Documente Academic
Documente Profesional
Documente Cultură
Contents
I. Key Issues
1.1) Teacher education and competence: Pre-service
Proliferation of low quality teacher education institutions
Low quality intakes into teacher education
Most graduates from TEIs do not pass the licensing test
Teacher education graduates are weak in subject matter content
Lower quality of teacher graduates in elementary education teaching
programs
1.2) Relationship between teachers supply from training programs and school
needs
Shortage of teachers trained in mathematics and science, particularly in
physics and chemistry
Teachers teaching subjects for which they are not prepared
A deficient in-service program
1.3) Teacher allocation and teacher management
Teacher distribution problems: Potential shortfalls in remote poor areas, and
teacher surplus in some populated schools
Institutional obstacles to teacher management: The staffing rule and the
Magna Carta
II. Accomplishments with regard the EDCOM recommendations
2.1) Background:
(EDCOM)
I. Key Issues
1.1) Teacher education and competence: Pre-Service
Proliferation of low quality teacher education institutions
Pre-service training in the Philippines is provided by Teacher Education
Institutions coordinated by the Commission for Higher Education (CHED). Teacher
Education Institutions (TEIs) have proliferated in recent years. Between 1996 and
1998, the number of TEIs nationwide rose from 750 to 815. About 70 percent of these
are private. This situation has resulted in the opening of low-quality programs that do
not meet minimum standards of accreditation. Of the 815 TEIs, only 27 percent
comply with the minimum standards established by CHED for Teacher Education.
Less that 20 percent of these institutions are availed by the national accreditation
system.3 The general lack of rationalization and low standards of the higher education
system typically affect the teacher education institutions, both in the public and the
private sector.4
The enrollment of students in public and private TEIs is equivalent. In 19961997, 49.9 percent of the students were enrolled in public institutions and 50.1 percent
were enrolled in private institutions. Female students comprise the majority both in
public (76 percent) and in private (80 percent) teacher institutions (CHED 1997)5.
There are 301,148 students enrolled in education, one of the three professional
disciplines with the highest enrollments, as high as engineering and just after business
1
Between 1985 and 1995, teachers compensation increased four-fold, and from then to 1998 they are
expected to raise another 35%. The last increased was in November, 1997, when the beginning monthly
salary was raised from 6,238 pesos to 9,499 pesos.
2
Nebres (1998) Why Cant We Attract Good Teachers? CEO 3rd Roundtable Discussion, Manila.
3
The national accreditation system is voluntary, that is, institutions chose to participate or not. The system
is lead by four independent agencies. Federation of Accrediting Associations of the Philippines, (1997),
Teacher Education Council, (1998).
4
From 750 institutions in 1996, 70% were private.
5
Commission of Higher Education (1997d) Statistical Bulletin. Academic year 1996-1997.
The Teacher Professionalization Law (R.A. 7836) reduced the number of units of the professional
component of teacher education from 18 to 10 units, this measure was severely objected by the Philippine
Association for Teacher Education (PAFTE) at the Congressional hearings for the law, Teacher Education
Council (1998). We are not aware of its implementation yet.
7
Interview with Pre-Service Education Specialist, PROBE.
8
9
1.2) Relationship between teachers supply from training programs and school
needs
Shortage of teachers trained in mathematics and science, particularly in
physics and chemistry
Of those prospective teachers enrolled in BSE degrees, only 1.5 percent chose the
majors of mathematics and science. There are four BSE science programs (general
science, biology, chemistry and physics) and a single mathematics program. The
majority of universities focus on non-science BSE subjects and mathematics. The only
science major which is commonly offered in BSE programs is general science, which
prepares the teacher for the first year high school science curriculum. Programs which
prepare teachers for specialized science (biology, physics and chemistry, taught in
second, third and four school years) are only taught in a few institutions, in general in
the Centers of Excellence. (Somerset et al. 1998). This results in a general shortage of
teachers in priority areas such as mathematics and sciences, and within sciences,
especially in the specialization majors of physics and chemistry.
Teachers teaching subjects for which they are not prepared
A 1992 survey conducted by DECS showed that 45 percent of teachers teaching
mathematics were non-specialists. The proportions were even worse for science
teachers: 60 percent of general science teachers, 59 percent of biology teachers, 79
percent of biology teachers and 82 percent of physics teachers were non-major in the
subjects they were teaching (DECS 1998).10
Besides this general shortage of teachers in these key areas, there is a lack of fit
between the formal qualifications of mathematics and science high school teachers and
the demands of the high school curriculum. In the sample of BSE programs studied by
Somerset, Alfafara et alias in Central Visayas, mathematics and biology teachers were
in adequate supply, but there were shortages of chemistry and physics teachers and a
substantial oversupply of general science teachers. General science teachers were
teaching physics or chemistry, areas for which they were not specifically trained, and
many mathematics teachers, who could easily teach physics were unwilling to do so.
These patterns are a legacy of the low enrollments in mathematics and science in preservice training programs. Very recently a targeted scholarships program in the teacher
education colleges is beginning to correct the problem. (Somerset et al. 1998, p. 21).
10
11
school. So principals in schools with high enrollments in urban areas exert pressure on
superintendents to allocate more teachers to their schools. It is common then to assign
teachers to non-teaching jobs rather than reducing actual classes. Many teachers are
used as clerks, supply officers and maintenance persons.
Another obstacle to teacher management is the Magna Carta for Teachers,
enacted in 1966 and put into practice in 1967 under a very centralized management
system. The Magna Carta rules that no teacher can be transferred from one station to
another without his or her express consent. Even when the exigencies of the service
would allow a divisional superintendent, district supervisor or school principal to
decide the transfer of a teacher, the affected teachers can appeal the decision. The
process becomes so difficult and time-consuming that most DECS officials are
discouraged from even initiating such actions. The purpose of the Magna Carta was to
protect public school teachers from capricious action by schools heads and DECS
officials but the unintended consequence is that it restricts the ability of local education
authorities to deploy teachers in order to meet local needs or respond to demographic
changes. Teachers want to remain where they are assigned, except when they are
assigned to the most difficult posts. Young teachers, on the other hand, are assigned to
the most difficult posts without adequate support and incentive. As soon as they can,
they relocate to less difficult posts.
A revision of the Magna Carta for Teachers and an assessment of existing staffing
rules would be needed to give greater flexibility and make more efficient use of
teachers. The current policy of allocating teachers, according to enrollments and
assigning school head rank according to teacher numbers have created a number of
unintended behaviors, e.g. padding enrollment data, under-reporting dropouts,
condoning classes that are too small and using teachers for non teaching jobs.
Due partly to poor teacher deployment of this centrally managed system and to
the weakness of the local authorities to influence teacher placement and assignment,
divisions and municipalities tend to manage shortages by locally hiring supplementary
teachers, according to local preferences and school needs. These teachers hired by the
school boards while are paid less (because the salary comes from local sources) tend to
have similar qualifications than teachers recruited by DECS. Whereas this practice
may currently disadvantage locally hired teachers, the move towards greater autonomy
on the part of local schools and school boards and increased power to hire, fire and pay
teachers according to local preferences and local market conditions sets a precedent that
could be extended over time to cover all teachers. This would allow and promote real
school-based management and tend to improve efficiency in the basic education
system.
15
2.2) Implementation
improvement
of
EDCOM
recommendations
regarding
teaching
LET
Professional Regulation Commission
The license is only good for three years,
after which the teacher must renew the
license or produce evidence that she/he
has grown professionally
Different tests for elementary and
secondary school teachers
Efforts are being made to convince the
Professional Regulation Commission to
accept the fact that three failures in the
exam indicate a need for additional
courses (as for most other professions)
The LET applies to all teachers and is
also used to gauge the performance of
schools16
There is a present attempt to freeze new admissions to schools that have not had more than one percent of
recent graduates pass the LET. Right now there is no authority in the country that can close teacher training
institutions. This would be a first step towards the closure of institutes with constant poor standards.
10
grade is still low and nevertheless only 28 percent of graduates pass the licensure
examination.
Adopting higher standards for admission to pre-service teacher education
programs
No formal change in standards for admission to teacher education programs has
been made. There is a suggestion for stricter screening of incoming students into
teacher education. This suggestion is based on the fact that when the NCEE was still
administered, and teacher education required an admission criterion of at least 60
percentile, students admitted under this criterion performed rather well in the licensure
examination. Given the fact that TEIs are producing more graduates than needed by the
system and that 74 percent of them do not pass the LET, it seems important to limit the
admission of students based on a screening test that could also later influence better
outcomes in terms of teacher quality. To include screening for aptitude and motivation
is a more complicated matter that could inhibit the fairness of the admission process
and the possibility of a diverse pool of teachers.
Establishing Centers of Excellence in teacher education
In August 1994, the RA 7784 instituted the Teacher Education Council, which
would establish criteria to base the selection of teacher education institutions as Centers
of Excellence, and created a seed fund of P100 million for development activities in
these Centers of Excellence (Taguiwalo 1999). The established criteria for identifying
schools as Centers of Excellence were: a) that they implemented their mandate, that
was, to provide highly educated, professionally qualified and experienced faculty, b)
well-selected students, c) adequate library, research and study facilities, d) competent
administrative and support staff, e) well planned and relevant curriculum, f) adequate
student development programs, g) percentage of graduates who became teachers.
These criteria were translated by CHED into:
Criteria for selection of Centers of Excellence
Level of accreditation
30 points
Years as Regional Science and
10
Technology Center
Original Normal School
10
In a University Setting
10
No of PBET takers (changed after 1996
10
to LET)
PBET passing rate for 5 years
30
Ranking of schools based on EDCOM
10
study
Source: CHED 199817
Presently, there are 21 Centers of Excellence, 9 public and 10 private. There is at
least one center in each region and the maximum number of centers of excellence that
17
11
one region has so far is three, this only in region VII. An evaluation of PBET results
helped to establish a ranking of teaching training schools (Ibe 1998). The private
sectarian schools in Metro Manila had the highest scores, second in rank were the state
colleges and universities in Metro Manila. State colleges and universities in the
provinces ranked 6th . The 9 original Normal Schools in the country ranked among the
best teacher-training colleges, most of them have been converted to state colleges and
universities. While these schools are the ones that produce quality teachers they do not
produce a sufficient number of mathematics and science majors. This ranking was one
of the original basis for identifying centers of excellence for teacher education, which
have been identified to provide a steady stream of qualified teachers in the market.
The number of students holding scholarships for pre-service instruction in centers
of excellence is 766 for 1996-1997 and 840 for 1997-1998. The number of faculty
benefiting from faculty development scholars is 96. The total budget is P 47,289,150.45
of which 90 percent is devoted to the scholarship program. (CHED, 1998). There is a
consensus on the benefits of these centers as well as on the positive effect of the
scholarships programs to improve enrollments in priority areas as well as to improve
general teacher qualifications in pre-service.
Scholarships for students of math and science BSE
It is clear from the analysis of Somerset et al (1998) that in general BSE programs
have not been attractive to students. In the Silliman University, in which five BSE
programs were considered, there were on average only about three students per year in
each subject, and even less in chemistry and physics. Over the past two years due to the
impact of two scholarship programs there has been a striking rise of intakes. Whereas
without the scholarship program, there were one student in forth-year and 8 students in
third-year; with the scholarship program in first-year and second-year the cohorts are
made up of 17 and 29 students, respectively. These scholarship programs started in 19961997 by the Commission of Higher Education (CHED) program and the PROBE
program.
CHED scholars receive a contribution towards their tuition fees of 3,500 pesos per
semester, which reduces the University fee of P 8,500 P 10,000 to P 5,000- P 6,500.
There is also a living allowance of P 1,500 per month. CHED tends to attract more
science applicants because the standard fee is about P 3,000 higher than those for nonscience programs.
The PROBE program is financially more generous -- scholars receive full tuition
cost plus living allowance of P 2,500, but it is more restricted in its coverage. There are
only two PROBE science/mathematics scholars at Silliman University this year. The
formal criterion for acceptance is a score at or above 60th percentile. Most CHED and
PROBE scholars come from lower and middle income families, so without the assistance
provided by these scholarship programs it is doubtful that any of these 25 students would
have enrolled for the BSE program. The College of Education requires that the scholars
maintain a minimum honors-point average, that is, 2.3. Only one student has not met this
requirement. From the rest, only five have achieved mean HPAs of 3.25 or better.
12
The scholarship programs of the University of San Carlos analyzed by the same
authors show similar outputs. Financial support comes from three sources: Department
of Science and Technology DOST (18 double-major students); CHED, (28 double-major
and 22 in single major programs); and STEPS (17 full scholarships for the first year and
supplemented support for 18 DOST scholars.) For the second year, STEPS supplemented
the support provided to 28 CHED and 5 DOST scholars.
Table 1: Expected outputs of science and mathematics BSE graduates, at six
institutions, year 1997-1998.
Subject
Centers of Excellence
Sill USJ USC Total
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
5
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
General Science
Biology +
Chemistry
Total 1
13
0
Source: Somerset at al. 1998, p.20.
14
Other Institutions
UV UC
CSC Total
24
35
27
86
1
1
21
19
11
51
-
Total
45
152
54
39
138
92
0
0
2
53
5
The graduates in Table 1 started their programs before the new scholarship
programs funded by CHED and other institutions at the Centers of Excellence were
initiated. Before the scholarships programs started the pattern of enrollment had not
improved the teacher supply for the areas in which most science teachers were needed.
Of 152 students to graduate from math and science BSE degrees, only two would have
majored in biology, 5 in the double majors of chemistry and biology, and none in physics
or chemistry. The remaining 95 percent of the total group would have majored in
mathematics (92) and general science (53), which was the current pattern. Also, of the
152 math and science graduates, only 9 percent would graduate from the three Centers of
Excellence. The reason is that the Centers of Excellence have tuitions twice as much
higher than other Universities. Given these patterns, plus the fact that the Centers of
Excellence are the only training institutions in the region offering BSE degrees in the
shortage subjects, it is evident that initiatives to lower economic barriers to recruitment
must be a key component of any strategy to produce more teachers in these fields (p.24).
This recommendation must have been heard since most CHED scholarships for this year
will be given to students enrolled in Centers of Excellence.
The impact of the scholarship programs in enrollments is shown in Table 2.
13
Fourth-year enrolments
(graduation 1998)
Sill USJ USC Total
0
6
0
6
0
0
0
0
0
0
1
0
1
0
2
2
5
5
Mathematics
Physics
Chemistry
Biology
Gen. Science
Biology +
Chemistry
Physics +
Mathematics
Physics +
Chemistry
Total 1 13
0
Source: Somerset et al., 1998, p. 24.
First-year enrolments
(graduation 2001)
Sill USJ USC Total
4
6
15
25
2
0
2
0
0
5
10
15
6
3
9
1
1
-
17
17
16
16
14
17
10
58
85
14
18
Barsaga, Eligio and Lacuesta, Debbie. 1996. An Evaluation of the Multigrade Program in Philippine
Education. UNICEF/SAMEO INNOTECH, Manila.
15
Dropouts seem to have been reduced, even though students still become absent
during plantation or harvesting periods. The "multi-level materials" have helped to
improve student learning in particular for the lowest levels. Specially in grade II, multigrade students achieve better learning outcomes that students in single grade classrooms.
There seems to be not much difference however on student achievement for the higher
grades. Monitoring and supervision continues to be a problem.
2) The Philippine-Australian Project to Improve Basic Education, known as
PROBE established lead schools for in-service teachers training in three regions under
the assistance of AusAid. This is the most complex and interesting in-service experiment
in the Philippines today. PROBE supports education in English, Mathematics and
Science in 588 elementary schools and in 300 secondary schools in Regions II, VII, IX,
X, and Caraga. This includes 12,000 teachers and 420,000 students in elementary
education and 10,400 teachers and 300,000 students in secondary education. It focuses
on: Grades 1-6 & Years 1-4 in English; Grades 5-6 & Years 1-2 in Mathematics and
same in Science.
Two strategies lie at the heart of PROBE: a) The establishment of Teacher Support
Units (TSUs) which provide well-equipped resource bases for teachers in in-service
training, and b) The appointment of selected teachers as In-service Facilitators (ISFs),
that constitute the essential human resource that provides direct support, encouragement
and training of teachers. There are TSUs in 98 Elementary lead Schools and in the 50
Divisional Leader Schools. 346 teachers have been selected as In-service Facilitators
after receiving training at the University of Queensland in Australia. PROBE is a joint
venture that includes EDPITAF, DECS, the Bureau of Secondary Education, the Bureau
of Elementary Education and AusAID through GRM International.
Upgrading of teachers salaries
The secondary school system before 1986 was much more diverse that it is today.
This variation was not just between the public and private sectors but also within the
public sector itself. Schools differed by source of finance. There were nationally-funded
schools and locally funded schools. The nationally-funded schools were of two types,
those administered by DECS and those attached to state universities and colleges. The
locally-funded schools were of four types, three financed by provincial, city and
municipal governments and one -- the barangay school -- financed by local communities
with financial transfers from the central government. This implied a wider variation in
teachers salaries, too. This diversity in the public sector disappeared with the
nationalization of the salaries of teachers in local schools and the abolition in 1988 of
tuition fees in all public schools. (WB, 1988, p. 28). A desire to narrow the wide
disparities in the system (despite government subsides to poorer local schools) was
probably the reason for the shift in the policies since 1986 to the nationalization of the
salaries of local school teachers.
16
Graph 1
Primary teachers' salaries, 1996
3.5
3.0
2.5
2.0
1.5
1.0
0.5
0.0
Private
Public/Private
Philippines Nation-wide
Eleme
8,930
4,967
1.80
ntary
High
8,930
5,412
1.65
Nat Schoo
ion lEleme
8,930
10,300
0.87
al ntary
High
8,930
10,900
0.82
Ca
Schoo
Sources: For salaries of public teachers, GOP, National Budget Circular No. 458 Series, 1997b; for
salaries of private teachers, Catholic Education Association of the Philippines Survey, 1997.
18
The Special Education Fund (SEF) consists of locally raise funds for basic education coming from a levy
of real state in every division and municipality. The SEF is primarily devoted to construction, repair and
maintenance of school buildings and facilities, extension classes and sporting activities.
19
circumstances and aspirations of particular communities and schools. There are limits
to the power of school boards giving the fact that teachers belong to the national civil
service and minimum qualification standards are set centrally by DECS, but within
these parameters there is scope for greater local autonomy, participation and
responsibility. For instance, school principals should be empowered and provided with
needed training and incentives to develop their managerial capacity and motivation to
foster a more student-center school environment focussed on learning. They should
also support their teachers to improve and consider relevant in-service school cluster
based training options.
Third, incentive schemes to produce desired behaviors in teachers. Start teacher
salary in the Philippines is relative high in comparison to comparable countries in the
region. However, the pay structure does not discriminate among teachers according to
what they know and do. Future structural changes in teachers pay must raise the top
end of the scale in order to widen the scale and create incentives. Widening the pay
structure within grade levels will allow differentiation among teachers by competencies
and performance.
Additionally, setting aside a small share of the total education budget (1-2
percent) for special bonuses that reward schools and their teachers for outstanding
performance would be an incentive that teachers and school principals will respond to.
For instance, bonuses could be paid to schools where a high percentage of teachers
complete recommended in-service training programs, especially in mathematics and
science instruction; to schools where teachers missed very few school days; and to
those where students perform better in value-added terms on standardized achievement
tests. A key requirement to make this reward system work is to determine carefully
what results are valued (learning achievement, broader student artistic or atletic
development, inclucating moral values and citizenship) to measure and reward those.
Another important element is to include a correction for poorer schools and family
income level in order not to discriminate less favored schools. (Mizala and Romaguera
1999, Odden 1997).
20
Bibliography
Arcelo, Adriano A. 1997. Private Education in the Philippines. FAPE, Manila.
Arellano, Busto V. 1991. Rules and Regulations Implementing the Local Government
Code of 1991, Republic Act No. 7160. Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1993. Philippines Nonformal Education Project (Loan 1254PHI). Appraisal Report. Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1998a. Compendium of Social Statistics in the Philippines.
Manila.
Asian Development Bank. 1998b. Financing Education in Developing Asia: Patterns
Trends and Policy Implications. Regional Education Seminar. Manila.
Asian Institute of Management. 1998a. Is the Education System up the Task of
Competitiveness? Investing in Education: What Should the Estrada
Administration Do to Improve Philippine Education? A Policy Report prepared
by the Washington SyCip Policy Forum of the Asian Institute of Management
together with the CEO Forum on Education. Manila
Asian Institute of Management. 1998b. Notes for the CEO Forum on Education.
Manila.
Barsaga, Eligio and Debbie Lacuesta. 1996. An Evaluation of the Multigrade Program
in Philippine Education. UNICEF/SAMEO INNOTECH, Manila.
Barsaga, Eligio B. 1998. An Overview of the Performance of the Education Sector in
the Philippines. Washington SyCip Policy Forum of the Asian Institute of
Management. May, 1998. Manila.
Carnoy, Martin and Michel Welmond. 1996. Do Teachers Get Paid too Much? A
Worldwide Comparison of Teacher Pay. Draft.
Carnoy, Martin et al. 1996. Impact of Structural Training of Teachers. ILO. Geneva.
Catholic Education Association of the Philippines. 1997. Survey. Manila.
Commission of Higher Education. 1998. Survey of Performance of Schools in the
PBET/LET, 1992-1996
Commission of Higher Education. 1997a. Statistical Bulletin. 1996-1997. Manila..
Commission on Higher Education. 1997b. 1998 Performance Commitments. Manila.
Commission on Higher Education. 1997c. Action Plan for 1998. Manila.
Commission on Higher Education. 1997d. CHED Statistical Bulletin. Manila.
21
Fund for Assistance to Private Education. 1995. FAPE Survey 1994-1995. Manila.
Fund for Assistance to Private Education. 1997. Study of Tracer Study of 1995 Higher
Education Graduates. Manila
Gonzalez, Andrew. 1998. Reforms and Innovations in Basic Education. Keynote
Address at 1998 NCR Educators Congress. Manila
Gonzalez, C.T. and C.V. Pijano. 1996. Non-Formal Education in the Philippines: A
Fundamental Step Towards Lifelong Learning. APEC HUDIT Internet Site.
Government of the Philippines. 1991. Local Government Code of 1991.
Government of the Philippines. 1992. Philippine Statistics Yearbook. Various years,
1981-1992. Manila.
Government of the Philippines. 1997a. The Philippine National Development Plan:
Directions for the 21st Century. Draft. Manila.
Government of the Philippines. 1997b. National Budget Circular, No. 458 Series.
Manila.
Government of the Philippines. 1998. Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing
Fiscal Year 1998. Manila.
Haas School of Business, University of California, Berkeley. 1998. Philippines:
Student Loan Market Study. Berkeley.
Heyneman, Stephen, Dean Jamison, and Zenia Montenegro. 1984. Textbooks in the
Philippines: Evaluation of the Pedagogical Impact of a Nationwide Investment.
Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis 6(2): 139-150.
Ibe, Milagros. 1997. The Philippines Performance in the TIMSS. College of
Education, University of the Philippines.
Ibe, Milagros. 1998. Discussion on PBET and LET. In CEO 3rd Roundtable
Discussion: Why Cant We Attract Good Teachers? ACCEED. Manila.
Ibe, Milagros D. and Ester B Ogena. November, 1998. Science Education in the
Philippines: An Overview. Department of Science and Technology. Manila.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 1997a.
Mathematics and Science Achievement in the Primary School Years: IEAs Third
International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS). TIMSS International
Study Center, Boston College. Boston, MA.
International Association for the Evaluation of Educational Achievement. 1997b.
Science Achievement in the Primary School Years: IEAs Third International
23
24
NEDA. 1998. On the Need for a Successor Plan for Science and Math Education.
Interagency Think paper. Manila.
Odden, Allan and Carolyn Kelley. 1997. Paying Teachers for What They Know and Do.
Corwin Press.
Ordonez, Victor. 1998. Gearing Up for the Global Future. The Asian Manager.
March-April 1998. 39 41.
Organization for Economic Co-operation and Development. 1998. Education at a
Glance. Centre for Educational Research and Innovation, Paris.
Pena, R. Uundated. Rationalization of Higher Education Institutions/Programs, Paper.
CHED. Manila.
PRISM (Official Newsletter of CHED), 111, 1, Jan Mar. 1997.
PROBE. 1998a. Handbook on Monitoring and Evaluation. DECS, Manila.
PROBE. 1998b. Report of the Mid-Term Review of the Philippine-Australia Project in
Basic Education. Manila.
Regel, Omporn. 1998. Status of Teachers. Manuscript. The World Bank.
Washington, D.C.
Republic of the Philippines. 1998a. Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing.
Fiscal Year 1998. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1998b. National Expenditure Program, Fiscal Year 1999.
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1997. National Budget Circular No. 458 series 1997.
Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1997. Report Card to the Nation. Manila: DECS. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1996. The Magna Carta for Public School Teachers.
Republic Act No. 4670. Manila.
Republic of the Philippines. 1994. Family Income and Expenditures Survey.
Households Bulletin, Series No. 80. National Statistics Office, Manila.
Ribero, Rocio and Jaime Tenjo with Pablo Santamaria. 1997. Evaluacion del Programa
de Becas PACES, Processed, CEDE, The University of the Andes, Bogota,
Colombia.
Saleeby, Najeeb. 1924. The Language of Education of the Philippine Islands.
Saniel, Montana C and Ed van den Berg. 1998. Case Studies of Science and
Mathematics Teaching in the Philippines: Lessons for Teacher and School
25
28