1. To attain the 2015 goal and
targets of Education For All,
Is the country needs to
implement policies?
Presented by:
VIDA JOY M.QUIMSON

2. To attain the 2015 goal and targets of Education For All, the
country needs to
implement policies, programs and projects that will address
the needs of specific
learners, particularly those belonging to the un-reached and
under-served groups.
A. Explicit Articulation of
Inclusive Education Policy and
Substantial Increase in
Budget Provision

3. First, DepEd needs to explicitly articulate “Inclusive Education” as the overall
policy and planning framework of EFA. This policy will dictate how the
curriculum will be delivered including the programs, projects, and resource
requirements that will support the specific needs of particular groups of learners.
One of the policies that
DepEd will be issuing soon is the institutionalization of Alternative Delivery Mode
Programs that will cater to learners in difficult and different circumstances and
which will use self-learning modules.
Second, the government should take comprehensive but concrete actions to
address the inadequate use of the budget for basic education. Specifically, the
government should consider the following in coming-up with a financing
strategy for EFA:
E underinvestment in basic education (only 2.4 percent of the GDP); about
85 percent of DepEd’s budget goes to salaries of personnel; and
8 inequitable distribution of limited national and local government resources,
especially for capital outlay and operating costs due to some “loopholes” in
existing policies.

4. The current inequitable distribution of resources
will require the government to
review existing legislations and policies in
allocating resources for schools in rural
areas to address the existing bias against rural
schools. Moreover, there is a need to
revisit the implementation of the law on
“Government Assistance to Students and
Teachers in Private Education” to find out if the
national government subsidy to
private schools benefits the poor students and if
the private schools produce better
quality outputs than the public schools.

5. • B. Addressing the Socio-Economic and
Geographical/Geophysical Factors that
• Affect the attainment of Education For All
• 143. The Philippine basic education system should be
flexible and responsive to the
• needs of learners as affected by non-school factors, such
as:
The Philippine basic education system
should be flexible and responsive to the
needs of learners as affected by non-
school factors, such as:
a. Economic Factors

6. The country is still dependent on agriculture, fishing
and forestry but at the same time an emerging global
market for business process, ICT spare parts, medical
services, to name a few, and this will require 51 DepEd’s
implementation of a more relevant basic education
curriculum in relation to local and global needs.
Social Factors
S The increasing percentage of school-age population requires the
government to effectively and efficiently implement fiscal reforms as this
will have major implications in attaining the goal of education for all. In
this regard, DepEd should actively participate in advocating for efficient
tax revenue collection. Moreover, mobilization of resources from local
governments, private sector and other partners will also help the
country finance the increasing budgetary requirements of EFA

7. Language and Cultural Factors
With different ethnic and Muslim groups
spread across country –
effective implementation of the curriculum
indigenization policy and national curriculum for
Muslim education is imperative.
M With more than 111 dialects spoken there is a
need to revisit the current policy on medium of
instruction: effective nationwide implementation of
the use of the mother tongue or the child’s
language as medium for instruction in pre-school
and the first two grades in the elementary level.

8. Geographical and geophysical factors
G Considering the huge size of the basic education system, (over
40,000 public schools in 7,107 islands) the applications of modern .
information and communication technology may offer the only
feasible medium for delivering high-quality instruction to millions of
learners in a large, diverse and geographically dispersed population
.
. DepEd must seriously consider adopting a flexible school calendar
–e.g., first three months of the school calendar (June to August) are
the rainy months with frequent flooding in Metro Manila; supervision
of schools is very difficult and dangerous during the rainy and
typhoon season.
t There is need to adopt differentiated designs for school facilities to
withstand natural calamities such as typhoons and earthquakes

9. • C. Reaching the Un-reached and Underserved
Groups of Learners
• 144. Providing children in difficult/different circumstances
access to quality and
• relevant basic education is still a big challenge that the
country should immediately
• address. To wit:
• • Children Engaged in Labor. DepEd needs to intensify
the implementation of its
• distance learning program both for elementary and
secondary levels so that
• schoolchildren who really need to work to earn a living
could still continue
• schooling even without regularly attending classes.

