities, compared to the provinces and municipalities put together. Figure 15: LGU Level Share in RPT Collection (2018) Notwithstanding that residential, commercial and industrial real properties have a lower threshold in terms of the maximum assessed value that can be imposed by an LGU, these have an intrinsically higher market valuation than agricultural, forest and mineral lands. In terms of SEF utilization across LGU levels, the expenditure patterns are consistent with the collections, with cities taking the biggest share, compared to its counterparts in the provinces and municipalities as shown by Figure 16. LGU UNIT PROVINCE CITY MUNICIPALITY TOTAL/AVE. RECEIPTS 5,808.87 20,868.15 5,851.27 32,528.28 MUNICIPALITY (18%) % TO TOTAL RECEIPTS EXPENDITURES 18% 3153.78 64% 12,935.81 18% 3775.91 100% 19,865.40 PROVINCE / (18%) %TO TOTAL EXPENDITURES 16% 65% 19% 100% UTILIZATION 62.0% 64.5% 61.1% 20 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 17 likewise shows a pattern of underspending across LGU levels, but with the provinces having the lowest SEF utilization rate of 54.3%. Figure 16: LGU Level Share in SEF Utilization Figure 17: Comparative SEF Utilization Across LGU Levels (2018) MUNICIPALITY (19%) PROVINCE / (16%) 66% / / 64% / /---------------- 62% , / 60% / /--------- 58% 56% 54% 52% 50% 48% PROVINCE CITY MUNICIPALITY 21 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) SEF and Local Incomes and Expenditures Compared to the provinces’ tax revenues and the internal revenue allotment (IRA), SEF collections are barely comparable, as shown in Figures 18 and 19, respectively. Figure 18: Aggregated SEF vs. Local Income (2014-2019) Figure 19: Aggregated SEF vs. IRA (2014-2019) 1200.00 . / 500.00 /~ ,. ----------------- 800.00 600.00 400.00 200.00 0.00 ■ SEF ■ Total Tax Revenue 20,000.00 15,000.00 10,000.00 5000.00 0.00 ■ SEF ■ IRA ALBAY ALBAY 241.87 694.32 ALBAY ALBAY 241.87 8,327.99 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 114.30 369.34 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 114.30 5,510.65 SORSOGON SORSOGON 85.24 178.52 SORSOGON SORSOGON 85.24 6,324.13 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 500.45 1,002.32 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 500.45 16,159.77 22 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) LGU Spending on Education and Other Revenue Streams Apart from the SEF, the LGUs also appropriate amounts for education-related programs, projects and activities from the General Fund. These PPAs, however, are more focused on local scholarship programs, funding for local colleges, and technical and vocational training programs. These are mostly expenditure items that do not fall within those allowed under the SEF. Figure 20 shows an almost one-is-to-one correlation between the amounts provinces spend from the SEF and that from its general fund for education. Figure 20: Cumulative SEF vs. LGU Education Spending (2014-2019) Apart from the General Fund, provinces also utilize subsidies from other trust funds, such as its share from the Philippine Charity Sweepstakes Office’s (PCSO) operations of lotto and small town lottery and from Philippine Amusement and Gaming Corporation, for identified education-related programs. SEF spending accounts only for between 1% to 3% of total expenditure of the provinces. Figure 21 shows the cumulative SEF spending as a portion of total expenditures. The SEF is very small, and if compared to the entire expenditures, it is in fact almost negligible and cannot be considered a major fund source for education. ■ ■ 400.00 350.00 ,,, / 300.00 / /---------------- 250.00 / ~ 200.00 / / -- 150.00 / /1 100.00 50.00 ALBAY ALBAY SEF 173.40 LGU Educ. Exp. 237.85 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 82.98 64.57 SORSOGON SORSOGON 45.53 45.35 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 306.93 375.56 PROVINCE AMOUNT 23 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Data would validate that the SEF is just a supplemental fund, and cannot replace the actual budgetary allocation by the DepEd to public schools. Table 7: 2021 Indicative SEF Budgets Figure 21: SEF vs. Total Expenditure Indicative SEF Budgets for 2021 In preparation for the 2021 SEF planning cycle, the finance cluster of the provincial governments of the Cohort 1 provinces have released the indicative budget for the coming year, as follows: 18,000.00 . / 16,000.00 / ,---------------- 14,000.00 12,000.00 10,000.00 8,000.00 4000.00 2000.00 ■ SEF Expenditures ALBAY ALBAY 216.64 CAMARINES NORTE CAMARINES NORTE 106.24 SORSOGON SORSOGON 57.75 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL NEGROS OCCIDENTAL 444.67 ■ Total Operatlnq Expenditures 6,515.20 5,230.27 5102.35 14,019.97 ALBAY PHP 44,000,000.00 CAMARINES NORTE PHP 30,000,000.00 SORSOGON PHP 17,000,000.00 NEGROS OCCIDENTAL PHP 98,500,000.00 24 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) SEF UTILIZATION AND PRIORITIES The baseline study shows that at least 86% of SEF spending of Cohort 1 provinces comprise of MOOE, while the shares of capital outlay and personal services are 9% and 5% respectively. This is illustrated by Figure 22. Figure 22: SEF Utilization Profile of Cohort 1 Provinces Figure 23: Profile of Capital Outlay Priorities Figures 23 and 24, further breaks down the expenditure priorities for capital outlay and maintenance and other operating expenses, respectively. CAPITAL / OUTLAY (9%) PERSONAL SERVICES (5%) CONSTRUCTION _... IN PROGRESS ...