from Access to Quality Secretary Leonor Magtolis Briones 29 June - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

from access to quality
SMART_READER_LITE
LIVE PREVIEW

from Access to Quality Secretary Leonor Magtolis Briones 29 June - - PowerPoint PPT Presentation

Making the Pivot from Access to Quality Secretary Leonor Magtolis Briones 29 June 2019 1 Outline I. Fiscal Performance Education sector budget Budget performance Education inputs and support II. State of Access to Basic


slide-1
SLIDE 1

1

Making the Pivot from Access to Quality

Secretary Leonor Magtolis Briones

29 June 2019

slide-2
SLIDE 2

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Outline

I. Fiscal Performance

  • Education sector budget
  • Budget performance
  • Education inputs and support

II. State of Access to Basic Education

  • Current enrollment
  • Participation indicators
  • Remaining access gaps
  • Directions for intervention
  • III. Quality of Basic Education
  • Pivot to quality
  • Dimensions of quality
  • Directions for intervention
  • Select baseline indicators

2

slide-3
SLIDE 3

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 3

  • I. Fiscal Performance
slide-4
SLIDE 4

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Education Sector Budget

4 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 SUCs 22,477 25,097 27,307 34,924 38,075 44,397 49,661 61,440 65,245 68,338 TESDA 2,991 2,953 2,855 3,107 5,250 5,442 6,861 6,828 7,717 12,730 CHED 2,539 1,695 2,207 3,604 8,012 3,402 9,657 19,576 50,534 52,436 DepEd 172,965 206,271 216,353 250,412 300,546 341,451 433,383 568,436 580,632 531,565

11.23% 12.54% 11.91% 12.48% 13.27% 13.13% 14.44% 16.97% 15.41% 14.15% 0.16% 0.10% 0.12% 0.18% 0.35% 0.13% 0.32% 0.58% 1.34% 1.40% 0.19% 0.18% 0.16% 0.15% 0.23% 0.21% 0.23% 0.20% 0.20% 0.34% 1.46% 1.53% 1.50% 1.74% 1.68% 1.71% 1.65% 1.83% 1.73% 1.82%

100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000 800,000

Breakdown of Education Sector Budget (FY 2010 – 2019 GAA) in million pesos

DepEd CHED TESDA SUCs

% Share to National Budget DepEd CHED TESDA SUCs

slide-5
SLIDE 5

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 5

261,672 297,278 305,083 351,185 412,435 469,664 494,591 240,238 279,474 273,300 308,136 369,435 456,278 470,711

252,891 261,778 288,933 339,484 383,456 437,945

92% 94% 90% 88% 90% 97% 95% 90% 96% 94% 92% 84% 93%

75% 80% 85% 90% 95% 100% 100,000 200,000 300,000 400,000 500,000 600,000 700,000

2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018

Adjusted Allotment Obligation Disbursement Obligation Rate Disbursement Rate

*No disbursement data in SAOB 2012

Source: DepEd Year-End SAOB 2012 and SAAODBs (2013-2018) In Million Pesos

DepEd Budget Performance

slide-6
SLIDE 6

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Delivery of Education Inputs

6

2016-2018 Physical Performance of Basic Education Inputs

Source: FY 2016 - 2018 BAR 1

Basic Education Facilities Target: 75,017 New Classrooms Completed: 25,934 On-going: 46,300 For mobilization: 17,538 To be procured: 8,749 Not yet started: 174 Reverted: 158 2019 Target 4,110 Classroom Construction 18,575 Classrooms Repaired and Rehabilitated

Computerization Program

Target: 53,867 Delivered: 37,460 On Going Delivery: 12,139 On Going Procurement: 4,268 2019 Target (ICT Packages ) 1,039 G4-6 2,313 JHS 475 SHS

Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials

Target: 129,115,545 Delivered: 81,892,080 On Going Delivery: 37,163,221 On Going Procurement: 65,312,833 2019 Target 6.2M Activity Sheets, 7.7M A&E Modules 4.6M storybooks and 20 Manuscripts

