It is believed that scientific social research and its results can help improve the creation of public policies and programs, although most people also recognize that the political process itself is dynamic and active. Hence, the analysis of factors that influence the results of research or the interaction of policy and research determines the limits of the task at hand. For successful use of social research as a contribution to policy development or as a tool for decision-making, it is useful to understand the processes and factors surrounding the conduct of research, the quality and importance of research for a specific political audience, the dissemination of research results to the general public and to specific users, and the socio-political context of political problems to solve. which are being investigated. In this case, the article examines the impact of social research on education policy and reform in the Philippines. It begins with a brief description of key issues in Philippine education, based on an analysis of three major studies related to these issues and their impact on policies and reforms within the education sector, with a particular focus on the period 1998-2001. When discussing the reform process, this study also addresses the socio-political context of developing educational tactics in the Philippines and how research results can be used and taken into account by policy makers.

Challenges of Philippine education

Since the late 1970s, dissatisfaction with the state of education in the Philippines has increased, although the real importance and seriousness of this problem has often been overshadowed by dramatic circumstances in the country's political and economic life. The beginning of each school year was accompanied by reports showing a constant shortage of classrooms, not to mention other facilities (such as libraries and laboratories) needed to improve the learning process. Throughout the year, there were reports of a shortage of textbooks, problems with teachers (multiple assignments, poor teaching and unsatisfactory efficiency); various shortcomings, poor management, and even poor quality of life.

Dr. Virginia A. Miralao is the Executive Director of the Philippine Council of Social Sciences. Her main research interests are sociological methodology, population studies, rural sociology, gender and family studies. She is the editor of the collective volume "The Philippine Social Sciences in the Life of the Nation" (1999). E-mail: pssc@skynet.net

page 89

corruption in the country's education authorities; parental complaints about blunders and mistakes in teaching children in schools; and other comments about the uselessness of the school course itself.

For some time, signs of the country's deteriorating education system were available. In 1990, a congressional commission that reviewed the national education system concluded that " the quality of Philippine education is constantly deteriorating. Our primary and secondary schools have failed in educating average citizens to make their needs responsible, productive, and self-fulfilling (...) Colleges and vocational schools do not train the personnel we need to develop our economy ( ... ). Special education is mediocre. It doesn't provide the knowledge we need to create jobs and raise the value of our products."

Also, national audits conducted to monitor educational improvements showed unacceptable levels of learning among the country's primary and secondary schools. Between 1993/1994 and 1997, when the National Primary School Performance Test (or NEAT) and the National Secondary School Performance Test (or NSAT) were introduced, low pass scores were fairly common, both in individual subjects and in final grades. But rather than expel students who were unable to achieve the conditional passing score of 75%, the school administration chose to simply lower the passing score to 50%, in order to meet public pressure and allow students to continue their studies.

It must be said that the populist requirement mentioned above was not new and was reminiscent of the abolition of the National College Entrance Examination (NCEE), which was introduced during Marcos ' authoritarian rule in the late 1970s and was replaced by NEAT and NSAT in 1993/1994. Since high school graduates scored less than the prescribed 75%, they were not allowed to go to college. The NCEE exam has been challenged as unconstitutional by some private schools that have lost their tuition revenue. This movement, which came from NCEE, also earned popular support as a means of social mobility and reducing family poverty, due to the importance of the Philippines ' place in higher education. In short, national feelings and cultural values have brought the national education verification system into collision with an assessment that renders the latter invalid. Over the years, it became apparent that national education assessments (from NCEE to NEAT and NSAT) were unable to meet the standards of Philippine education. Having received low student performance in NEAT and NSAT, the Philippines should not have been surprised by the results of the Third International Seminar on Mathematics and Science, held in 1998 in 41 countries, which showed that the Philippines ranked second and third from the bottom in mathematics and science, respectively. However, the comparison of the Philippines with other countries shocked officials and teachers, who were too complacent to respond to criticism of the national education system.

Subsequently, a comprehensive study of the reputation and quality of colleges and universities in the region conducted by Asia Weekly showed that the 4 Philippine universities included in the study (which were always among the best in the country) scored less than 50% among other higher education institutions in Asia. Once again, the study's result was a blow to national and university officials, at a time when other analysts and observers defended the low level of Philippine universities, citing their relatively limited budget.