-- (15%) OTHER - EQUIPMENT (3%) """LAND " (3%) ' WATER SUPPLY ' (3%) OTHER STRUCTURES (0%) 25 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) In terms of capital outlay, the priority expenditure areas are procurement of IT equipment and software, construction of school buildings, and acquisition of office equipment. On the other hand, when it comes to MOOE, the biggest share of the expenditure pie goes to sports and donations that comprises 88% of the aggregated MOOE expenditures. Followed by a far third of training and scholarships. It should be pointed out, however, that aggregating the data of Cohort 1 provinces would highlight the disparities in SEF collections and expenditures. The expenditures of smaller provinces would barely reflect into the over-all expenditure pattern of all provinces put together. Figure 24: SEF MOOE Expenditure Profile of Cohort 1 Provinces To validate the findings of the expenditure patterns of the study areas, the other provinces were asked to identify at least five priority SEF expenditure areas in the last five years. Figure 25, identified the top five priority areas as: (1) sports activities; (2) repair and maintenance of school buildings including provision of water systems, (3) IT equipment and services; (4) books, workbooks and textbooks, and (5) salaries and wages of locally-hired teachers. TRAVEL (0%) / ~SUPPLIES --- (0%) - R&M - SCHOOL BUILDINGS (2%) - SCHOLARSHIPS (2%) TRAINING - (4%) 26 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) The expenditure priority areas indicate that, except for sports activities, provinces are inclined to allocate more funds from the SEF to the hard infrastructure and durable equipment, together with salaries and wages for locally-hired teachers. Figure 25: Priority Expenditure Areas for Provincial SEF Education Key Stage Priority The Department of Education has identified the K to 3 grades as the most crucial stage of education. It is as this level that the base for literacy and numeracy skills are formed, as well as those of social and inquiry skills. Among the five key stages of education, provincial governments have identified primary grades 1 to 3 as the highest priority in terms of SEF funding. However, kindergarten, which is also an integral part of Key stage 1, gets the least priority in favor of the intermediate Grades 4 to 6 and even high school and senior high school, as shown in Figure 26. School sports/activities 94% Repair and maintenance of school buildings 91 % I.T. equipment and services 72% Books, workbooks and textbooks 44% Salaries of locally-hired teachers 38% Laboratory, technical and similar apparatus 34% Construction of schoolbuildings 34% Salaries and wages of utility personnel and security... - 13% Salaries and wages of utility personnel and security M00Eof public schools - 13% Support to parent cooperatives - 6% Counterpart funds for the CPD of ECCD service providers ■ 3% Provision of facilities for the conduct of the ECCD... ■ 3% Salaries/allowancesof locally-hired child development... ■ 0% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90% 100% 27 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) K to 3 and MTB-MLE Spending The rapid assessment conducted on both provinces and their component municipalities show that among the key education levels, the primary grades 1 to 3 are given the highest priority. However, the baseline studies on the Cohort 1 provinces expenditures barely reflects the spending for both K to 3 and Mother Tongue-Based Multi-Lingual Education, as shown in Figures 27 and 28, respectively. Figure 26: SEF Priority Per Education Key Stage Figure 27: Aggregate SEF Spending on Kindergarten 25% , / 20% / /l 15% / ~ 10% 5% 0% EARLY CHILDHOOD CARE AND DEVELOPMENT PRIMARY GRADES INTERMEDIATE HIGH SCHOOL KINDERGARTEN - DESK, CHAIRS, / AND FIXTURES 10.8%) SENIOR HIGH SCHOOL 28 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Up to the limitation of the data that could be disaggregated from the SEF utilization reports during the periods covered by the study, it would show that expenditures of Cohort 1 provinces in both kindergarten, and the Mother Tongue￾Based Multi-Lingual Education MTB-MLE account for less than one percent of aggregated MOOE spending. While it could be a function of reporting, actual spending for kindergarten and MTB-MLE programs could not be found in the SEF expenditure data, except for one province. Neither were there programs identified for early grades learning. Membership to the Local School Board Provincial School Boards are generally compliant with the provisions of the Local Government Code on the membership of the LSB, as shown in Figure 29. This is, however, with the exception of the representation of the SK. Figure 28: Cohort 1 Provinces’ Spending on MTB-MLE Materials (K-1) MTB-MLE MATERIALS / CK-T0-1 > (0.32%} 29 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) The rapid appraisal revealed that some provinces have actually expanded the membership of the board. This was done through the approval of an LSB resolution, an executive order from the Office of the Governor, or a resolution by the Sangguniang Panlalawigan. The additional members include key provincial functionaries from the local finance committee such as the planning and development and