Science and Math Equipment

Target: 32,343 Procured: 24,369 Delivered: 11,977 On Going Delivery: 12,392 On Going Procurement: 7,974 2019 Target 2,371 sets of Science and Math Equipment (SME) Plantilla Items Items created 193,897 teacher items Items filled-up 174,507 teacher items 2019 Target 10,000 teacher items

slide-7
SLIDE 7

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Providing support to learners

7 School-Based Feeding Program Target: 5,994,839 learners Benefitted: 5,697,342 learners 2019 Target 1,810,460 learners (hot meals and milk) ESC Program Target: 3,217,049 grantees Benefitted: 2,947,843 grantees 2019 Target 1,101,012 grantees 44,368 TSS recipients Voucher Program Target: 3,905,348 grantees Benefitted: 3,182,664 grantees 2019 Target 1,314,376 grantees JDVP-TVL Target: 230,918 grantees Benefitted: 137,190 grantees 2019 Target 70,000 grantees

2016-2018 Physical Performance of Support to Learners

Source: FY 2016 - 2018 BAR 1

slide-8
SLIDE 8

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • II. Access to Basic Education

8

slide-9
SLIDE 9

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 9

Our Children and Youth are Getting Basic Education

Year Kinder Elementary (Gr. 1-6) Junior High School (Gr. 7-10) Senior High School (Gr 11-12) Total 2016 1,814,713 14,100,290 7,564,827 1,445,107 24,924,937 2017 2,268,455 13,483,620 7,826,414 2,733,460 26,311,949 2018 2,409,782 13,265,259 8,320,627 3,022,841 27,018,509 2019 Projected 2,330,099 13,271,598 8,527,055 3,087,646 27,216,398

Historical Enrollment from SY 2015-2016 to SY 2018-2019; Projected Enrollment for SY 2019-2020 (Public and Private)

slide-10
SLIDE 10

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Comparative Enrollment in Senior High School (Grade 11&12) SY 2017-2018 VS 2018-2019 (ALL SECTOR)

Source: LIS/BEIS SY 2018-2019 Generated as of December 10, 2018

ACADEMIC

Male Female Total %

2018-2019 822,603 1,095,937 1,918,540 63.5% 2017-2018 720,962 971,630 1,692,592 63.9%

TVL

Male Female Total %

2018-2019 605,533 480,393 1,085,926 35.9% 2017-2018 558,359 467,548 1,025,907 37.5%

ARTs&DESIGN

Male Female Total %

2018-2019 5,648 7,567 13,215 .44% 2017-2018 4,479 6,095 10,574 .39%

SPORTS

Male Female Total %

2018-2019 3,321 1,839 5,160 .17% 2017-2018 2,848 1,539 4,387 .16%

SY 2018-2019

Total : 3,022,841 Male : 1,437,105 Female : 1,585,736

SY 2018-2019

Total : 3,022,841 Male : 1,437,105 Female : 1,585,736

SY 2017-2018

Total : 2,733,460 Male : 1,286,648 Female: 1,446,812

SY 2017-2018

Total : 2,733,460 Male : 1,286,648 Female: 1,446,812

slide-11
SLIDE 11

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 11

Number of Schools, SY 2018-2019

Source: BEIS SY 2018-2019 – Final (Generated as of December 10, 2018

CLASSIFICATION Public SUCs/ LUCs Private PSO* Total Elementary 37,928 7 7,475 45,410 Junior High School 1,622 52 299 1,973 Senior High School 204 110 1,092 1,406 JHS with SHS 6,177 102 890 7,169 Integrated School (K to G10) 683 9 2,004 5 2,701 Integrated School (K to G12) 411 29 2,803 15 3,257

Total Schools 47,025 309 14,562 20 61,916

*Philippine Schools Overseas – learners who are enrolled outside the country with permit granted by DepEd

slide-12
SLIDE 12

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Basic Monthly Salary, Teaching Positions

12

Position SG Monthly Salary, PhP (2019/Fourth Tranche SSL) Plantilla Items (As of June, 2019) Authorized Filled Teacher I 11 20,754.00 468,453 436,275 Teacher II 12 22,938.00 139,487 127,999 Teacher III 13 25,232.00 212,384 207,613 Master Teacher I 18 40,637.00 41,854 39,950 Master Teacher II 19 45,269.00 16,810 15,828 Master Teacher III 20 51,155.00 68 65 TOTAL 879,056 827,733 Note:

