Addressing the Philippines’ Education Crisis

The Philippines is in the grip of a severe education crisis, one that threatens its economic future and the promise of its young, vibrant workforce. To address the education crisis, policymakers ought to take urgent steps to increase spending in the sector and give local governments more autonomy.

The hard reality hit Philippine policymakers in 2018, when the Philippines first participated in the Programme for International Student Assessment (PISA). Among 79 participating countries, Filipino students (specifically 15-year-olds) ranked dead last in reading and second-to-last in math and science. This was followed by the Southeast Asia Primary Learning Metrics (SEA-PLM), which showed that a whopping 9 in 10 Grade 5 Filipino students could not understand what they were reading. The 2022 PISA results were also discouraging.

Latest data show that education spending in the Philippines amounts to just 3.6 per cent of GDP, lower than the United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) recommendation of 4-6 per cent. To meet this target, the government should establish a multi-year roadmap with clear spending targets, tied to measurable improvements in learning outcomes.

The Philippine Constitution mandates that education should be assigned the “highest budgetary priority” yearly. But the education budget is shared by all three education-related agencies, namely the Department of Education (elementary and high school), the Commission on Higher Education (tertiary and graduate education), and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA, for technical-vocational education). Among these, the highest budgetary priority should go to the Department of Education where most of the fundamental education problems lie.

Reforming spending is essential, but addressing governance issues is equally crucial to ensuring resources are used effectively.

One major issue is the “trifocalisation” of the Philippine education system since 1991. This has split education-government institutions into the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education, and TESDA.

Although well-meaning, trifocalisation has resulted in fragmentation of the educational system, with the three agencies overly focused on their respective mandates and jurisdictions, and often crafting policies independent of one another. Greater policy coherence can be achieved by a merging of these agencies under the umbrella of an encompassing education department. A gradual merger could be facilitated through an inter-agency task force, with a clear timeline and regular assessments to ensure seamless integration of policies and programmes.

Trifocalisation also promoted an exceedingly centralised bureaucracy in each of the three agencies, and this, in turn, encouraged top-down policies. This is nowhere more apparent than in the Department of Education, where public school teachers and administrators are often left with no choice but to comply with and implement whatever order comes from the central office — with little if any scope for flexibility or organisational innovation at their end.

… a paradigm shift toward decentralisation is worth undertaking (or at least putting on the table), since the decades-long experiment with centralisation — especially in basic education — has clearly failed.

A possible solution is to decentralise education, where local government units (LGUs) are allowed to craft policies tailored to their own needs. But the earlier move to decentralise public health since 1991 provides a cautionary tale. One study showed that health decentralisation in the Philippines allowed LGUs to address local healthcare needs as they aligned with community-specific priorities. However, the uneven capacity of LGUs to deliver health services led to similarly uneven quality of public health services nationwide, with wealthier areas benefiting more than poorer ones.

Similar issues are expected to crop up with a decentralisation of education.  But a paradigm shift toward decentralisation is worth undertaking (or at least putting on the table), since the decades-long experiment with centralisation — especially in basic education — has clearly failed. Crucial here would be extensive capacity-building initiatives, such as partnerships with universities and NGOs, to address disparities in governance and resources across LGUs. Decentralisation can also be piloted in select LGUs with proven capacity to manage local programmes. This would provide a blueprint for nationwide rollout.

Nutrition problems also hold back primary education. The exceedingly high stunting rate in the Philippines (about one-third) is believed to contribute in large part to the poor learning outcomes in schools. To address the education problem, it is necessary to fix the nutrition problem as well. Here, the government must move beyond the usual (and simplistic) school-based feeding programmes and implement instead policies that address food security at its core. The government should also more seriously adopt a “first 1,000 days” approach, focusing on maternal and child health interventions that ensure children are physically and mentally prepared for schooling.

In higher education, tuition fees in public universities and colleges have been subsidised by the government since 2019. But many relatively well-off students are getting an outsize share of the state subsidies. Rather than blanket subsidies, the government should adopt a progressive model that channels greater support to low-income students, paired with incentives for underprivileged students to pursue in-demand fields.

Finally, technical-vocational education in the Philippines remains underdeveloped, with most students concentrated in a handful of courses (like construction, cookery, and driving). They tend to end up in jobs with low value-added (and therefore low incomes).

To fix this, industry councils representing sectors like IT, construction, and green energy could work with TESDA to design courses aligned with labour market needs, ensuring students are trained for high-value jobs. The government could also incentivise companies to offer apprenticeships or on-the-job training, bridging the gap between technical-vocational education and meaningful employment.

The K-12 basic education system should also be overhauled. It is meant to prepare high school students with practical skills for employment. In reality, many employers still prefer to hire college graduates. Reforms to the K-12 curriculum should therefore prioritise skills that make high school graduates employable, including digital literacy, critical thinking, and technical skills suited to emerging industries. Employers should also be actively consulted in curriculum development to ensure that K-12 graduates meet industry standards and expectations.

In conclusion, while the road to fixing the education crisis is long, targeted reforms today — such as decentralisation, enhanced nutrition programmes, and equitable higher education subsidies — can transform the Philippines’ young population into a driving force for sustainable development, and allow the country to reap its demographic dividend.

2024/369