1. Reducing Disparities in Teacher Provision in the Philippines: Progress and Constraints

2. Outline of Presentation
I. The Teacher Disparity Issue
II. Patterns of Disparities
III. The Action Program
IV. Measuring the Disparities
V. Next Steps

3. I. The Teacher Disparity Issue
In the baseline year ( ):
National average pupil to teacher ratios
Elementary:
Secondary:
But wide disparities among the 170 education divisions:
Elementary: to 59.03
Secondary: to 59.67
Even wider disparities among schools within many divisions
Earlier study found similar disparities in Indonesia
(Nielsen and Somerset, 1992)

4. Education in the Philippines
Ten-year basic cycle: 6 years elementary
4 years secondary
Schools (Public & Private): 42,013 elementary
( ) ,072 secondary
Enrolments (both sectors): M elementary
6.44M secondary
Retention: 67% to Grade 6; 48% to Grade Girls make up 55% of HS graduates
Achievement: In 2003 TIMSS, Philippines ranked 24th among 26 participating countries in Math and Science (Grade 4) and ranked
42nd in Math and 43rd in Science among 46 countries (Grade 8)
Many isolated schools (mountainous areas, small islands)

5. Management of Education
Three-tier administrative structure:
Central Office (Manila)
18 Regional Offices
about 187 Division Offices
Major decisions (budget, curriculum, textbooks) taken centrally. Central office allocates new teaching positions to regions and divisions
Some powers and authorities devolve to local-level managers. Divisional superintendents allocate new teaching positions to schools

6. II. Patterns of Disparities
At divisional level, disparities associated with recent demographic trends. Severest shortages in rapid population-growth areas
At school level, additional influence of political and socio-economic factors are often apparent. Generously-supplied schools tend to have powerful backers (parents, mayors, congressmen). Marginal schools tend to lack an audible local voice.

7. III. The Action Program
Three sequenced initiatives in action program aimed at reducing disparities in teacher provision:
Introduction of Rainbow Spectrum (Early 2002)
Sharper targeting of new teaching positions to shortage divisions and schools (Deployment 2002, 2004 and 2005)
Mandatory transfer of vacant positions from surplus to shortage schools ( from June 2003)

8. Rendering the disparities visible: The Rainbow Spectrum
Pupil to teacher ratio (PTR)
‘Cool’ colours
Blue
Below 25
Relatively generous teacher provision
Sky Blue
25 – 29.99
Green
30 – 34.99
Yellow
35 – 39.99
Close to national average provision
‘Hot’ colours
Gold
40 – 44.99
Relative teacher shortage
Orange
45 – 49.99
Red
50+
Black
No nationally-funded teachers

9. Locally-generated rainbow-spectrum map
(Secondary schools in Quezon Division, 2002)

10. Pupil-Teacher Ratios in Elementary Schools
National Capital Region (NCR), by Congressional District

11. The Rainbow Spectrum
Raised awareness of teacher distribution issues by rendering the disparities visible
Created a set of terms (e.g. red-zone division, blue-zone school) through which debate about disparities could be conducted without recourse to statistics
Built on meanings already associated with colors. ‘Hot’ colors as signifiers of critical or dangerous situations (traffic lights, warning signs)
By ‘clumping’ information, provided useful aid to effective thinking and communication
Gave marginal schools a voice they previously lacked

12. Sharper targeting of new positions
Macro-level: In 2000 (before the project started) red-zone divisions received proportionally double the average national allocation of elementary positions.
In 2002 and 2004, red-zone divisions received proportionally four to five times the average national allocation.
Local level: In 2002, red-zone schools received 76.4% of elementary positions; 71.4% of secondary positions

13. Macro-level targeting:
Central allocation of elementary teaching positions to the divisions in 2000, 2002 and 2004

14. Transfer of vacant positions
Incumbent teachers legislatively protected from non-voluntary transfer; but no legal barriers to transfer of vacant positions.
However:
Transfer proposals frequently meet local opposition, especially from secondary schools and their backers. Teaching positions seen as ‘belonging’ to the school

15. Transfer of vacant positions
Soon after introduction of rainbow spectrum, some local managers spontaneously began transferring vacant positions from cool-zone to hot-zone schools. Often in face of opposition from principals and other local stakeholders
Visual evidence of disparities sufficient to initiate local remedial action – although only in a minority of divisions

16. Transfer of vacant positions
In June 2003 local transfer ceased to be solely a matter for voluntary local action.
Central office issued DepEd Order, initiating formal transfer policy.
Divisions required to transfer vacancies from ‘cool-zone’ to ‘hot-zone’ schools.
Order couched entirely in rainbow spectrum terminology
Impact will be gradual, starting in

17. IV. Measuring the disparities
Rainbow spectrum provides visual mode for representing disparities. Sufficient for most purposes.
But for measuring impact of interventions, a more precise, quantitative measure needed.
The Interquartile Ratio (IQR) preferred to the standard Gini coefficient

18. The Interquartile Ratio (IQR)
The IQR compares the proportion of a scarce resource (teachers) available to the most favored quarter of recipients (pupils) with proportion available to the least-favored quarter
In theory, optimal IQR is 1.00, but in practice, ratios below about 1.30 are difficult to achieve.
Specially-written software calculates IQRs, and prints out message explaining meaning of calculated values.
Local managers have access to software, and have been trained in its utilization

20. IQR calculated at three levels:
Disparities measured
Decision-makers influencing ratio(s)
Overall IQR
Distribution of all teachers (elementary, secondary) among all schools in Republic
Central-level and local-level
Macro-level IQR
Distribution of all teachers (elementary, secondary) among all divisions in Republic
Central-level only
Local-level IQRs
Distribution of teachers (elementary, secondary) among schools in each division
Local (divisional)-level only

21. Teacher Deployment: Three-year impact analysis Elementary schools

22. Teacher Deployment: Three-year impact analysis. Secondary Schools

24. But among secondary schools, disparities have persisted
Among elementary schools, local-level disparities substantially reduced since (baseline year).
Only 4 divisions with local-level IQRs below 1.30 (target level) in baseline year; 12 in
35 divisions with IQRs above 2.00 in baseline year; only 10 in
But among secondary schools, disparities have persisted
Only 2 divisions with IQRs below 1.30 (target level) in baseline year; still only 2 in
16 divisions with IQRs above the high level of 3.00 in baseline year; still 15 in

26. Three possible reasons why secondary schools less responsive to intervention measures than elementary schools:
1. Status and influence. Secondary schools more powerful institutions; better able to lobby for additional teachers or resist pressures for staff reductions
2. Administrative complexities. Secondary transfers more complex, because they involve budget changes. Rigidities may constrain moves toward more-equitable deployment
(continued)

27. Continued:
3. Enrolment growth. Grade 1 enrolment campaign in mid-1990s currently generating ‘enrolment wave’ in secondary schools: enrolments up 14.5% since baseline year (elementary level, only 1.1%).
Enrolment growth most rapid in red-zone divisions and red-zone schools.
Hence, despite sharp targeting of new positions, disparities have tended to persist.

28. IV. Next steps
Further analysis of reasons for high and persistent IQRs, specially at the secondary level
Secondary enrolment wave likely to peter out in next 1-2 years. Impact on disparities in teacher provision will provide evidence as to which of the three suggested reasons:
Status and influence
Administrative rigidities
Enrolment growth
contributes most to the currently wide disparities in secondary teacher provision
Continues monitoring of teacher deployment

29. Thank you!