  • 1. There are others teaching positions such as SPED Teachers.
  • 2. There are step increments within salary grade.
slide-13
SLIDE 13

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Basic Monthly Salary, Administrative Track

13

Position SG Monthly Salary, PhP (2019/Fourth Tranche SSL) Plantilla Items (As of June 2019) Authorized Filled Head Teacher I 14 27,755.00 7,259 6,622 Head Teacher II 15 30,531.00 2,204 1,858 Head Teacher III 16 33,584.00 11,013 10,351 Head Teacher IV 17 36,942.00 418 383 Head Teacher V 18 40,637.00 228 204 Head Teacher VI 19 45,269.00 1029 905 School Principal I 19 45,269.00 15,280 13,432 School Principal II 20 51,155.00 5,810 5,357 School Principal III 21 57,805.00 2,106 1,992 School Principal IV 22 65,319.00 1,316 1,273

  • Asst. School Principal I, II, III

18-20 1,435 950 TOTAL 47,918 43,327

slide-14
SLIDE 14

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Participation Rate

14

Level of Education

Gross Enrollment Rate Net Enrollment Rate

2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019* 2016-2017 2017-2018 2018-2019* Kinder to Grade 6

106.34% 104.21% 102.65% 96.04% 95.76% 94.80%

JHS to SHS

87.76% 85.55% 91.58% 75.33% 75.94% 79.93%

Level of Education Transition Rate 2017-2018 2018-2019* Elem to JHS 93.12% 95.20% JHS to SHS 90.15% 96.41%

Transition Rate

Access Indicators

slide-15
SLIDE 15

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Age Profile

15 Level of Education

Enrollment SY 2018-2019

Population of Official School-Age Underage Official School-Age Overage TOTAL

Kindergarten

444,834

1,716,367

(Age 5)

247,257 2,408,458

2,245,018

(Age 5)

Kinder to Grade 6

450,658

14,467,958

(Ages 5 to 11)

748,250 15,666,866

15,262,116

(Ages 5 to 11)

Grade 1 to Grade 6

270,732

12,243,035

(Ages 6 to 11)

744,641 13,258,408

13,017,098

(Ages 6 to 11)

Junior High School

443,520

6,753,895

(Ages 12 to 15)

1,118,880 8,316,295

8,296,099

(Ages 12 to 15)

Senior High School

136,931

2,092,529

(Ages 16 to 17)

792,396 3,021,856

4,084,158

(Ages 16 to 17)

JHS to SHS

443,520

9,895,750

(Ages 12 to 17)

998,881 11,338,151

12,380,257

(Ages 12 to 17)

Source: LIS/BEIS SY 2018-2019; Generated as of December 10, 2018

slide-16
SLIDE 16

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Gender Parity Index (GPI) in GER-NER

Source: *LIS/BEIS SY 2018-2019; Generated as of December 10, 2018

Level of Education Gross Enrollment Rate Net Enrollment Rate

SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019* SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019*

Kindergarten 0.97 0.99 1.02 1.00 Kindergarten to Grade 6 0.97 0.98 1.00 0.99 Grade 1 to Grade 6 0.97 0.97 1.00 1.00 Junior High School 1.07 1.05 1.15 1.11 Senior High School 1.20 1.18 1.36 1.33

JHS to SHS 1.10 1.09 1.15 1.12

GPI - ratio of the selected indicator value for girls divided by the indicator value for boys. A value of less

than one indicates a difference in favor of boys; a value above one indicates a difference in favor of girls. A value close to 1 (one) indicates gender parity. For gender parity to GPI should be in the range of 0.97 and 1.03.

slide-17
SLIDE 17

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Internal Efficiency

CSR, CR & SLR 2- Years comparison, Public, SUCs/LUCs & Private

17

Performance Indicators Grade 1-6 Grade 7-10

SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019 SY 2017-2018 SY 2018-2019

Cohort Survival Rate (CSR) 94% 97% 86% 89% Completion Rate (CR) 92% 97% 84% 89% School Leaver Rate (SLR) 2% 1% 6% 4%