budget officers and the accountant. In some cases, representatives from education-based or related NGOs and CSOs and the business sector were invited to be part of the PSB. Frequency of PSB Meetings The LGC mandates Local School Boards to meet once a month, or more often, as the need arises. Legal mandates, notwithstanding, Figure 30 shows that more LGUs held their meetings on a quarterly basis, rather than monthly. Figure 29: Compliance with Local School Board Membership Non-academic personnel rep 93% Teacher's Org. Rep 93% PTA federation Rep 100% SK Rep 83% Provincial Treasurer 97% Chair SP EducComm 97% DepEd SDS 100% Governor 100% 75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 30 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Preparation of the SEF Budget and the Role of the Provincial School Board In the preparation of the SEF budget, most provinces have been compliant with the provisions of the Local Government Code that the Schools Division Superintendent prepares the budget proposal for the SEF, and is subject to the discussion and approval of the members of the Local School Board, as shown in Figure 31. Figure 30: Frequency of PSB Meetings Figure 31: Responsible Entity for the Preparation of the SEF Budget • Once a month • Every 2 months • Quarterly • Annually • Semi-annually • As the need arises • When need rises • No idea • The Office of the Division Superintendent ... • Through the Office of the Governor ... • SEF' Amount to the members of the Provincial. .. e Municipal LSB/PSDS ... e THE PROVINCIAL GOVERNMENT ... • No data available 31 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) It is worth noting that there are some provinces who have taken the initiative to jointly discuss the SEF budget proposal jointly with the Schools District Superintendent to harmonize the SEF expenditures, with that of the provincial government spending on education from the general fund. Relative to the deliberation of the SEF budget, Figure 32 shows that there is still room for LGUs to expand external partnerships in terms of soliciting proposal from other stakeholders. Figure 32: Role of the LSB in the SEF Budget Deliberation As shown above, the role of the LSB is still very much limited to reviewing the budget proposal submitted by the PSDS, proposing additional allocation items and monitoring the previous year’s expenditures. There is still likewise, a low level of coordination with its municipal counterparts in terms of assistance for unfunded programs and projects. Reviews allocation items proposed by the DepEd SDS Proposes additional allocation items Monitors the expenditures of the previous year's budget Solicits deliverates on proposals for funding from theLSB of the component cities and municipalities Conducts and facilitates multi-sectoral public hearings on the proposed SEF budget 27% 0% 20% 40% 100% 83% 80% 47% 60% 80% 1 00% 32 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Provinces’ Assistance to Municipalities The assistance of provinces to their municipal LSB counterparts in terms of the latter’s programs, projects and activities from the SEF budget can best be described as very minimal as shown in Figure 33. Figure 33: Level of Provincial SEF Assistance to Municipalities Figure 34: Issues on Extending Fund Support to Municipalities The subsequent Figure 34 details the various issues that hold back PSBs from extending support to their component municipalities. Non-Existence of an Appraisal Committee Programs/project proposals submitted are eventually disallowed in audit Unliquidated funds from previous years' support Programs/projects submitted by municipal LSBs not aligned with province's priorities Late submission of requests from municipal LSBs Limited provincial SEF funds Ill - - - - • None • Below25% e 26-50% e 51-75% e 76-100% 0 2 4 6 8 10 12 14 16 33 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 35: Basis of Provincial Support to Municipalities Nevertheless, Figure 35 shows the criteria being considered by provincial LSBs in extending support to the municipalities’ PPAs through the SEF. Key factors are the impact of these PPAs to the achievement of the provincial education goals and alignment to its own priorities. Also being given equal consideration are the number of public schools in the municipality as well as the availability of a counterpart fund by the requesting municipality. On the BE-LCP and the Adoption of the Blended Learning Modalities for the 2020-2021 Academic Year Provincial School Boards had been prompt in realigning the unutilized portion of the SEF budgets for 2021, following the directive of the Department of Education for all public schools, District Offices, Division Offices and Regional Offices to prepare their respective Basic Education Learning Continuity Plans for adoption in the coming academic year 2020-2021. Figure 36 shows that the priority expenditure areas of the realigned SEF budget, based on the approved BE-LCP presented by the Schools Division Office, were the purchase of printing machines and equipment to be used by schools, and printing of modules, worksheets and materials to be used for the coming school year. Priority was also given to the purchase of laptops and printers to be used by the. The repair Alignment with the identified PSB program priorities Based on the number of public elementary and high schools within the