Recently, another study found that the Philippines ranks 9th out of 14 countries in the Asia-Pacific region as a source of qualified graduates and an educated workforce with the skills and abilities required by the government-

page 90

nya in information societies. The results of the study indicate the failure of the Philippines ' reputation as a source of education and learning in neighboring countries in the region. Due in large part to the fact that English is the medium of communication in the Philippines, students from Korea, Taiwan, Vietnam, Thailand, Indonesia, and even Japan have come to the Philippines for higher education since the 1960s. A recent study found that the Philippines is rapidly losing its edge in education and training.

Despite the established evidence discussed above, many observers share the view that Philippine education has never been worse off than it is now. For too long, the Philippines ' penchant for English and other traditional educational guidelines, such as literacy and admissions standards, have obscured the underlying problems and weaknesses of the national education system. Literacy rates in the Philippines were already as high as 90% in 1990. While the admission rates in 1997 were 81.2% in primary and secondary schools. These traditional educational norms convinced the Philippines that there were no serious educational problems in the country. But data from the 1990s consistently highlighted a serious erosion of Philippine education standards. The situation required immediate attention.

Basic research and analytical work on Philippine education

Many explanations have been offered for the decline in Philippine education, but a more systematic analysis of the problems in this area is provided in three recent national reviews and final reports:

1. Philippine Education in the Twenty-first Century: A 1998 Study of the Philippine Education Sector (1998, PESS) jointly conducted by the Asian Development Bank (ABD) and the World Bank (WB) for the Philippine Government;

2. Philippine Education Reform Agenda: Report published by the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER) in April 2000.;

3. The 2000 Human Development Report in the Philippines, which focused on education as this year's special theme.

A 1998 Study of the Philippine Education Sector (The 1998 PESS)

The study follows the lines of a similar study conducted by the World Bank in 1988, a significant part of which was presented in 1991-1992. Congressional Education Commissions (or EDCOM). The study was aimed at creating a consensus of legislative proposals and policy instructions related to the problems of the education sector. Similarly, PESS was supposed to provide independent data to the President's Commission on Education Reform (or PCER), a special body created in late 1998 by President Joseph E. Johnson. Estrada "to determine the reform program in accordance with the budget and develop recommendations and wishes of the executive branch for the legislative program on education" (PCER Report, p. 11).

The direct link between 1998 PESS (representing research and analytical work) and PSER (a special decision-making body created by the Government to use the conclusions of 1998 PESS in policy development) is noteworthy. This measure also reflected the high opinion of Philippine officials about the 1998 PESS (and other World Bank and/or Asian Development Bank research reports). Like their counterparts in other countries that have participated in programs and projects funded by banks, Philippine government officials have turned to banking analysis and research reports for information

page 91

Funding and resources used in the education sector

- Adequate funding for basic education and improving its functioning (improving the teaching and quality of existing schools versus expanding admissions).

- Slow down and cancel the expansion of low-level universities (limit the number of state universities and colleges and support cost recovery among these institutions).

- Develop better programs for both secondary and higher levels and focus on subsidizing education.

- Decentralizing the school system: increasing partnerships with local authorities and communities for accountability, generational resources/mobilization.

Equality and quality of basic education

- Improve access for the poor and those living in remote areas: strategic support for local central schools, support by local authorities and NGOs for small-scale educational programs, subsidize transport/border schools in remote areas.

- Improve the effectiveness of training: free them from non-academic duties, use incentives through the system of payment, bonuses for good work, and strengthen control by the local education department.

- Improve student learning by:

* optimal choice of the initial course of study (reducing the number of subjects)

* change teaching in mathematics and science to strengthen the use of problem solutions

* provision of textbooks that meet the standard of books for students

* review the existing bilingual policy (use the main local language and facilitate the transition to Filipino and English)

* development and establishment of a more professional education verification/assessment system

* take into account the preparatory year for university, due to the insufficient duration of the basic education cycle.

- Reduce production costs and improve internal efficiency by rationalizing the attitudes of teachers, local schools, and the cooperation of local authorities and communities.

Competitiveness in higher and vocational education

- Rationalize institutions of higher education; carry out a fundamental reform in the management structure and emphasize the importance of cost recovery.

- Targeted public subsidies to higher education for the benefit of low-income groups.

- Pay attention to the quality of cases, improve the quality of teaching and learning, insist on the evidence of good teaching as the basis for career advancement.

- Shift the goal of higher education more to science and technology, improve and expand the productivity of university science and technology programs, and consider selective science and technology programs.

- Improve and expand private allocations of vocational education and training by increasing access to private credit/resource providers.