10. • • Street Children.
• DepEd needs to establish a strong partnership with other
• government agencies and other partners (NGOs, private/business
sector/LGUs)
• in providing basic education and other social and livelihood services to
street children and their families (the main objective of the latter services is
to sustain children’s schooling).
.
• • Children with Special Needs (Gifted and Differently-abled)
• . With the limited coverage of existing government educational facilities,
DepEd together with other agencies and partners need to work on the
expansion of basic education services to reach more persons with disability.
DepEd should specifically work on
• the strengthening and expansion of its SPED classes in the existing public
• elementary and secondary schools and the strengthening and enrichment of
its regular classes to mainstream the people with disabilities.

11. Muslim Children.
With the big percentage (93%) of Muslim school-
age population in the public school system, the
effective implementation of the national curriculum
for Muslim education in the public school system is
very
critical. The overall goal of the curriculum is to
develop the core competencies of Muslim children
in order for them to function effectively in society
within the
context of their environment and culture and that of
the wider community. In the long run, it will
hopefully effectively address the economic, social,
political problems in Muslim-dominated areas and
the entire country in general

12. • Children in Conflict-Affected Areas.
Convergence of support for the protection of
children, especially those who are not
educated from being vulnerable targets for
training and indoctrination as fighters. There
is also a need to execute a
covenant among and between concerned
parties to protect schools as “peace
zones”.

13. In summary, the country was not able to attain its 2005 targets in
almost all key outcome indicators in Early Childhood Education,
Formal Basic Education and Alternative Learning System.
Most of the regions have performance classified as
“falling further behind” or with performance lower than the
national level in 2002 and continued to decline in 2005. While
substantial investments were poured into the establishment
of basic education facilities, these were not enough to ensure
that all
3-5 year olds are in Early Childhood Education learning
centers, and all school-aged children were in school and able
to continue and eventually complete basic education with
satisfactory achievement level. The basic education system
should 53 be responsive to the differentiated needs of
learners where a “one-size fit all” or conventional
interventions (such as construction of classrooms, provision
of textbooks, etc) are not enough or will no longer work.

14. MDG attainment would require:
Enhanced revenue generation;
LGU, private sector and civil
society support;
Pursuit of projects with high
economic impact;
and
Tapping OFW remittances

15. Working toward s achie ving
one G oal wil m ake us cl r
l ose
to achie ve m e nt
of the re st & woul re d uce
d
costs of achie ving othe rs”,
E ve l H e rfke ns
ine

17. Enabling Environment for the
MDGs
SDC Res. No. 1 DILG MC
2003 “Expanding 2004-152
functions and “Guide to LGUs
composition of in the
MC-IHDC” Localization of
the MDGs”
MTPDP
2004-2010 Investment
identification per goal
hews closely to and target in MTPIP
the MDGs 2005-2010
Strong Legislative
commitment Strong support of
support of
of the Congress
donor
business community
sector and for the MDGs
civil society

18. Poverty Situation

19. FIGURE 1: Poverty Incidence of Population by Region, 2003
Legend
Below national average (7.3 - 30.4)
Above national average(30.5 - 54.2)
Cordillera Region 31.2 Cagayan Valley 24.5
Ilocos Region 30.2
Central Luzon 17.7
Metro Manila 7.3 Bicol Region 48.4
CALABARZON 18.8
Eastern Visayas 43.3
MIMAROPA 47.9
Central Visayas 28.4
Western Visayas 39.1
CARAGA 54.2
Northern Mindanao 44.3 Central Mindanao 38.4
Western Mindanao 49.4
Southern Mindanao 34.4
ARMM 53.1
Source
NSO Fam ily Incom e and Expenditures Survey 2003

20. Annual Per Capita Poverty Threshold, Poverty Incidence of Families and Population
by Region: 2000 and 2003
Annual Per Capita Poverty Poverty Incidence Poverty Incidence
Region Threshold (in Pesos) of Families (%) of Population (%)
2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003
Philippines 11, 451 12, 267 27.5 24.7 33.0 30.4
NCR 15, 693 16, 796 5.7 5.0 7.6 7.3
CAR 13, 066 13, 976 30.7 24.8 37.6 31.2
Region I 12, 685 13, 276 29.4 24.4 35.1 30.2
Region II 11, 128 11, 409 25.2 19.3 30.4 24.5
Region III 13, 760 14, 342 17.3 13.7 21.4 17.7
Region IV-A 13, 657 14, 616 15.2 14.9 19.1 18.8
Region IV-B 11, 995 12, 406 36.3 39.7 45.2 47.9
Region V 11, 372 12, 354 45.3 40.5 52.6 48.4
Region VI 11, 313 12, 275 36.6 31.3 44.4 39.1
Region VII 9, 656 9, 779 31.5 23.7 36.2 28.4
Region VIII 9, 518 10, 802 37.5 35.5 45.1 43.3
Region IX 9, 116 10, 414 38.5 44.1 44.8 49.4
Region X 10, 503 11, 609 37.9 37.9 43.8 44.3
Region XI 10, 264 11, 276 27.7 28.1 33.1 34.4
Region XII 10, 466 11, 303 40.7 32.0 46.8 38.4
Caraga 10, 896 12, 000 43.7 47.3 50.9 54.2
ARMM 12, 192 12, 739 53.7 45.7 59.8 53.1