municipaliy/ies to be assisted Income class of the requesting municipality/ies Impact of the program/project to the over-all education priorities of the provincial government Proportion of the requested counterpart amount to the total project cost Total Allocation of School from the DepEd ~ 6% Validation Report ■ 3% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 56% 56% 56% 50% 60% 34 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) and rehabilitation of water and sanitation facilities in schools was also identified as a priority area. Figure 36: Priorities of Provinces on the Realigned 2020 SEF Budget Blended learning modalities via distance education is still untried and untested insofar as basic education is concerned. Likewise, it will require a huge infusion of funds that government, both national and local, do not have. The realigned SEF budgets of the provinces for 2020 barely account for an average 20% of the actual cost requirements to fully implement the localized and contextualized BE-LCP. The DepEd likewise, has only been able to provide for 25% of the fund requirements. This leaves an approximately 55% portion of the BE-LCP unfunded. Data in Figure 37 shows that the provinces definitely need the help of the national government in funding its priority programs of education. Printing of modules, worksheets and other materials for offline learning Purchase of printing machines and equipment for schools Provision for wiifi/internet connection Purchase of laptops and printers for teachers Provision of facilities and equipment to improve public wifi access Repair of classrooms to ensure adequate ventilatiioin Purchase of books and other learning materials Payment for salaries and wages of locally-hired teachers Purchase of radios and other equipment Purchase of tablets, smartphones and other learning gadgets for students Purchase of Personal Protective Equipmennt Support for transportation and mobility of baranngay officials who shall collect and deliver learning modules Hiring and payment of parent/community tutors assisting in the administration of self-learning modules Production and distribution of IEC collateral materials to promote minimum health standards - ■ 0 5 10 15 20 25 30 35 35 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 37: On the need for national government assistance Adapting to the New Normal in Education Until the basic education system can return to face-to-face instructions, the PSBs have identified the expenditure areas that should be given priority for the 2021 SEF to better address the needs of both learners and teachers under the blended learning modalities. The printing of modules, worksheets and other materials for the learners remain the top priority expenditure for education, followed purchase of printing machines and equipment for schools. Also considered as priorities are provision of facilities and equipment to improve access to public wi-fi as well as the rehabilitation of WASH facilities in schools. This is followed closely by the provision of wi-fi/internet connection in schools as well as purchase of laptops and printers for teachers. Provinces have also seen the need to provide funds for the mobility of barangay officials who shall be assisting in the distribution and retrieval of learning materials, as well as hiring of community tutors, para-teachers and learning facilitators to assist in administering the self-learning modules to the learners. Does the province need the assistance of the national government in funding its priority programs for education? 20 responses ■ No. The SEF budget is sufficient ■ No. The SEF budget is sufficient, and the provincial government also allocates a portion from the General Fund for education-related prioirity programs and ... ■ Yes . The SEF collections are not sufficient to fund the priority education-related programs and projects identified by the provincial government NA 36 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Figure 38 summarizes the identified priority expenditure areas. Figure 38: Priority Expenditure Areas while Under Blended Learning Modalities Other priority expenditure areas identified include: • Establishment of local radio broadcast stations and construction of radio transmitters. • Putting up of radio internet TV stations for Radio Eskwela. • Development of an offline application where students may download, then access their modules offline. • Provision of educational assistance for indigent learners. Cooperation of the different sectors was also seen as a crucial element to effectively deliver education under the various blended learning modalities. In as much as the successful implementation of the blended learning modality will also depend on a whole of society and whole of government approach, the provincial governments and their respective school boards have turned to the private sector for support. Printing of modules, worksheets anf other materials .. . Purchase of printing machines and equipment for .. . Provision for wifi/intemet connection Purchase of laptops and printers for teachers Provision of facilities and equipment to improve .. . Repair of classrooms to ensure adequate ventilation Purchase of books and other learning materials Payment for salaries and wages of locally-hired .. . Putchase of radios and other equipment Purchase of tablets, smartphones and other ... Purchase of Personal Protective Equipment Support for transportation and mobility of barangay .. . Hiring and payment of parent/community tutors .. . Production and distribution of IEC collarteral... 