Source: *LIS/BEIS SY 2018-2019; Generated as of December 10, 2018 Note: Data on internal efficiency is subject to further analysis

slide-18
SLIDE 18

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Addressing the Remaining Access Gaps

  • The years of investing in education has

produced major improvements in access to education

  • Still, we cannot as yet totally abandon access

issues: No one left behind

  • However, our access interventions must now

be more nuanced and carefully targeted according to the reasons for not attending school

18

slide-19
SLIDE 19

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Percent Distribution of OSCY by Reason for Not Attending School: PSA APIS 2017

19 Reason for Not Attending School

Male Female Both Sexes

Total 6 to 11 12 to 15 16 to 24 Total 6 to 11 12 to 15 16 to 24 Total 6 to 11 12 to 15 16 to 24

Number of OSCYs ('000) 1,311 140 281 890 2,262 65 117 2,080 3,573 205 398 2,970 Accessibility of school 2.0 14.0

  • 0.7

0.3

  • 0.3

0.9 9.6

  • 0.4

Illness/disability 11.9 27.0 9.2 10.4 5.4 32.5 17.9 3.8 7.8 28.8 11.8 5.8 Marriage/family matters 2.5

  • 1.1

3.4 57.0

  • 3.0

61.9 37.0

  • 1.6

44.3 High cost of education/financial concern 24.0 13.7 14.7 28.6 14.3 6.4 18.6 14.4 17.9 11.4 15.8 18.6 Employment/looking for work 12.2

  • 0.5

17.8 6.2 2.6 2.9 6.5 8.4 0.8 1.2 9.9 Finished schooling or finished post-secondary or college 0.1

  • 0.1

0.1

  • 0.1

0.1

  • 0.1

Lack of personal interest 43.8 31.4 71.3 37.0 13.6 27.8 51.5 11.0 24.7 30.2 65.5 18.8 Problem with school record/birth certificate 1.2 4.2 0.3 1.0 0.6 9.8

  • 0.3

0.8 6.0 0.2 0.5 Too young to go to school 0.7 6.9

  • 0.5

18.3

  • 0.6

10.5

  • Others

1.6 2.8 3.0 0.9 2.1 2.6 6.1 1.8 1.9 2.7 3.9 1.6 Total

100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0 100.0

Note:" - " denotes zero count or less than 0.05 percent Source: Philippine Statistics Authority, 2017 Annual Poverty Indicators Survey

slide-20
SLIDE 20

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Percent Distribution of OSCY by Per Capita Income Decile : PSA APIS 2017

Decile Male Female Both Sexes

Number of OSCYs (in '000) 1,311 2,262 3,573 First Decile 20.1 20.7 20.5 Second Decile 14.9 16.2 15.7 Third Decile 16.5 13.1 14.4 Fourth Decile 12.9 16.6 15.2 Fifth Decile 8.6 10.7 9.9 Sixth Decile 7.9 8.6 8.3 Seventh Decile 8.6 8.2 8.4 Eight Decile 4.3 2.9 3.4 Ninth Decile 3.7 2.3 2.8 Tenth Decile 2.5 0.7 1.4 Total 100.0 100.0 100.0

20

*The first decile represents the poorest families

slide-21
SLIDE 21

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

BARMM* vs. National Net Enrollment Rate (NER) SY 2018-2019

21

54.6% 73.2% 35.6% 76.5% 94.1% 79.9% 0.0% 10.0% 20.0% 30.0% 40.0% 50.0% 60.0% 70.0% 80.0% 90.0% 100.0% Kinder Elementary Secondary BARMM National BARMM* net of Cotobato City

slide-22
SLIDE 22

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Access Issues and Directions for Intervention

22

Access Factor Observations Interventions

Age

  • While accessibility of schools no longer a factor

for non-attendance overall, it remains a factor for younger age group of 6-11

  • Illness/disability a factor particularly for younger

age group

  • School-based feeding
  • OK (Oplan Kalusugan) sa DepEd
  • SPED
  • Alternative Delivery Mode (ADM)
  • ALS

Gender

  • The top two reasons for non-attendance is

strongly gender differentiated

  • Marriage/Family matters is top reason for overall

non-attendance, but it applies mainly to females and generally at post-secondary or college level