21. FIGURE 2: Subsistence Incidence of Population, by Region 2003
Legend
Below national average
Above national average
Cordillera Region 13.4
Cagayan Valley 7.6
Ilocos Region 11.2
Central Luzon 4.2
Metro Manila 0.6 Bicol Region 26.6
CALABARZON 4.9
Eastern Visayas 21
MIMAROPA 22.9
Central Visayas 14.6
Western Visayas 17.7 CARAGA 31
Northern Mindanao 25.4 Central Mindanao 18.4
Western Mindanao 32.8
Southern Mindanao 17.6
ARMM 24.1
Source
NSO_Fam ily and Incom e Expenditure Study, 2003

22. Annual Per Capita Food Threshold, Subsistence Incidence of Families and Population
by Region: 2000 and 2003
Annual Per Capita Food Subsistence Incidence Subsistence Incidence
Region Threshold (in Pesos) of Families (%) of Population (%)
2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003 2000 Revised 2003
Philippines 7, 707 8, 134 12.3 10.4 15.8 13.8
NCR 9, 570 9, 974 0.7 0.4 1.0 0.6
CAR 8, 744 9, 117 13.7 9.8 17.9 13.4
Region I 8, 552 8, 903 11.4 8.1 15.2 11.2
Region II 7, 560 8, 026 9.3 5.6 11.8 7.6
Region III 8, 764 9, 338 4.2 2.9 5.5 4.2
Region IV-A 8, 782 9, 189 5.1 3.7 6.5 4.9
Region IV-B 8, 078 8, 339 17.4 17.7 24.1 22.9
Region V 8, 047 8, 372 23.3 20.3 29.3 26.6
Region VI 7, 983 8, 386 17.4 12.9 23.1 17.7
Region VII 6, 759 7, 016 16.9 11.2 20.7 14.6
Region VIII 7, 080 7, 696 19.1 15.5 24.8 21.0
Region IX 6, 574 7, 245 21.0 27.9 25.8 32.8
Region X 7, 296 7, 999 19.2 19.7 23.8 25.4
Region XI 7, 087 7, 751 12.8 13.5 16.7 17.6
Region XII 7, 235 7, 804 17.9 14.0 22.6 18.4
Caraga 7, 667 8, 353 24.4 24.5 30.7 31.0
ARMM 8, 313 8, 737 23.9 18.6 28.5 24.1

23. FIGURE 3: Gini Concentration Ratios, by Region 2003
Legend
Below National Average
Above National Average
Cordillera Region 0.4294
Cagayan Valley 0.4411
Ilocos Region 0.3968
Central Luzon 0.3486
Bicol Region 0.4648
Metro Manila 0.413
CALABARZON 0.4058
Eastern Visayas 0.4577
MIMAROPA 0.4354
Central Visayas 0.4711
Western Visayas 0.4392
CARAGA 0.4294
Northern Mindanao 0.4768
Central Mindanao 0.4567
Western Mindanao 0.5197
Southern Mindanao 0.4583
ARMM 0.3464

24. Gini Coefficient Among Families by Region, 2000 and 2003
Region GINI
2000 2003 % Change
Philippines 0.4822 0.4660 -1.6
NCR 0.4451 0.4130 -3.2
CAR 0.4439 0.4294 -1.5
Region I 0.4071 0.3968 -1.0
Region II 0.4227 0.4411 1.8
Region III 0.3591 0.3486 -1.1
Region IV-A 0.4086 0.4058 -0.3
Region IV-B 0.4076 0.4354 2.8
Region V 0.4455 0.4648 1.9
Region VI 0.4594 0.4392 -2.0
Region VII 0.4691 0.4711 0.2
Region VIII 0.4807 0.4577 -2.3
Region IX 0.4732 0.5197 4.7
Region X 0.4794 0.4768 -0.3
Region XI 0.4318 0.4567 2.5
Region XII 0.4631 0.4583 -0.5
Caraga 0.4118 0.4294 1.8
ARMM 0.3171 0.3464 2.9