- Shift the focus and mandate of the Technical Education and Skills Development Administration (TESDA) to the policy of developing and recognizing safeguards against technical/professional training programs.

- To improve the objectivity of access and results in the Preparation of vocational and technical education (TVET), to provide an opportunity for the best students in TVET to go to university according to uniform standards.

- Develop and use the information education system to develop the simplest skills in communities with the help of citizen groups.

Sector management

- Develop and use the information education system to develop the simplest skills in communities with the help of citizen groups.

- Focus support for higher education on a small number of well-organized public universities and colleges( SUCs), and eliminate support for poorly managed, low-quality public universities and colleges (SUCs).

Encourage private higher education institutions that have received legalization/accreditation from a group of experts.

page 92

for guidance on specific policy issues and issues. A recent World Bank review of policy-makers ' use of its research noted that most policy makers in emerging and transition economies "consider banking analysis to be useful, relevant, objective, and technically sound" (World Bank Bulletin, January-March 2000).

In addition, it is known that both banks hired teams of international and local experts and scientists to conduct research and prepare reports. Their reports in various fields usually offered comprehensive and detailed reviews of the field (including information from previous work and similar studies), as well as useful synopses and summaries, and policy conclusions from their data and conclusions. In short, the appeal of bank reports to policy makers was both in their quality and in the detailed policy orientation of their research reports.

Table 1 summarizes the main findings and recommendations of the 1998 PESS. They fall under four headings: funding and resources used in the Philippine education sector, equity and quality of educational publications, competitiveness in higher and vocational education, and sector governance. The essence of the main policy proposed by PESS 1998 was based on an analysis of the weaknesses, shortcomings and inefficiencies of the national education system. It was intended to increase the efficiency of funds used in the sector, focusing on the use of public funds for quality educational publications, while encouraging the private sector to support the demands for increased admission to higher and vocational education. Here, the study also includes important recommendations:

- a moratorium on the distribution of free secondary schools and public universities and colleges (SUCs);

- focus government scholarships on the able poor, subsidize programs aimed at improving education in remote areas, in large areas;

- measures to improve the efficiency and productivity of teaching (through training, incentive salaries, etc.);

- measures to improve students ' learning (pay attention to problems related to the national course of study, textbooks and teaching materials, the language of subjects, etc.);

- proposals to improve the governance of the sector by further improving the roles and coordination of the Department of Primary, Higher and Vocational Education; through the decentralization of education governance, governance and responsibility of local authorities and communities.

Report of the Presidential Commission on Education Reform (PCER)

Using PESS as the main source of information and, in addition, previous studies and reports, the Presidential Commission on Educational Reform (PCER), established by President Estrada in 1998, was divided into six working committees, including various aspects of the problem, in order to clarify and select the strategic policy proposals/recommendations that were supposed to develop the reform program. After a year of research, the Commission published the following recommendations::

- Establishment of the National Council for the Coordination of Education (NCEE) to coordinate the actions of DECS, CHED and TESDA in identifying trans-sectoral issues and in developing a common approach to overall education planning and allocation of funds.

- During the moratorium, improve the establishment and restructuring of public universities and colleges.

- Reorientation of higher education grants to meet student requirements, fair access and program analysis, as well as greater responsibility and efficiency.

page 93

- Creation of a one-year pre-bachelor's degree system in addition to the ten-year cycle of basic education (the shortest in Asia) and further preparation of secondary school graduates for higher education.

- Expansion of the higher-level teaching staff, growth in the number of qualified teachers with a master's degree (from 30% to 70%), use of a network of teacher training centers (or Higher Centers) throughout the country.

- Improving the teaching competence at the basic level, in order to update and expand the professional skills and knowledge of teachers through advanced training programs.

- Expanding the options for first-stage instruction, using the regional lingua franca or native language to facilitate the transition to learning English and Filipino.

- Creation of the National Education Assessment and Testing System (NEETS) to assess the quality of education and study achievements at all levels (basic, higher and vocational education).

- Creation of uniform standards for accreditation of each discipline, dissemination of mechanisms for improving universities and comparison of their efficiency.

It is clear that the policy recommendations of the PSP were consistent with the policy of the PESS proposals. If the first three recommendations were aimed at rationalizing the financial resources used in the sector, improving governance and productivity in education departments (for example, the Department of Education, Culture and Sports [DECS]; the Commission on Higher Education [CHED]; the Administration of Technical Education and Skills Development [TESDA], and in public universities and colleges; while the other six intentions are to improve the quality of education through improvements in teaching staff, the language of instruction, the duration of basic education, the introduction of national education audits at various levels (basic, higher and vocational) and the creation of accreditation standards for various academic and professional programs.