  • Lack of personal interest is 2nd reason, and it

applies more intensely to males at age 12-15

  • Comprehensive Sexuality Education
  • Teenage Pregnancy Summit
  • SHS and choices
  • ALS

Geographic

  • BARMM lags behind considerably in access

indicators

  • Last Mile Schools
  • IPED
  • ADM
  • ALS

Economic

  • High cost of education/financial concern now just

the 3rd reason, reflecting both economic advance and free or highly subsidized basic education

  • But lower income groups still has higher incidence
  • f drop-outs
  • Free public education
  • Subsidy to secondary level learners
  • SHS with employment exit
  • ALS
slide-23
SLIDE 23

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 23

  • II. Quality of Basic Education
slide-24
SLIDE 24

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 24

With major gains in access, DepEd is now in a position to wage a more focused campaign to make decisive gains in education quality.

Broadly Similar Trend Across ASEAN

“For all countries in the region barring Singapore, the picture is broadly similar. Building on important recent gains, in the expansion of education at primary, lower secondary and increasingly upper secondary levels, all are looking to entrench quality learning. There is broad agreement on three important steps. The first is to design and implement effective learning systems, aligning competencies/ standards, curriculum, instruction, assessment and

  • examinations. The second is to develop outstanding teachers and school

leaders, to create a challenging learning experience for every child and to ensure that every student benefits from excellent teaching. The third is to ensure that students come to school ready to learn, throughout their school career, drawing

  • n

an effective early years’ education and supportive relationships with their parents. Together, these three steps constitute an agenda for raising learning outcomes, across the region.”

(Raising Learning Outcomes in Southeast Asia, Insights from PISA organized by the Ministry of Education in Thailand and OECD)

Pivot to Quality

slide-25
SLIDE 25

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Comparative Education Sector Structure of Southeast Asian Countries

25

Country Structure Policy shift Schools* Students* Teachers* Education Expenditure to GDP (%)* Brunei Pre-primary + 5 (Primary) + 5 (Secondary) + 2 (Pre-university) 2011 231 93,490 9,302 4.4 Cambodia Kindergarten (K) + 6 (Primary) + 3 (Lower Secondary) + 3 (Upper Secondary) 1996 17,149 3,526,103 118,903 1.9 Indonesia K + 6 + 3 + 3 2013 370,535 55,775,796 3,461,645 3.6 Lao PDR K + 5 + 4 + 3 2006 12,923 1,524,505 75,986 3.3 Malaysia K + 6 + 3 + 2 1990s 38,495 6,817,662 560,268 5.0 Myanmar Pre-primary + 5 + 4 + 2 2016- 2017 53,499 9,481,870 390,571 n.d. Philippines K + 6 (Elementary) + 4 (Junior High) + 2 (Senior High) 2013- 2018 53,943 22,096,820 719,886 2.4 Singapore K + 6 (Primary) + 4 (Secondary) + 2 (Pre-university) 1970s 524 446,427 34,028 2.9 Thailand K + 6 + 3 + 3 1974- 1978 100,297 11,710,840 590,579 4.1 Timor Leste Pre-primary + 6 + 3 + 3 2012 1,739 337,569 13,594 n.d. Vietnam Pre-primary + 5 + 4 + 3 2005 43,672 20,599,894 1,175,388 n.d.

*Data as of 14 December 2018; n.d. = no data Source: SEAMES, ASEAN

The Philippines implemented K to 12 in phases within 6 years from 2013 to 2018; SHS Grade 11 was first implemented in SY 2016-2017; Grade 12 in SY 2017-2018

slide-26
SLIDE 26

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Quality Dimensions

  • Learning the Intended Competencies
  • Diversity of Curricular Offerings
  • Employability
  • Interest-based Choices for Learners
  • Teacher Quality
  • Public satisfaction

26

slide-27
SLIDE 27

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Directions of Intervention

27

Quality Dimension Interventions Learning the Intended Competencies

  • Curriculum review to refine K to 12
  • Joined international assessments – Programme for International Student

Assessment (PISA) and Trends in International Mathematics and Science Study (TIMSS) to complement NAT

  • Deepen research on assessment results
  • Further improvements in teaching and learning environment through

sustained provision of education inputs

  • International Competitions (International Science and Engineering Fair),

Math Olympiad, Robotics Competition Diversity of Curricular Offerings

  • Inclusive Education Programs
  • Special Interest and Curricular Programs

Employability

  • Immersion
  • SHS
  • Government-Industry Education Coordination
  • Review of TVL Offerings
  • SHS Unique Tracks

Interest-based Choices

  • SHS

Teacher Quality

  • NEAP Transformation
  • Career Progression
  • Freeing Teachers from Non-teaching tasks

Public Satisfaction

  • Pulse Asia Survey
slide-28
SLIDE 28

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Select Baseline Indicators and Major Interventions

28

National Achievement Test

  • Standardized test designed to determine students’ achievement of learning

standards and 21st century skills under the K to 12 curriculum

  • . Results expressed in Mean Percentage Score (MPS), which is the ratio

between the number of correctly answered items in a test and the total number of items

  • The 2017 NAT serves as the baseline data for the new National Assessment

Framework (NAF), i.e. 21st Century Skills. Skills are interpreted in terms of Proficiency Levels

  • It is not comparable to the previous NAT (2015 and preceding years) which

was content-based and interpreted in terms of Mastery Levels Level of Proficiency

Highly Proficient 90 – 100 Proficient 75 - 89 Nearly Proficient 50 - 74 Low Proficient 25 - 49 Not Proficient 0 - 24

slide-29
SLIDE 29

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Test Coverage

29

Test G6 G10 G12 Coverage Subject Areas:

  • Filipino
  • Araling

Panlipunan

  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • English

21st Century Skills:

  • Problem Solving
  • Information

Literacy

  • Critical Thinking

Subject Areas:

  • Filipino
  • Araling

Panlipunan

  • Mathematics
  • Science
  • English

21st Century Skills:

  • Problem Solving
  • Information

Literacy

  • Critical Thinking

Subject Areas:

  • Science
  • Philosophy
  • Humanities
  • Media and

Information Literacy

  • Mathematics
  • Language and

Communication

  • Social Studies

21st Century Skills:

  • Problem Solving
  • Information

Literacy

  • Critical Thinking

Number of Items per subject 27 54 Varies; ranges from 9 to 36 Total number of items 135 270 420

slide-30
SLIDE 30

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • Gr. 6 NAT SY 2016-2017 & SY 2017-2018

Mean Percentage Score by Subject Areas and by 21st Century Skills

Subject Areas SY 2016- 2017 MPS SY 2017-2018 MPS Filipino 53.41 51.13 Mathematics 34.74 36.85 English 40.37 34.66 Science 30.93 29.05 Araling Panlipunan 40.30 35.50 Overall 39.95 37.44 21st Century Skills SY 2016- 2017 MPS SY 2017-2018 MPS Problem Solving 44.45 39.42 Information Literacy 39.48 39.33 Critical Thinking 35.92 33.56 Overall 39.95 37.44

slide-31
SLIDE 31

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • Gr. 10 NAT SY 2016-2017 & SY 2017-2018

Mean Percentage Score by Subject Areas and by 21st Century Skills

Subject Areas SY 2016-2017 MPS SY 2017-2018 MPS Filipino 52.59 58.02 Mathematics 37.30 34.26 English 46.01 43.48 Science 35.68 36.52 Araling Panlipunan 48.81 50.67 Overall 44.08 44.59 21st Century Skills SY 2016-2017 MPS SY 2017-2018 MPS Problem Solving 44.06 47.48 Information Literacy 45.11 46.54 Critical Thinking 42.71 41.96 Overall 44.08 44.59

slide-32
SLIDE 32

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • Gr. 12 BEEA SY 2017-2018 & SY 2018-2019

Mean Percentage Score by Subject Areas and by 21st Century Skills

Subject Areas SY 2017- 2018 MPS SY 2018-2019 MPS Science 31.26 32.11 Philosophy 37.09 34.89 Humanities 37.05 33.60 Media and Information Literacy 47.87 44.97 Mathematics 29.60 27.91 Language and Communication 38.61 41.63 Social Studies 36.23 36.82 Overall 36.71 36.45 21st Century Skills SY 2017- 2018 MPS SY 2018-2019 MPS Problem Solving 36.92 38.06 Information Literacy 36.91 35.86 Critical Thinking 36.15 34.94 Overall 36.66 36.29

slide-33
SLIDE 33

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Observations on the NAT Results

  • The results of Gr 6 and 10 NAT, and Gr 12 Exit

Assessment, provide us a benchmark for analysis and progress tracking for the coming years

  • Overall, the results are in the low proficient level in both

subject areas and 21st century skills. This will be confirmed by the PISA results.