50% 50% 50% 47% 44% 44% 41% 38% 31% 75% 72% 69% 97% 94% 0% 10% 20% 30% 40% 50% 60% 70% 80% 90%100% 37 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) The identified private sector partners include the following: • Donors for personal protective equipment for teachers and learners, medical supplies as well as disinfectants and disinfecting materials; • Local television and radio stations as well as cable companies for allocation of air time for over-the-air lessons; • Telecommunications companies for additional cell sites and improved mobile signal and the development of public wi-fi spaces; • Donors for laptops, tablets, smartphones and other equipment for online and offline learning; • NGOs to help out in preparation for the new normal • Mobilization of youth groups, parents and provincial scholars as community tutors. • Open partnerships with potential donors. On the other hand, the provincial school boards have likewise identified the areas of collaboration with national government agencies as follows: • PNP and the military for the delivery of learning materials, particularly in conflict areas; • DICT for the free public wi-fi; • NTC for the grant of permits to establish local radio stations; • Hiring/honorarium for para-teachers and community tutors • Expansion of techno-hubs; • DepEd for the development of centralized apps, clear directives, regular coordination with LGUs, and • The NPC and electric companies and cooperative to ensure constant/stable power supply. In anticipation for the opening of classes on October 5, 2020, most of the provinces will be adopting a strategy of blended learning that emphasizes on the collaboration between the teachers and parents or guardians, wherein the latter are expected to play a more active role in the day-by-day learning process of their children, as shown in Figure 39. Provinces were unanimous that there cannot yet be a full-time face-to face instruction, although there were a few, in low risk areas, who were amendable to limited face-to-face learning at least once or twice a week to allow to teachers to further explain the lessons and check on the learners’ progress. Unlike in its urban counterparts in the cities, provinces and municipalities are more inclined towards offline learning through the use of modules, worksheets and guidebooks as well as over-the-air instruction through television and radio. 38 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) In the absence of a stable internet signal and connection, as well as the availability of free public wi-fi, purely online and virtual classroom instruction is not very much feasible in provinces and municipalities outside of the metropolitan centers. Figure 39: Strategies for the Delivery of Education under Covid-19 Pandemic and New Normal Collaboration of teacher and parenUguardian instructions Distance learning through the use of modules, worksheets and guidebooks ParenUguardian supervised home schooling Offline blended learning through the use of mass media (e.g. radio and/or television) and modules, worksheet and guidebooks Mix of online and offline learning Blended Learning - online classroom for students with gadgets and access to interneUmobile date/wifi; and offline guided learning using printed modules ... Limited Face-to-Face learning - once or twice a week Online classes Full-time Face-to-Face learning 0.00% 10.00% 20.00% 30.00% 40.00% 50.00% 60.00% 70.00% 39 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) It has been over 52 years since the passage of the SEF Law, and 30 from the time the Local Government Code took effect. Over the years, the educational climate and environment have changed a lot. The onset of the COVID-19 pandemic has created a situation wherein even the delivery of education cannot be done in the traditional face-to-face manner. To ensure that the entire basic education is able to function seamlessly under a blended learning modality, the entire government and society must band together to ensure that our learners care given the necessary community interventions. Community intervention is also necessary to help young learners develop the skill for independent learning in order for them to cope with a totally new and almost untried modalities. The implementation of the blended learning modalities, which is to be piloted for this School Year 2020 – 2021, could serve as a foundation for future incidences of prolonged interruption of schooling, and where face-to-face classes are not possible due to natural and man-made disasters, calamities and other situations. Nevertheless, as shown by the current situation in education, a whole-of-government, whole-of-nation, whole-of-community approach is necessary. 03RECOMMENDATIONS P O W E R T O I N F U E N C E HIGH LOW HIGH LOW 40 LEADING PARTNERSHIPS AND PARTICIPATION FOR LEARNING, EDUCATION, AND DEVELOPMENT (LPP-LED) Table 8 identifies the stakeholder map to strengthen the education system, while mobilizing the various players to contribute to its advancement. Table 8: Stakeholders Map for Local Education • National Gov't Agencies (e.g. DILG, DBM> • Local Sanggunian • Sangguniang Kabataan • Local chief executives • LGU functionaries