Governing education right
Our future as a nation literally hangs on the education of our children and the education system that molds them, and the way things stand, we’re facing a rather murky future indeed. I wrote last week how the 2025 Program for International Student Assessment no longer puts us at the bottom in education outcomes. But we remain among the bottom one-fifth in the world, and up to three out of four Filipino students remain below minimum proficiency levels. On top of that, the already wide learning gap between rich and poor widened even more. Our education crisis persists.
It became evident early on to the Second Congressional Commission on Education (Edcom 2) that fixing our flawed education governance is paramount. The heaviest drags on the sector have to do with (1) too centralized, top-down governance; (2) policy directions that change with every new secretary of education (who changes even more frequently than the President); (3) insufficient budget worsened by inefficient and ineffective budget execution; and (4) inadequate appreciation and support for optimizing the role of the private education sector in the overall education system.
I’ve written of the “memocracy” that prevails in the Department of Education (DepEd). Edcom 2 learned that school principals will not (and believe they cannot) decide and take any action, especially on creative, locally adapted learning approaches, methods, and content, unless a memo from above explicitly instructs or permits it. Local government officials with a genuine desire and capacity to improve the learning environment in their schools cannot effect beneficial changes when principals and district supervisors feel constrained by perceived restrictions from above. And yet the Governance of Basic Education Act of 2001 (Republic Act No. 9155) promulgated “shared governance” and “school-based management,” explicitly empowering principals to, among others, “introduce new and innovative modes of instruction to achieve higher learning outcomes.” To his credit, DepEd Secretary Sonny Angara has enabled wider latitude for school heads and their immediate superiors, so they do not feel straightjacketed by imagined restrictions from above. He is also enabling moves toward decentralization and devolution of education governance functions best left at lower levels. This contrasts directly with the atmosphere that appears to have prevailed under his predecessor, known for whimsical directives that trumped time-tested education practice, apart from the suspicious use of unprecedented confidential funds. Still, “memocracy” is an ingrained culture that will not vanish overnight and will take years of sustained and consistent empowering leadership to overcome.
This is where an education governance structure proposed by Philippine Business for Education chair Ramon del Rosario, head of the Phinma group that includes Phinma Education, makes eminent sense and merits serious consideration (see “A bold idea for education governance,” Business Matters, 9/17/26). He calls for an autonomous and highly professional entity similar to the Bangko Sentral ng Pilipinas (BSP) to govern our education sector, with essential features that include a clear mandate, highly qualified and stable leadership, the ability to attract the best and the brightest, and operational independence (i.e., from political leaders).
Education policy, like monetary policy, demands stable and consistent direction that is insulated from political agendas and transcends political administrations to ensure continuity. Like the BSP’s Monetary Board, it could be governed by a top-notch National Education Board chaired by a well-chosen fixed-term governor (like the BSP’s). The board would be made up of respected education experts, including those from the private education sector, along with top officials of the basic education, higher education, and technical and vocational education and training entities (currently the DepEd, Commission on Higher Education, and Technical Education and Skills Development Authority). The body’s exact configuration merits close study, but with the above essential features, the country’s education directions would get the boost and consistency they have long lacked, which led us to the crisis we find ourselves in today.
As for the education budget, not only must it be the largest of any sector as mandated by the Constitution; it is best set at a minimum percentage of the country’s gross domestic product (Edcom 2 recommends 4, 5, and 5.5 percent by 2028, 2031, and 2035, respectively). Meanwhile, the critical role the private education sector plays in the system needs to be highlighted, optimized, and publicly supported. All told, every Filipino, from our President on to our billionaires, middle class, and down to our society’s so-called “laylayan” (marginalized) must see getting education right as a top national priority.
cielito.habito@gmail.com