From this point of view, it should be noted that the Chairman of PSERA, a world-renowned education specialist who served as the Deputy Minister of Education of the Philippines, was an equal among PESS columnists, while the Executive Director of PSERa, a specialist in education and linguistics, served as one of the PESS advisory authors. Their participation in both studies has played a major role in continuing research on reform policies, together with the PSP helping to further translate the PESS findings and recommendations for the Government in developing reform activities.

In addition, it should be noted that the membership of the PSP included 16 members of the Commission who are heads of the main educational authorities of the country (DECS, CHED and TESDA) and heads or high-ranking representatives of finance, planning, local authorities, scientific and technical departments; representatives of public and private universities and colleges, school teachers and inspectors, etc. individuals and NGOs. The heads of the Senate and House Education Committees of the Philippine Congress were also ex officio members of the PSP, where prominent educators, sociologists, and scientists worked as consultants. In short, the multi-organizational and multi-sectional structure of the PSP has helped to ensure that organizations and interest groups participate in the discussion of the proposed PESS solutions and translate them into concrete reform policies. It also helped to spread the PESS's awareness and helped to reach agreement on ways to implement reform, especially in the Estrada Administration Office and to develop closer relationships with other groups and organizers, such as both houses of Congress, local governments, officials, and teachers in private and local schools.

page 94

Human Development Report of the Philippines (PHDR 2000)

Preparation of the 2000 Report began in January 1998, even before Estrada won the presidential election in May of that year. The report was created by the Human Development Organization of the Philippines (locally known as HDN), a loose group of individuals from academia, government, groups from the private sector, the media, and NGOs that sought to institutionalize the creation and analysis of human development tools (including the Human Development Index or HDI used in the UNDH Global Human Development Reports) into the Philippine system promote the use of human development tools among various groups, both within and outside government. PHDR 2000 is already the third report prepared by HDN, the first two were devoted to the field of research of means for mitigating poverty in the country and tender problems. The report, like the first two, sought to look at the national education system in detail and, going further, found traditional estimates of educational development (literacy and admission rates), which were included in the HDI calculations.

A special PHDR publication on education drew public attention to the shortcomings of Philippine education, arguing that government officials focused only on the budget and paying for annual admission increases, with little concern for how the sector's funds are used to improve the quality of teaching and learning at various levels of education. The report's specific analysis and conclusions on various aspects of the national education system (i.e. budget use and efficiency, teacher and program effectiveness, training, textbooks, learning technologies, etc.) generally reflected the same concerns as the PESS 1998 and PSER reports. The PHDR 2000 report actually used one of the technical reports prepared for PESS 1998.

However, after the PHDR 2000 report was prepared and released by an independent group of educators, sociologists, and outside the government, it also criticized the weakness and inability of the country's General Department of Education (DECS) to influence much-needed changes and the growing challenges of modernizing and improving Philippine education today.

The report also criticized previous education policies, which, in their opinion, were the cause of modern problems. Among others, he noted a previous passage of the Magna Carta of Teachers, which limited the distribution of teachers to districts or places where they were most needed; acceptable teacher salaries rose in 1987 and 1994, which is now considered a very one-sided distribution of the DECS salary budget, leaving only 10% for other items of expenditure (textbooks,textbooks, etc.). laboratories, other equipment), which is equally necessary to ensure educational standards and quality standards. Reference is also made to the 1987 constitutional provision that provides free basic education (up to high school) to all Filipinos and promised to nationalize secondary schools in all districts in 1988. This decree was politically popular at the time, but it could not actually be implemented by the Government, even though education was a priority in the national budget.

The very critical position put forward by the PHDR 2000 report confronted the government and education officials and could drive a wedge between scientists and education department officials - a situation that could reduce the chances that the research findings and recommendations would be accepted and implemented. Fortunately, however, one of the authors of PHDR 2000 is Brother Andrew Gonzalez, a prominent Filipino sociologist and educator (former president of one of the country's leading universities) He was quickly selected and appointed by President Estrada as Minister of Education. Before your appointment

page 95

as a minister in 1998, he submitted his opinions to PHDR 2000, but his report was written after his appointment. His view of the problems and needs of the sector largely coincided with the conclusions already formulated in the PESSo and PSER reports in 1988, which also expressed in somewhat more strident language the conclusions and recommendations of PHDR 2000 (see Table 2). Thus, Minister Gonzalez was in an exceptional position, as he fully understood and accepted the three recommendations. the head of the Education Review Committee and assumed responsibility for implementing the proposed reforms.