  • However, we caution against sweeping judgments. The

following need to be considered:

  • The outcomes of curriculum reform such as K to 12 in terms of

high results in attained curriculum will take time, as we align intended, implemented and assessed curriculum

  • Interventions must be a result of research and study
  • But, we acknowledge and take on our biggest challenge

now, which is to improve our large scale assessment performance

33

slide-34
SLIDE 34

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Major Initiatives to Improve the Dimension of Learning Outcomes

  • 1. Curriculum review (ongoing)
  • Review the learning competencies

and performance standards relative to cognitive demands

  • Examine

the vertical alignment between content standards, the performance standards and the learning competencies

  • Closer look at curriculum in relation to developing

foundational skills for reading, writing, and numeracy in early grades (K to 3)

34

slide-35
SLIDE 35

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • 2. NEAP Transformation (Ongoing)
  • Organizational transformation: Expanding size; new functional units; vertical

integration

  • Program Transformation: NEAP to assume responsibility for design, development

and delivery of programs for the professional development of teachers and school leaders

  • Core Programs

– Anchored on PPST for Teachers (and similar professional standards for school leaders) – Teacher Induction Program – Career Progression Programs/Courses/Training – Assessment – Accreditation, Certification, and Recognition – Collaboration with Centers of Excellence and Centers of Development – Professional Development Information System – Link to CPD compliance – Delivery Strategies

  • Pool of faculty that come from master teachers, teacher-awardees, university

academics or fellows

35

slide-36
SLIDE 36

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

The Impact we Foresee from NEAP Transformation

  • No more overlaps and fragmentation of professional

development activities

  • Professional development programs shall be programmatic

and accountable

  • Financial resources for training shall be utilized efficiently.
  • The database for professional development shall be

consolidated

  • Training programs will be directly linked to career

progression and promotion

  • Talents within DepEd will be mobilized and maximized into

a Training Faculty

36

slide-37
SLIDE 37

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

  • 3. Joined international assessments to deepen insight

into our performance

37

slide-38
SLIDE 38

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

While Education Quality is Our Main Challenge, There Have Been Gains

  • Our 12 learners namely, John Eric Aggarao, Kathleen Chloie Antonio, Anna Beatriz Suavengco, Maria Isabel

Lyson, Neil David Cayanan, Shaira Gozun, E'van Relle Tongol, Maryjoise Karla Buan, Alpha Acain, Lester Sabadao, Lia Denise Tan, and Nathaniel Reyes were part of the more than 1,800 delegates coming from 80 countries.

  • They came from various schools across the nation – Taguig National High School, Iloilo National High

School, Angeles City Science High School, Pangasinan National High School, Quezon National High School and Cagayan National High School.

  • The team from Angeles City Science High School had the distinction of receiving an honorable mention.

Their study “Hibla: An Alternative Sound Absorption Material” was selected as one of the Best Projects at the fair, which had the sustainable development and preservation of the country’s natural resources at its theme.

38

Intel International Science Fair, 2019

slide-39
SLIDE 39

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Public Satisfaction March Ulat ng Bayan, Year-on-Year DepEd Rating

39

Briones Admin

slide-40
SLIDE 40

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

We have improved further in the September 2018 Pulse Asia Survey

40

Aware Approve Undecided Disapprove Total Philippines (100%) 100% 88% 9% 3% NCR (14%) 100% 77% 15% 8% Balance Luzon (45%) 100% 89% 9% 2% Visayas (19%) 100% 93% 6% 1% Mindanao (23%) 100% 88% 10% 2%

  • DepEd’s approval has risen to 88% in both the June

and September 2018 Pulse Asia Survey

September 2018 Approval

slide-41
SLIDE 41

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

New Education Trends and Challenges

  • One of the main topics discussed last week in the 50th Southeast

Asian Ministers of Education (SEAMEO) Council Conference is the matter of artificial intelligence

  • The concept that teachers as fountain of knowledge and wisdom is

shifting towards teachers as facilitators, guides, and fellow learners

  • Technological innovations enable more advanced countries to test

the idea of robots conducting lectures in class, acting as teachers

  • With developments such as these, there’s a school of thought that

probably we would not need as much teachers

  • The challenge is to keep the humanistic aspects of education

(GMRC, Humanities)

  • There’s the need to address the wide range of contrasts within

education systems

41

slide-42
SLIDE 42

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Concluding Remarks

  • We have made major strides in access to education. However, we

continue to address access gaps through various programs such as school-based feeding, ALS, and our new Last Mile Schools Program.

  • We are in a position to now shift our focus to making major

improvements in education quality. We acknowledge the baseline performance that we need to address. This requires evidence-based

  • intervention. Our major interventions include the undertaking of

curriculum review, NEAP Transformation for the professional development and career progression of teachers, textbooks reform, and deepening our analysis of large scale assessment results, both national and international.

  • There are new trends and challenges that we also need to consider,

such as artificial intelligence, robotics, keeping humanistic aspects

  • f education, and addressing the wide range of contrasts in the

education system.

42

slide-43
SLIDE 43

Thank you

43

slide-44
SLIDE 44

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Moving forward….

Secretary Briones to convene and lead national movement for education quality recovery

  • Think foundational skills for lifelong learning, especially at early

grades (Curriculum Review)

  • Think teacher quality (NEAP transformation)
  • Think qualifications (PQF; knowledge, skills, values, application)
  • Think 21st century skills/soft skills/socio-emotional skills (problem

solving, information literacy, critical thinking)

  • Think values, culture and arts (teachers, school leaders, learners,

community)

  • Think learning environment (facilities, Last Mile Schools, textbook

reform, AI)

  • Think STEMify
  • Think GIE coordination (research, alignment, investment,

innovation)

44

slide-45
SLIDE 45

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

PQF

  • Transforming the language of education from diplomas to

qualifications in terms of knowledge, skills, values and ability to apply them, acquired by learners and workers not only through formal but also non-formal and informal learning modalities

  • Developing mechanisms, outside or in enhancement of the present

education and training system, for the recognition, validation and accreditation of more forms of learnings outcomes obtained through non-formal and informal modalities

  • Elevate our level of ambition for PQF to make it a truly relevant and

empowering institution for our citizens, providing greater motivation and opportunities for lifelong learning through recognition mechanisms that are quality assured, and consequently having a corresponding valuation in the economy and society

45

slide-46
SLIDE 46

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

AQRF Concept Note No. 1: Non-Formal and Informal Learning

Note documents the agreed understanding of AMS on:

  • The role of the AQRF to encourage the quality assurance of all learning

achievements

  • The importance of recognizing non-formal and informal learning
  • The need to encourage the development of national approaches to validation of non-

formal and informal learning AQRF asserts that it is “comprehensive in its capacity to accommodate quality assured learning achievements (including qualifications) gained in the ASEAN Member States (AMS). Therefore one of the principles of the AQRF is that it should encourage the development of national approaches to validating learning gained outside formal education and training including learning gained in work and learning gained unintentionally in everyday life.” “Validation is the process where the assessment of learning gained in non-formal and in formal settings is checked against a set of standards (e.g. occupational standards or educational standards). If the assessed learning is confirmed as meeting these standards the person can make them visible in a CV or seek to have them recognized in a programme, qualification or certificate.

46

slide-47
SLIDE 47

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

AQRF Principles for Validation of Non-Formal and Informal Learning

47

slide-48
SLIDE 48

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

STEMify

  • STEM in SHS (Gr 11-12)
  • 3,022,841 total SHS enrollment in SY 2018-

2019

  • In 3,361 schools, of which 1,182 are DepEd

schools

  • 436,376 learners, of which 105,350 are DepEd
  • DepEd Draft Policy on Special STEM Education

Program for Grades 4-10

  • Link with NEAP Transformation – professional

development

48