2016年-世界发展银行全球_Assessing_the_Role_Played_by_Local_Government_in_Supporting_Basic_Education_in_the_Philippines_12页_842kb

Summary of the Role of Local Government in Supporting Basic Education in the Philippines

Core Content

This policy note evaluates the role of local governments in supporting basic education in the Philippines, focusing on the extent and effectiveness of their financial contributions. It draws on data from the Philippines Public Expenditure Tracking and Quantitative Service Delivery Study (PETS-QSDS), which examined how local government units (LGUs) allocate and manage education funds.

Main Findings

• Local Government Funding is Small and Inequitable: Local governments contribute a small proportion of overall education funding, with their share declining over time. In 2013, LGUs accounted for only 6% of total public basic education funding, and their per-student funding has also decreased.
• Funding Allocation is Inefficient: A significant portion of LGU education spending is not directly allocated to schools. Only about 58% of the reported LGU education spending was actually spent on schools, with the rest often going to non-educational purposes like teacher allowances or utility payments.
• In-Kind Contributions Dominate: Most of the local government support to schools is in the form of in-kind contributions (goods and services) rather than cash. In 2013–14, in-kind support accounted for 90% of LGU funding for elementary schools and 98% for high schools.
• Regional Disparities: LGU education spending is highly uneven across regions. The National Capital Region (NCR) accounts for over 44% of total local education funding, while poorer regions like Region XII spend significantly less per student.
• Urban-Rural Funding Differences: Rural schools receive more per-student LGU funding compared to urban schools, primarily due to smaller school sizes in rural areas.
• Equity Concerns: LGU funding tends to widen funding inequalities in elementary schools and narrow them in high schools. Poorer students in elementary schools are less likely to receive LGU support, while those in high schools may benefit more.
• Weak Accountability and Transparency: Local school boards (LSBs) often fail to communicate their decisions to schools and do not provide sufficient transparency in fund allocation. Discrepancies were found between LGU-reported spending and actual school-level expenditures.

Key Information

Legal Framework

• The Local Government Code (LGC) of 1991 established LSBs as the main bodies for managing local education funds.
• LSBs are responsible for developing budgets, authorizing fund disbursements, and advising local councils.
• The Special Education Fund (SEF) is the primary source of local education funding, derived from a 1% surcharge on property taxes.

Funding Trends

• Local Government Spending on Education: In 2014, LGUs spent only PHP 13.3 billion on education, which was 5% of their total spending.
• National Government Dominance: The national government remains the primary funder of basic education, with LGUs contributing only a small and declining share.
• Per-Student Funding: LGU per-student funding decreased by over 20% between 2003 and 2013, while national funding increased by 35%.

Inequity in Funding

• Regional Inequity: Poorer regions spend less per student on education, and LGU funding is closely tied to property tax revenue.
• Urban-Rural Disparities: Rural schools receive more per-student support from LGUs, mainly due to smaller school sizes.
• Socioeconomic Disparities: Poorer households tend to send their children to elementary schools with less LGU funding, while high school students from poorer backgrounds may attend schools with higher per-student LGU funding.

Transparency and Accountability Issues

• Inconsistent Reporting: There are significant discrepancies between LGU-reported spending and actual school-level expenditures.
• Limited School Awareness: Many school principals are unaware of how often LSBs meet or how decisions are made.
• Lack of Feedback Mechanisms: Schools and other stakeholders are not given opportunities to provide input on budget decisions.

Policy Recommendations

• Strengthen Monitoring: The national government should enhance its oversight of local SEF surpluses to ensure that funds are used effectively for education.
• Improve Transparency: LGUs should be required to provide more detailed and accurate information on education spending, including how funds are allocated and used at the school level.
• Increase Cash Funding: To improve school flexibility and control over resources, a greater proportion of LGU education funding should be provided in cash rather than in-kind.
• Promote Equity: Efforts should be made to ensure that LGU education funding is distributed more equitably, especially to schools in poorer and rural areas.

Conclusion

While local governments play a role in supporting basic education in the Philippines, their contribution is limited in both magnitude and effectiveness. The study highlights the need for stronger accountability mechanisms, more transparent reporting, and a shift toward cash-based funding to improve the quality and equity of education services.