Similar to the PESS 1998 and the PSER report (and like the 2 previous PHDR reports), PHDR 2000 was submitted to the President's office and Cabinet for a formal introduction and briefing to ensure that senior officials are aware of the report and its conclusions and recommendations. The media issued a press release on the release of these national education reviews, and several open discussions and lectures were organized to further disseminate their results. Finally, all three reports - 1998 PESS, PSER, and PHDR 2000-were made available to interested parties and readers from among their charitable sponsors.

Impact of research recommendations on policies for change and reform

While the "sectoral analysis and review" prepared in 1998 by PESS, PSER, and PHDR 2000 was used by education officials and administrators to study policy issues in the field of education, the recommendations of the reports also required policy decisions involving different departments and bodies of government, and decision-making at different levels.

Because of the breadth and complexity of education issues in the Philippines, the recommendations that emerged from the sectoral studies required policy decisions and actions in many areas and at various levels of government bureaucracy. Some of the recommendations, for example, required the country's education authorities (DECS, CHED, and TESDA) to work together to coordinate and synchronize reform efforts; while the recommendations on funding, budget, and use-and-allocation resources required all three bodies to work with the budget and planning departments and ensure that the country's education system is fully operational. even with the Department of Science and Technology. Some of the other proposed reforms required certain amendments to existing laws, which then inevitably entailed further work and cooperation with members of the Philippine legislature. In addition, other proposed reforms, such as the decentralization of various aspects and activities of the education system, included further negotiations and agreements between central government organizations and local provincial and municipal authorities, as well as with local schools, teachers, parents and other members of the public.

By creating a large number of agencies and decision-making points that have been incorporated into the implementation of proposed education reforms in the Philippines, it is not easy to trace how research findings have been used to shape policy (probably the politically useful findings of the study were more limited to a specific finding or issue, such as the impact of different teaching tools on learning, this is easier to follow than more serious research). However, you can try to solve this problem by looking at how a given government department or agency has responded to the recommendations of the sectoral reports. This article examines policy feedback within DECS, as well as some of the difficulties associated with implementing the proposed reforms in real politics.

page 96

Table 2. Proposed PHDR 2000 policy changes and directions

- The advantage must be given to meet budget efficiency requirements in basic education.

* Authorities should focus on ways to increase the share of the budget allocated to school equipment, such as science and computer labs and providing children with books and school supplies.

* Take more account of the use of information technology (IT) for basic education and teacher training, which can respond more effectively to annual admissions than simply increasing the number of teachers and buildings.

- Break the isolation and hierarchy of the central education system and make it accountable to parents, communities and local authorities, responsive to local needs and with greater community involvement. This significant step towards decentralisation is necessary to step up other reforms such as:

* Investing local funds in the education budget.

* Accelerate local participation and implementation of local government laws (with local governments taking greater responsibility for building school buildings and providing education).

* Make changes in the composition of local school bodies at the expense of elected politicians and officials, and grant rights to interested members of provincial councils, parent-teacher associations, civil society organizations, professional associations and alumni associations.

* A community engagement mandate to promote the quality and relevance of education in students ' daily lives.

* Liberalize the purchase of textbooks by parents and local school authorities from the list of titles approved by DECS.

* Develop the use of one of the major Filipino languages (not just Filipino) or English (or both) As the language of instruction for all primary education, the choice of language is shared with local authorities and the communities they represent.

Reviews inside DECS

As in science, where he was president of the university, the appointment of Gonzalez as Minister of Education was welcomed by members of the academic community, many of whom supported his nomination to the Nomination Committee and who saw in his candidacy hope for implementing long-needed reforms in the department. But after the experience of other scientists who had previously served in the Cabinet, there was a certain cautious skepticism about the political changes and reforms that could actually be achieved by scientists who became cabinet ministers and government officials.

The transition from academic and private life to high-level public life involves a shift from the comfortable constraints and companionship of (usually) equally minded colleagues to the difficulties and confusion of a public institution where connections must be made with many actors and the public - the president and other cabinet members, legislators, budget staff, local officials, and various departments and departments and the staff of the department you belong to (for the Minister of Education, this also includes teachers, parents, and students). It is also well known that cabinet officials ' time is taken up by meetings or by crises and urgent problems, or simply by observing how their department is working. While most people have an understanding of how government institutions work, this is often far from the minds of academics who are developing their own recommendations for policy change and reform.

