Decentralizing Public Education to Achieve Quality Education:

Local School Board Development

Rationale
The 10-point Philippine Education Reform Agenda as laid out by President Benigno S.
Aquino III outlines the ambitious targets that the current administration needs to meet by
2016. Participation of local governments in the planning, implementation, and monitoring of
education sector decisions are seen by stakeholders as a key strategy that can be
leveraged to fulfill the reform agenda.
The Local Government Code of 1991 requires LGUs to convene Local School Boards
(LSBs). The LSBs serve as a space for introducing, implementing, and sustaining
improvements in the educational sector through participatory governance, citizen claimholding, knowledge partnerships, and community ownership of quality education
outcomes. The LSBs can be vehicles for improving dialogue and interoperability between
the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Local Government Units (LGUs) on issues
such as teacher recruitment, hiring, curriculum development, and capacity building. LSBs
can also help develop programs that enhances relationship between school, parents, and
other community stakeholders on education. LSBs can also facilitate the crafting of local
school plans which can guide the inputs, mechanisms, outputs, and outcomes of local
education service delivery. Initiatives such as performance measurement through localized
testing, participative planning and budgeting, merit-based selection and hiring of teachers,
and transparency in educational supply acquisition can be implemented. Local school
plans can also be aligned to other DepEd reform programs such as the School Based
Management Reform. Through the LSBs, LGUs, national government agencies, the
community, and citizens are able to identify and own education outcomes collectively. In
the LSBs, LGUs and education stakeholders also share accountability based on local
school participatory plans.
Albeit the LSB provision in the Local Government Code, LGUs still have limited
participation in the education sector reform. Most LSBs in the country are only politically
convened to decide on the Special Education Fund (SEF) utilization. At present, there is no
focused policy and program that will develop capacity of LGUs on reinventing LSBs as well
as advocate for the decentralization of education sector decisions. This absence of a
program has implications on the autonomy, accountability, capacity, and trustworthiness of
LGUs to provide quality local education services.
At the local level, the DepEd maintains schools divisions and districts corresponding to the
three biggest local government units the provinces, cities and municipalities. This topdown set-up has been characterized by centralization and hierarchy resulting to

inefficiency, lack of relevance, and declining education outcomes. The lack of LGU
autonomy on education has contributed to some pervasive problems in the centralized
education service delivery. The problems include 1.) Mismatch between local education
needs and resource allocation; 2.) Persisting distrust between LGUs and division/ district
superintendents on SEF utilization and on interoperability of programs; 3.) Local school
personnel are not able to perform as part of their time are allocated to prepare and submit
reports to the national level; 4.) Inefficient utilization of funds due to bureaucratic
processes and hierarchy; 5.) LSBs and other local education innovations are not
developed because local education personnel waits for memos and legal orders from
the central office.
Research-policy development puzzles
This research aims to foster knowledge on local school board policy and program
development. The inputs of the study shall guide the crafting of a technically-sound and
politically-possible policy or program on enhancing local governance and empowering
LSBs. The following questions shall be addressed by the research:
1.

What are the necessary institutional, economic, and socio-cultural conditions that
need to be met to strengthen LSBs?

2.

What are the capacity needs and challenges that need to be addressed at the local
level for LSBs to flourish as venues for local education governance?

3. What are the incentives and constraints of LGUs, NGAs, citizens, civil society
organizations, and other policy actors on education governance devolution?
3.

Based on documented practices and empirical evidence, how can greater local
autonomy in education governance result into improvement in education outcomes?

4.

What policy instruments and tools are needed to be utilized to guide policy
development in promoting greater autonomy and accountability of LGUs in education
governance?

6.

What are the various policy alternatives that can be formulated to push for
increased devolution of the education sector?

At the level of policy development the following issues can be raised:

1.

What capacity development programs, policies, and projects should be designed

and implemented to enhance local education governance? Which actors need capacity
development?

2.

What are the policy tools and instruments that should be considered to guide policy
and program development on empowering LGUs on education governance?

3.

Given the policy alternatives, what should be the politically-accepted and

technically-sound policy or program design to promote greater autonomy and
accountability of LGUs in education governance?

4.

What steps should be taken by the Coalition for Change (CfC) to broaden support in
empowering and mainstreaming LSBs as venue for good education governance?

Outputs and activities

A.

Stocktaking. Based on documented cases and studies, this policy research make an
inventory of practices, tools, instruments, and frameworks utilized in LSB development.
The inventory process shall also map policy actors, institutions, interests, and
stakeholders in education sector decentralization. The stocktaking report shall provide a
sketch of the policy terrain of local education governance. The report shall also help in
identifying relevant policy problems on LSB development.

B.

Policy briefs. Based on the stocktaking report, a series of policy briefs shall be
written. The policy briefs shall highlight the relevant policy problems on local education
sector governance. The papers shall be disseminated to the public through a focused
panel discussion with stakeholders and partners.

C.

Case study development. This initiative shall select public and private schools, LGU,
and various community groups as case study sites. The case studies shall document
and analyze the practice of LSBs in various communities. Five (5) sites with successful
LSBs shall be documented while another five (5) communities with LSBs at the infancy
stage shall also be selected. The lessons from the case studies shall provide inputs on
the possible policy alternatives and program development opportunities (e.g. capacity

development activities). Training modules can also be developed based on the case
studies.
D.

Pilot of LSB development. Based from the case study reports, this initiative shall
partner with LGUs, schools, and local communities to pilot training modules developed
from the case study reports. Various capacity building workshops shall be organized to
guide the process of LSB development. The LSB members of the selected site/
community shall document their experience in LSB development. They shall also craft
an LSB action plan to put LSB empowerment in the local development agenda.

E.

Policy design and policy alternative identification/ selection. A comprehensive policy

analysis based on the case studies and pilot sites shall provide guidance in the writing
of the policy paper. The paper shall also identify and assess policy alternatives that can
be pursued. It shall also provide recommendations on the content and process of policy
development on local education sector autonomy and LSB development.

F.

Network and coalition dialogues. To get broader support, the initiative shall organize
a series of network meetings with stakeholders. The dialogues aim to publicized the
result of the policy research and seek support on the possible policy and program that
shall be advocated by the Coalition for Change (CfC). The CfC shall reach to the DILG,
DepEd, different leagues of LGUs, and CSOs to mobilize support on LSB policy and
program development.