25. FIGURE 4: Percentage of Households with Less than 100% Energy Adequacy

26. FIGURE 5: Percentage of Underweight Children 0-5 Year Olds

27. Meeting Goal 1: Eradicate
Extreme Poverty and Hunger

28. Priority Policies and
Programs
• Kapit-Bisig Laban sa Kahirapan (KALAHI)
• Enrolment of 7 million beneficiaries under
the National Health Insurance Program
(NHIP)
• Wholesale portfolio of the People’s Credit
and Finance Corporation (PCFC)
• Implementation of asset reform programs
• Delivery of human development services

29. ODA for MDGs
Summary of ODA for completed & ongoing projects,
by MDG category, from 2001-2005, in million US$
MDGs Amount % Share to
(in US$ million) Total MDG-
Related ODA
1 - Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 6,259.4 77.40
2 - Achieve universal primary education 557.9 6.90
3 - Promote gender equality 3.8 0.05
4 - Reduce child mortality 139.9 1.73
5 - Improve maternal health 157.0 1.94
6 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases 25.3 0.31
7 - Ensure environmental sustainability 943.31 11.67
TOTAL 8,086.6 100.00
Source: NEDA-
PMS

30. INVESTMENTS SUPPORTIVE OF THE MDGs
2005-2010
MDGs COST
(in PhP Billion)
1 - Eradicate extreme poverty & hunger 1,294.2
2 - Achieve universal primary education 56.7
3 - Promote gender equality -
4 - Reduce child mortality
5 - Improve maternal health 69.9
6 - Combat HIV/AIDS, malaria & other diseases
7 - Ensure environmental sustainability 198.8
8 – Global partnership for development 125.1
TOTAL 1,744.7
Source: NEDA-PIS

31. INTENSIFYING MULTISECTORAL PARTNERSHIP
AND COLLABORATION
Government (executive, Donor
legislature, judicial) Community
Local Private/
Government Business
CSOs,
Academe

32. Environmental Situation
and Challenges

33. Goal 7: Ensure Environmental
Sustainability
• Forests resources and watersheds
• Biodiversity resources
• Coastal and marine resources
• Air quality
• Water resources
• Waste and toxic chemicals

34. Forest Cover by Forest Type, 2003
Area Proportion to Total
Category (Hectares) (%)
Total Forest 7,168,400 100
Closed Forest 2,560,872 36
Broadleaved 2,448,864
Mixed 24,618
Coniferous 87,390
Open Forest 4,030,588 56
Broadleaved 3,847,284
Mixed 69,861
Coniferous 113,443
Mangrove 247,362 3
Plantation 329,578 5
Source: Forest Management Bureau (FMB)

35. Area Reforested, 1990-2003 (in hectares)
Year Total Percent Non- Percent
Govern Govern
ment ment
Sector
2003 15,087 13,195 87.5 1,892 12.5
2002 25,620 20,682 80.7 4,938 19.3
2001 31,440 26,524 84.4 4,916 15.6
2000 27,632 21,740 78.7 5,892 21.3
1999 42,165 31,183 74 10,982 26
1998 42,368 33,219 78.4 9,149 21.6
1997 66,236 49,301 74.4 16,935 25.6
1996 46,096 18,869 40.9 27,227 59.1
1995 65,233 21,841 33.5 43,392 66.5
1994 49,551 18,032 36.4 31,519 63.6
1993 19,211 6,347 33 12,864 67
1992 40,593 24,304 59.9 16,289 40.1
1991 93,039 73,602 79.1 19,437 20.9
1990 191,663 153,949 80.3 37,714 19.7
Annual 53,995
Average
Source: DENR Annual Report

36. Biodiversity Resources
Philippines…
• one of the megadiverse countries in the
world
• higher regard for the endemism of local
species
but…
• most severely threatened of the
megadiverse countries

37. Coastal and Marine Resources
• rich sources of fish and aquatic products
• habitat for countless underwater wildlife
• natural areas for recreation/tourism
Water resources
• disparities in water supply coverage across
regions
• depletion of ground water especially in Metro
Manila and Metro Cebu
• pollution of water sources

38. Air Quality
• pollution remains a problem in Metro Manila and
major urban centers
• on the level of suspended particulates (TSP), air
quality is not within standards
Waste and Toxic Chemicals
• solid waste generation in Metro Manila is
estimated at 5,345 tons per day
• urbanization inevitably increased the use of
chemicals
• no integrated treatment facility for hazardous
waste

39. Priority Policies and
Programs
• Adoption of Sustainable Forest
Management
• Revised Forestry Code of the Philippines
and the Watersheds Code
• Various biodiversity acts
• Fisheries Code and AFMA
• Clean Air Act

40. Challenges and Priorities for
Action
• Sustainable and more productive utilization of
natural resources
• Focus and strengthen the protection of
vulnerable and ecologically fragile areas
• Create healthier environment for the population
• Mitigate the occurrence of natural disasters
• Ensure environmental accountability for all
industries

41. CROSS-CUTTING
CHALLENGES….

42. CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES
AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
FINANCING THE MDGs
Government Expenditure Program by Sector
FY 2000-2005
35
30
25
20
15
10
5
0
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Social Services Debt Service Economic Services General Public Services Defense
Source: DBM, Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing

43. CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES
AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
FINANCING THE MDGs
Distribution of Public Expenditures by Local Government Units
By Sector, 2001-2004 (in thousand pesos)
Sector/Year 2001 2002 2003 2004
Economic Services 15,982,070 45,484,830 52,853,500 58,700,890
(15%) (32%) (33%) (34%)
Social Services 28,979,110 26,352,690 34,001,700 36,135,990
(27%) (19%) (21%) (21%)
General Public Services 63,375,820 69,580,140 73,954,470 78,545,740
(58%) (49%) (46%) (45%)
Total Public Expenditures 108,337,000 141,417,660 160,809,670 173,382,620
Source: DBM, Budget of Expenditure and Sources of Financing

44. CROSSCUTTING CHALLENGES
AND PRIORITIES FOR ACTION
FINANCING THE MDGs
ODA Commitments by Sector Agriculture, agrarian
FY 2001-2004 (US$ million) reform and natural
resources
80 Governance and
institutions
70 development
60 Infrastructure
development
50
40
Social reform and
30 development
20
Industry and services
10
0
2001 2002 2003 2004
Source: NEDA-
PIS

45. CROSS-CUTTING
CHALLENGES AND PRIORITIES
FOR ACTION
• Reduce disparities across regions
• Increase resource allocation for MDG-related
programs and projects
• Enforce full/stricter implementation of laws &
ensure passage of MDG-supportive bills
• Strengthen monitoring and implementation
• Scale-up campaign for localization
• Develop an advocacy plan
• Intensify multisectoral partnership & collaboration

46. Facilitating Factors
• Strong global support for MDGs by the United
Nations, ASEAN, and other multilateral
organizations;
• Expanding national support among
policymakers for MDGs (e.g., creation of the
House Committee on MDGs, issuance of EO
on the MDGs);
• Prioritization of MDGs in resource allocation
(e.g., focusing of MTPIP investments on
MDGs)
• Increasing awareness and participation of
private sector, LGUs in MDG-related
programs

47. Hindering Factors
• Resource constraints (i.e., MDG financing
gap of about $1.5 billion yearly);
• Lack of support by creditors for the Debt
for MDG Projects/Debt for Equity in MDG
Projects initiative;
• Low budgetary priority for MDGs accorded
by some LGUs; and
• Lack of disaggregated data to monitor
MDGs at local levels.

48. Parallel Initiatives
 Participation in the High-Level Plenary
Meeting on MDGs
 Formulation of the Plan of Action for
Poverty Reduction (2006-2010)
Enhance the current Poverty Reduction
Strategy and Program Framework
 Advocacy for the Philippine proposal on
Debt for Equity in MDG Projects

49. Implications on the Philippine
Economy
MDG attainment would require:
• Enhanced revenue generation;
• LGU, private sector and civil society support;
• Expansion of microfinance services for the poor;
• Pursuit of projects with high economic impact;
• Right-sizing the bureaucracy;
• Privatization; and
• Tapping OFW remittances.