Therefore, taking into account that the post of minister leaves little time for reflection and political activities

page 97

According to the analysis, Minister Gonzalez's background as a scholar and his knowledge and understanding of ongoing research in the education sector enabled him to lead reforms during his tenure. (Minister Gonzalez and members of his ministry left their posts after the impeachment of President Estrada in January 2001) Newspapers reported on the costs of the policy of change and reform initiated by Minister Gonzalez and subsequently continued by his successor.

By taking office and following exactly the directions of the sectoral education reviews, Minister Gonzalez has made it perfectly clear that he intends to increase the effectiveness of DECS and improve the quality of basic education. One of its first steps was to enable teachers (teachers of all primary and secondary schools in the country under the centralized control of DECS) to focus on their teaching tasks and on improving their teaching skills and abilities. This was due to the fact that over a number of years, various administrative and financial problems of the school were passed on to teachers, which led either to overloading (both teaching and non-teaching tasks) or to a full load of non-teaching work. Similarly, the poor salaries of teachers in the mid-1980s led many to pursue their own small businesses, which were allowed because of public sympathy for their profession.

Education surveys have shown that the conditions of secondary school teachers have changed, and that salaries, which increased in 1988 and 1994, are higher than those of private school teachers. This increase in salaries, moreover, did not correlate with the quality of teachers ' work, which resulted in public outrage at the poor quality of teaching. So the proposal to return teachers to teaching caused some resistance from those who received super-fees for non-teaching work or super-profits from their business. An appeal was issued that if we want to improve our schools, teachers should work more efficiently, for this they should seriously focus on their work. This was accompanied by programs developed by Minister Gonzalez to improve teachers ' skills through training programs, one of which (as confirmed by research) dealt with information and communication technology, which gave DECS and teachers the opportunity to better meet the requirements for increasing classroom enrollment.

Minister Gonzalez also stated his intention to improve not only the production of textbooks, but also their quality, as well as the principles and procedure for approving and purchasing textbooks by DECS, which was perceived as an opportunity for corruption. After several months in the ministry, when an attempt by a group to bribe budget officials for a huge contract to publish and distribute high school textbooks failed, Minister Gonzalez publicly announced that a group of grafters had visited his office and introduced themselves as being related to the president. This outspokenness earned him public respect (although it embarrassed the president) and helped to improve the image of DECS as a body that can achieve increased quality and responsibility. The Minister thus increased confidence in himself and was able to implement reforms within DECS.

Addressing quality issues by changing the curriculum

According to the findings and recommendations of education sector studies, it was clear that the Minister focused on addressing the quality deficiencies in basic education (although efforts were also focused on the influx of new applicants). He decided, when starting the process of revising existing curricula, that this would not require new or large budget expenditures, but would require a lot of boring work (i.e. meetings, reviews, dialogues, seminars, etc.) as in the sub-department-

page 98

department offices, in other bureaus, offices, and among teachers; and between them and external sponsors and advisers.

Teachers and DECSa officials opposed curriculum changes, partly because of bureaucratic inertia and partly because they themselves were considered experts on academic affairs. In preparing the ground for change and setting up the DECS for this purpose, the Minister, in his speeches and other speeches to teachers and at meetings devoted to education, elaborated on the weaknesses of the curriculum, which was shown by various studies (for example, lack of communication, outdated structure and philosophy, subject content is overloaded, pedagogy is not suitable, etc.) and He considered that this revision should be carried out quickly (the country's basic education curricula have not been systematically reviewed since the mid-1980s).

He clearly felt that the various departments and divisions of DECS should be exposed to external reviews and criticism of the curriculum, including a critical review of DECS-approved textbooks by the Committee on Social Sciences and Humanities of the National Commission of the Philippines at UNESCO (UNACOM) in conjunction with the Philippine Council on Social Sciences (PSCC). The UNACOM-PSS report was presented to Minister Gonzalez at a meeting with him and other DECS officials. During the meeting, the team that prepared the report submitted several copies to DECS, but a few weeks later, the Ministry of Education requested additional copies of the report for itself. This shows not only the Minister's high appreciation of the research and analytical work carried out, but also his insistence on bringing these ideas to the minds of people in the educational bureaucracy and introducing them to outsiders ' views and perspectives.

The reforms initiated by Minister Gonzalez continued to be supported by the Administration of President Gloria M. Arroya, whose Secretary of Education and Deputy Secretary of the National Academy of Sciences are currently serving in the United States. The Program and Project Ministers monitored the ongoing process.

In 2001, agreements were reached on the modernization of training courses. In line with the suggestions of previous studies, this course change included reducing eight subjects in primary school to five subjects in secondary school, starting in 2002; and allowing schools to teach primary classes (grades 1 to 3) in the local, native language, rather than the national (Filipino) language, as previously prescribed.

DECS held a series of course reform summits (consisting of two-day workshops) to develop the structure of shortened courses (i.e. new learning objectives and competencies for core subjects, integration of different concepts and exercises into a single whole, allocation of hours to each subject, etc.). such as private school teachers, discipline or subject matter experts, educators, other consultants, advisors, and sociologists (including the UNACOM-PSS project team).

These summits have broken the isolation of DECS, although the summit activities have also shown continued difficulties in developing shared views, perspectives, and opinions on the one hand of DECS management and teachers, and on the other of the academic and non - academic communities. At a round table held in early 1998, a draft of the UNASOM-PSS report was discussed (before changes to the curriculum were considered), and some teachers and DECS representatives reacted vigorously to the report, until several people left the discussion. Similarly, in summit activities, some teachers, especially those whose subjects were curtailed by the course, continued to strongly advocate the use of their subjects, even though there was general agreement that the course should be curtailed. This probably serves as a confirmation that the proposed reforms that emerged from the research can be more readily understood and accepted by senior officials. (In the last summit workshop, for example, the workshop chair-a DECS official-emphasized that

page 99

the need for reform was based on the findings of the study.) This, however, is difficult to achieve among the bureaucracy, which sees reform measures as a subject of discussion and negotiation. The important role of experienced intermediaries and arbitrators (such as those who were on contract at DECS for the reform summits)should be noted: they seemed to be effective messengers of expedient research and analysis, which were included in the formulation of reform proposals. On the contrary, sociologists may not be the best popularizers of their own conclusions and recommendations, since their type of thinking and language remains too special for the outside public. In addition, many people are not aware of the conditions surrounding the work of officials and employees.

While the reform process remained incomplete, its steps were influenced by previous studies. This was made possible by the appointment of Gonzalez as Minister of Education, who brought his academic and university management experience to his political tactics. Compared to the appointed politicians, whose political course was most likely influenced by pragmatism and political opinions, it is obvious that Minister Gonzalez's political course was influenced by his conviction in the" correctness " of the conclusions and recommendations of the research, which he persistently continued to implement-by the way, according to some observers, politically naive-in his post.

Before resolving the results of the DECS reform, several other actions and policy statements made by Minister Raul Roco (a former senator and justice luminary who succeeded Gonzalez as minister) and his deputy should be mentioned. the Minister for Programs and projects who were very supportive of the proposed measures for the reform of the educational system.

page 100

The first was to deal with an ongoing campaign to reduce opportunities for corruption in DECS. After taking office as Roco's Minister, his first major action was to stop DECS ' involvement in facilitating the collection of various personal loans received by teachers from their salaries, and on which DECS full-time employees at various levels and in various regions received earned remuneration and commissions.

It is clear that this caused resistance within DECS: quite a few teachers and employees organized strikes to protest the minister's decision. Because of their size (over 400,000 nationwide), primary and secondary school teachers emerged as an important political force in the 1980s, when their meagre salaries and working conditions became a rallying point for activists. Therefore, they formed an electorate that attracted the attention of officials and politicians in need of popular support. However, Minister Roko stood by his decision on the issue of deductions from teachers ' salaries, arguing that the welfare of teachers should be considered on the merits and not at the expense of the efficiency of DECS.

Similar actions regarding accountability were also introduced by DECS through the Deputy Director General. the Minister for Programs and Projects (also a well-known scholar, writer and closely associated with both Ministers Gonzalez and Roco) in the field of approval and distribution of textbooks for secondary schools. Previous procedures provided ample opportunities for conflict among textbook authors, critics, publishers, and responsible members of the national DECS and its regional bodies. Deputy. Minister Isagani Cruz has broken with previous practices, starting anew with textbook preparation, criticism and approval from outside experts and private education professionals; breaking orders for publishers; and allowing school supervisors and principals more choice in selecting textbooks for their schools. The success of the changed procedures saved DECS a significant amount of money and put forward areas for considering effective means of reform without new budget allocations, but simply by improving the use of existing resources.

Finally, DECS officials implemented a notification policy for plans to abolish the discredited NEAT and NSAT and replace them with a new educational assessment test; and developed mechanisms to create a one-year pre-bachelor's degree program for high school graduates interested in pursuing further college studies. These policy promises helped prepare suitable sections in DECS and the general public for subsequent change and reform plans, which have consistently remained the main theme and specific recommendations of the 1998 PESS, PCER report, and PHDR 2000.

Difficulties in using the results of the study in developing a policy course

The discussion so far shows that, in general, approval of the results and policies of the 1998 PESS recommendations, the PCER report, and the PHDR 2000 by national officials (in particular the Minister of Education and members of his Cabinet) has not been a problem. This approval was due to several factors, among them all three sectoral studies conducted due to the need to revitalize and specify education policies. The 1988 PESS and PCER report were undertaken specifically for the government, while the PHDR 2000 focused on the general public, but also on the government as the primary listener. All sector reviews have been well researched, prepared and written and found worthy of approval and implementation by the country's top education officials. (While this study focused on the DECS experience, it could be seen that similar actions to implement the measures proposed by-

page 101

Other agencies, such as CHED and TESDA, have also been put forward.)

However, with the exception of a small group of high-ranking government officials, the research and conclusions were not easily accepted. This may have been due to the fact that middle-and low-level officials were not involved in the development of research problems and results, like the national executive authorities. In this case, even within the same bureaucracy, not to mention the general public, there were diverse opinions, some of which focused on understanding or searching based on research on reform policies. This lack of understanding of research policy, together with the general tendency of bureaucrats to resist change (especially when the change appears extraneous), has tended to prevent the full recognition and implementation of the proposed reform measures resulting from research.

The combination of diverse views among the public is more clearly felt in discussions and discussions of reform policy proposals outside the executive branch of government and in the legislative branch, where the research basis of policy proposals has often been ignored in favor of a mass of political considerations. Some policy proposals, for example, may be an obstacle or a tribute to a brutal time, both by members of the legislature who saw their opposition to the administration's plans as central to their role, and by policy makers in Congress.

Many senators and members of Congress viewed themselves as particularly useful members of society or the electorate, so they saw themselves as a party affected or not in need of policy proposals based on research. For example, one of the most fundamental reform actions proposed by PESS and PSER was a moratorium on the development of state universities and colleges to improve the use of funds, distribution and efficiency within education. State universities and colleges were created by an act of Congress, many of whose members felt that they owed it to their constituents to create as many State institutions in their districts and provinces as possible. This has contributed a lot to their popularity, and therefore it was not easy for them to adopt this reform policy (a moratorium on state universities and colleges), which was adopted without delay by the legislature.

The same can probably be said of the proposal to amend certain provisions of the Magna Carta of Teachers (promote the disclosure of teachers and pay tribute to their work), which politicians may have resisted in order to win the support of the country's 400,000 secondary school teachers; and of other policy proposals to decentralize the management and operation of the country's education system, which faces the same dilemma. Decentralization is a likely arena of conflict among local and national government bodies, teachers, school officials, parents, societies, and various advocacy groups that are suitable for drawing up a course of public hearings and discussions on this issue.

Finally, there are factors in public opinion or popular culture that also tend to work against the rapid acceptance of political proposals, even if they are created as a result of careful research and analytical work. One of these factors is the ideology of activism and nationalism, which developed and flourished in the last quarter of the 20th century and continues to be shared by many people. The policy recommendations therefore instruct public education institutions to seek to recover the costs of their actions, probably resisted by student workers 'and peasants' groups and other activists who are known for their constant resistance to rising tuition fees and school fees, and who continue to support the government almost alone, accountable to education.-

page 102

the number of citizens of the country (starting from the early stages to higher education). On the other hand, the influence of long-standing nationalist ideology can be seen in the previous adoption of bilingual education, which some studies have hinted at as a reason for the decline in the quality of Philippine education. Aware that this issue could generate a fierce nationalist debate, even the proposed reform to "dialect" the lower-level curriculum (where instruction can now be in a different language from Filipino) is presented so carefully as not to offend defenders of the use of Filipino as the national language. Consequently, it can be seen that Filipino politicians cannot fully support policies that will help schools, regions, and provinces freely choose their way of learning, as long as many prefer English rather than another Filipino language, even if research reports support and recommend otherwise.

Note

This article is a revised and improved version of the unpublished report of the Social Transformation Management Program (MOST) prepared by the author in October 2001.

Permanent link to this publication: