evaluation of the unicef philippine country office 'early ... · d.3 basic education - key...

`

Country of Project: Philippines

Commissioned by: UNICEF Philippines

Conducted by:

Oxford Policy Management Ltd Level 3, Clarendon House, 52 Cornmarket Street, Oxford OX1 3HJ In association with The Centre for Employment Initiatives Ltd Bridge Street, Llangollen Wales LL20 8PL United Kingdom

Evaluation of the UNICEF Philippine

Country Office 'Early Childhood Care and

Development' and 'Basic Education'

components of the 7th GPH-UNICEF

Country Programme 2012-2016

Annex A to G

Fred Brooker, Sourovi De, Maham Farhat, Dr. Shrochis Karki, Tanya Lone, and Jim

Shoobridge

March 2017

Evaluation of the Basic Education and ECCD components of the 7th UNICEF Philippines Country Programme - Annex Document

2

Table of contents

List of tables 4

Annex A Terms of Reference 5

Annex B Theory of change and results framework 20

B.1 Pathway of Change / Logic Models 20 B.2 ECCD: Completed Results Framework 22 B.2.1 Theory of change for ECCD component of the UNICEF’s 7th Country Programme 22 B.2.2 ECCD Summary Against Key Indicators: Results Matrix Updated 23 B.3 Basic Education Complete Results Framework 48 B.3.1 Basic Education: Summary Status against Key Indicators 48 B.4 Summary of UNICEF’s ECCD Activities 56 B.5 Summary of UNICEF’s Kindergarten Activities 61

Annex C Object of the Evaluation (Details) 66

Evidence relating to ECCD 66 ECCD national policy framework 67 UNICEF support in ARMM 68 Key Stakeholders 70

Annex D BE programme (Details) 73

D.1 BE component funding 73 D.2 Basic Education – National Policy Framework 73 D.3 Basic Education - Key Programme Features 74

Annex E Evaluation Purpose, Objectives and Scope (Details) 84

Annex F Evaluation Methodology (Details) 85

Qualitative research instruments 89 Analytical Methodology 89 Data sources and sample 90 Secondary Data Sources 90


3

Qualitative Data Sources 91 Limitations 93 Qualitative Research Limitations 93 Quantitative research limitations 96

Annex G Data Collection Instruments and Tools 100

G.1 Introduction and Consent: Sample text 100

Social Welfare Officer KII 101

Head teacher Basic Education KII 106

Annex H ECCD Qualitative Data Analysis 112

Annex I Basic education qualitative data analysis 113

Annex J ECCD Quantitative Data Analysis 114

Annex K Basic Education Quantitative Data Analysis 115

Annex L ECCD additional tables for quantitative analysis 116

Annex M Efficiency analysis (details) 117


4

List of tables

Table 1 UNICEF ECCD Programme Funds: 2012-2016 ..................................................................................................................................... 66 Table 2 UNICEF Basic Education Program Funds: 2012-2016 .......................................................................................................................... 73 Table 3 UNICEF Basic Education Program Funds: 2012-2016 .......................................................................................................................... 75 Table 4 Research Methods and Purpose ........................................................................................................................................................... 89 Table 5 Research LGU context and background ................................................................................................................................................ 91


5

Annex A Terms of Reference


6


7


8


9


10


11


12


13


14


15


16


17


18


19


20

Annex B Theory of change and results framework

B.1 Pathway of Change / Logic Models

QualityECCD/kindergartenareavailable

By2014,theproportionof3-4and

5yochildrenwithqualityECCD/KG

experienceincreasedby15%and

25%respectivelyin36vulnerable

LGUswithgenderparity.

3-5childrenattend

ECCD/Kindergarten

QualityECCD/KGstandards

curriculaandassessment

developedandaligned

Trainedandcommittedservice

providers;adequate,safe,

developmentallyappropriatefacilities

Politicalwill(ordinances,

resolution,AIP)

100%coverage

Kindergartenservices

throughregularand

catchup

Thereisstrongcollaboration

amongDepEd,DSWD,ECCDCand

LGUs

Protection,

H/N,WASH

servicesin

place

Partnershipsforged

Parentssendand

keeptheirchildren

forECCD/KG

Parentsappreciate

valueofEECD/

Kindergarten

Research/Evaluation

onknowledge/

Attitudesofparents

Communication

tools/messages/

channelsdeveloped

andtested

Communication

strategydeveloped

androlledout

EarlyIDofdisabilities

andinterventionsin

place

LCEsandLocalCouncils

appreciateandvalueimportance

ofECCD/KG

ECCDCompetency

Frameworkdeveloped

POCforIR1:ECCD

LGUsexpandsupportforECCD

Mechanismsfor

stakeholdersengagement

Convergence/alignmentof

ECCDservices

DepEDincreases

budgetforKG

CapacityBuilding

StrengthenLSBs

toincludeECCD

PolicyReviewanddev’t.(Age

ofEntry4.6yo,Promotionto

G1,Assessment,InclusionOf

ECCDChecklistinSReYa,use

ofschools)

Develop/engageLCEs/

MPDOstobecomeEducation

champions

Advocacy

Research/evidenceon

importanceofECCD/KG

Expandand

strengthenADMsof

ECCD

Strengthen

local

structures

(TWGs,IACs,

TFs,

Councils)

AugmentationofDC

servicethrough

constructionofDCCs

underKALAHI-CIDSS

Communitysupports

ECCDprogram

Parentsfeeltheir

childrenaresafe,

secure,healthy&

wellnourishedCommunity

appreciatesvalueof

ECCD

Advocacy

Parenting

Sessions/Home

Visits

Servicesprovided

byNGAs,NGOs,

POs,LGUs,

communities


21

By2014,theproportionof6-11year-old

childrenparticipatinginandcompletingquality

elementaryeducationisincreasedby5%and

7.5%,respectivelyinthemost36vulnerable

areas,withgenderparity.

Thereareavailableresources&

facilitiesforinclusive&flexible

qualityelementaryeducation

6-11year-oldchildrenattend&

completequalityelementary

educationinvulnerableareas

Completequalityelemeduc(1-6)

availableineverybarangay

Committed,

competent,child-

friendlyteachers/SHs

4A’sFramework

Access

Attendance

Attainment

Achievement

Safe&

enabling

learning

environment

Childrenactively

participateinschool

activities&

governance

Strengthenedsenseof

ownershipamong

parents&communityfor

educationoftheir

children

Communitymapping

BaselinesettingHomevisits/family

counseling

(DepEd/LGUs)

Parentingsessions

Trainingof

teacherson

ADM/EiE

School/Education

ReportCard

feedbacktoparents

&communties

ChildTracking

system

Childrenare

encouragedtogoto

school

Parents&community

value&encourage

qualityelemeducfor

theirchildren

Advocacyfor

equity-focused

budgetallocation

for

regular/ADM/EiE

classes

Teachersare

trained&

mentoredon

learner-centered

approaches

Equipped

learning

facilities Childrenfeel

safe&secure

inschool

Policiesforchild

protectionin

place

Awareness&

appreciationofparents

&communityonthe

valueofeducation

Childrenare

healthy&well-

nourished

Healthand

nutrition

services

available/affor

dable

Communicationmessages,

campaignstested

Settingup

school

community

protection/ref

erral

mechanism

WASHinschools

Nutrition

intervention

EarlyGrades(1-3)

“LearningtoLearn”

Trainingof

teacherson

inclusive,learner-

centered

approaches

Adequate,quality

andappropriate

IMsforregular&

ADMs/EiEclasses

Develop/

produce

appropriate

IMsfor

ADMs/EiE

Stockpilingof

IMSfor

regularclass

ADM&EiE

Genuineparticipationof

parents&community

totheeducationof

theirchildreneducationofchildren

Research/evidenceon

KASofparents

Communicationstrategy

developed&rolled-out

Grades4-6

“Buildopportunitiesto

learn”

Pre-

conditions

Interventions

Indicators

Principles

Advocacy

Research/evidence

oneffective

teacher–learning

approaches Advocacyfor

inclusiveand

flexible

education

(needtohavea

clear

operational

definition)

PathwayofChangefor

IR2:ElementaryEducation

Advocacy,Literacyand

Livelihoodprogramsfor

parents

ReinventingLSB,

strengtheninglinkbet.

DepEDplanningandLGU

planning

Teacherwelfare/

workingconditions

(e.g.classload,

time-on-tasks)

HolisticAssessmentandEvaluation

ofpupils’andschools’performance

AccountabilityandIncentives

systemsinplace

Reviewofpolicies

relatedtoIMs

developmentand

procurement

Clarifycurrent

thinkingonADM(

i.e,MG);Define

conditionsand

essentialelements

ofqualityADM/MG

schools

Profilingof

MGs(basedon

essential

elements);

Provisionof

support


22

B.2 ECCD: Completed Results Framework

B.2.1 Theory of change for ECCD component of the UNICEF’s 7th Country Programme


23

B.2.2 ECCD Summary Against Key Indicators: Results Matrix Updated

Outcome Indicator Definition Data disaggregati

on, frequency of

collection (FOC),

means of verification

(MOV)

Baseline (2012)

End of Project Target (2016)

Results Achieved Percent Achieved (as

of August 2016)

Lead Agency

(for achieving performance targets)

Notes

2013 2014

(as of 20 April 2015)

2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

End of

Project Outcome: School readiness of 3-5 year old children improved in 36 vulnerable areas

Proportion of 6-

year old currently attending Grade 1

Proportion of 6-year old children attending grade 1 to the total number of 6-year old children covered by the survey Numerator: Number 6-year old children attending grade 1

Denominator: Total

number of 6-year old children

Disaggregation: By sex and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Start and end of project

MOV: 2012 and 2015 Multiple Indicator Survey Reports

M: 59%

F: 57.9%

Total: 58.5%

M: 65.0% F: 65.4%

Total: 65.2%

NA MIS

survey was conducted as baseline (partially 2012 and 2014) and endline (2016)

NA MIS

survey was conducted as baseline (partially 2012 and 2014) and endline (2016)

M: 62.0%, F: 67.0%,

Total: 65.2%

(GPI 1.07)

26 (72%) LGUs met or exceeded the target.

Average LGUs increase 1.5% annually.

20 LGUs (67%) increased participation at more than 2% annually.

M: 62.0%, F: 67.0%,

Total: 65.2%

(GPI 1.07)


All implementing partners

Baseline and end line data source: 2012 and 2016 Multiple Indicator Survey

The 2015 target was set at 2% (percentage points) annual increase for males and 2.5% for females from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.

Percentage of children attending grade 1 who completed kindergarten

Proportion of children attending grade 1 who completed kindergarten to the total number of 6-year old children covered by the survey Numerator: Number of children attending grade 1 who completed kindergarten

Denominator: Total number of 6-year old children

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Start and end of project


91.6%

94.6%

MIS results

NA MIS survey was conducted as

baseline (partially 2012 and 2014) and endline (2016)

NA MIS survey was conducted as baseline (partially

2012 and 2014) and endline (2016)

79.8%

9 (25%) LGUs met the target of 94.6%.

Only 10 (33%) LGUs met the target increase of 1% per annum and 18 (60%) LGUs had

79.8%

9 (25%) LGUs met the target of 94.6%.

Only 10 (33%) LGUs met the target increase of 1% per annum.



The 2015 target was set at 1% (percentage point) annual increase from baseline. Target


24


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

a decrease in the proportion between 2012 and 2014.

assumptions and computation are available

Drop-out rate in Grade 1

Simple drop-out rate in Grade 1: Proportion of pupils who did not finish grade 1 to the total number of enrolled pupils in grade 1 in a given year Numerator: Number of pupils who did not finish grade 1

Denominator: Total

number of enrolled pupils in grade 1

Disaggregation: By sex and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual

MOV: DepED-BEIS

1.08% Male: 1.23%

Female: 0.91%

0.80% Male: 0.90%

Female: 0.60%

1.45% Male: 1.71%

Female: 1.14%

0.98% Male: 1.15%

Female: 0.78%

3.85% Male: 4.44%

Female: 3.20%

(-)


Data sources: DepEd BEIS data in 34 LGus Baseline: SY 2011-2012, 2013: SY 2012-2013 2014: SY 2013-2014 2015: SY 2014-2015

The 2015

target was set at 0.1% (percentage point) annual decline from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.


Simple drop-out rate in Grade 2: Proportion of pupils who did not finish grade 2 to the total number of enrolled pupils in grade 2 in a given year. Numerator: Number of pupils who do not finish grade 2


MOV: DepED-BEIS

0.63% Male: 0.74%

Female: 0.51%

0.30% Male: 0.40%

Female: 0.20%

0.79% Male: 1.00%

Female: 0.56%

0.53% Male: 0.64%

Female: 0.42%

2.23% Male: 2.60%

Female: 1.82%

(-)


Data sources: DepEd BEIS data Baseline: SY 2011-2012, 2013: SY 2012-2013 2014: SY 2013-2014 2015: SY 2014-2015

The 2015 target was


25


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

Denominator: Total


set at 0.1% (percentage point) annual decline from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.


Simple drop-out rate in Grade 3: Proportion of pupils who did not finish grade 3 to the total number of enrolled pupils in grade 3 in a given year. Numerator: Number of pupils who did not finish grade 3

Denominator: Total



MOV: DepED-BEIS

0.68% Male: 0.86%

Female: 0.48%

0.40% Male: 0.60%

Female: 0.20%

NA NA NA NA All implementing partners

This indicator was dropped because the project has no direct interventions affecting grade 3 pupils. Day care and kindergarten pupils at the start of the project in 2013 will be at grade 1 and grade 2 at the end of the project in mid- 2016.

Intermediate Outcome1 : Quality of ECCD programmes for 3-5 year old children improved in 36 vulnerable LGUss

Proportion of 6-year old who have completed kindergarten/ preparatory school

Proportion of 6-year old children who have completed kindergarten/preparatory school to the total number of 6-year old children covered by the survey. Numerator: Number of 6-year old children who have completed kindergarten/preparatory school

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: start and end of project


62.4% 68%

NA MIS survey was conducted as baseline (partially 2012 and 2014) and endline (2016)


M: 69.1% F: 79.1%.

Total 74.5%.

GPI 1.14

29 (81%) of LGUs achieved the target of 68%.

The annual LGUs

M: 69.1% F: 79.1%.

Total 74.5%.

GPI 1.14

29 (81%) of LGUs achieved the target of 68%.



The 2015 target was set at 2% (percentage points) annual increase


26


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

Denominator: Total

number of 6-year old children

average change between 2012 and 2016 was 1.12% (0.5% boys, 1.6% for girls) which was below the annual increase of 2%.

from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.

Output 1.1: Strengthened LGUs management capacities,

systems, and structures for ECCD programs

Per cent of LGUs budget allotted to ECCD New indicator:

Number of LGUss

with at least 5% average annual increase in ECCD budget

1) Proportion of LGUs budget for ECCD to the total LGUs budget for the current year as indicated in the LGUs annual investment plan. ECCD budget includes allotment for any of the following: 1) personnel costs

2) repair/construction of day care centers/kindergarten classrooms

3) training of day care center workers kindergarten teachers, home-based workers, parents, community members

4) teaching and learning materials

5) basic furnitures 6) hygiene materials,

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: LGUs annual investment plan

1.3% (based on the 2013 LGUs AIP in 31 LGUss) No data

5% New target using the proposed new indicator: 29 (80% of 36 LGUss)

1.7% (based on the 2014 LGUs AIP in 26 LGUss) 24 (2013-2014)

(based on the 2013 and 2014 LGUs AIP in 36 LGUss)

2.5% (based on the 2015 LGUs AIP in 34 LGUss) 21 (2014-2015)


23 (2015-2016)


28 (97%) (2013-2016)


ECCD Council Data source: ECCD data collection in the 36 LGUss

1st round - March 2013 (31 LGUss covered)

2nd round - March 2014 (26 LGUss covered)


4th round – June 2016 (36 LGUss)

The original indicator is affected by the total LGUs budget which is beyond the control of the project.


27


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

7) budget for children 0-6 yrs old with disabilities,

8) IEC and advocacy materials for ECCD, and other ECCD related budget items

Numerator: Budget allotted to ECCD(by LGUs) Denominator: Total LGUs budget for the current year (by LGUs) Reported value: Average of percent allocation by LGUs. New indicator definition: This refers to the number of municipalities and cities within the 36 project sites with at least 5% average annual increase in ECCD budget from 2013-2016 as indicated in the LGUs annual investment plan. ECCD budget includes allotment for any of the following: 1) personnel costs 2) repair/construction

of day care centers/ kindergarten classrooms

3) training of day care center workers, kindergarten teachers, home-

The proposed new indicator focuses on ECCD budget and reflects project performance from each LGUs from 2013-2016.


28


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

based workers, parents, community members

4) teaching and learning materials

5) basic furniture 6) hygiene materials, 7) budget for children

0-6 yrs old with disabilities

8) IEC and advocacy materials for ECCD, and other ECCD related budget items

Numerator: (% change in LGUs ECCD budget from 2013 and 2016) Denominator: 3

Number of functional local ECCD coordinating committees

This refers to the number of city/municipal ECCD coordinating committees with a level of functionality which is at least progressive or with a rating of above 20% (following the DILG functionality assessment guidelines - DILG Memo Circular 2008-126). The functionality ratings are: 1) Basic (with score 0-20%); 2) Progressive (with score 21-50%); 3) Mature (with score 51-79%); and 4) Ideal (with score 80-100%). Using the functions of a local ECCD committee listed in the ECCD Act (old

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Completed city/municipality functionality assessment forms from the Provincial Inter-agency Monitoring Task Forces

15

36

13

29

36

100%

ECCD Council

Data source: ECCD data collection in the 36 LGUss




4th round – June


29


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

law), the following score was given to a committee that currently perform the function:

With organizational structure 10%

Conduct regular meetings (at least once in a quarter) 10%

Prepare LGUs ECCD programme plan with budget 10%

Recommend and support the passage of local legislations on ECCD policies 10%

Support and compliment resources of the barangays for ECCD programme implementation 4%

Develop and implement training programme for ECCD service providers at all levels 4%

Facilitate the accreditation process of ECCD programs and services 4%

Organize and strengthen the barangay ECCD coordinating committees 4%

Implement the early screening & intervention

2016 (36 LGUss)

The baseline data (15) was based on the functionality of existing LCPC in the LGUs. It was assumed that when an LGUs has a functional LCPC, it also has a functional ECCD coordinating committee. This definition of the indicator was changed with the current one focusing on the ECCD coordinating committee within the LCPC. LGUss without ECCD committee but are currently performing ECCD functions are excluded in the count.


30


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

programme for children with disabilities 4%

Mobilize and encourage private sector initiatives on ECCD 4% Coordinate and monitor the delivery of ECCD services at the barangay level 20%

Establish and maintain an ECCD database 10% Ensure documentation, accurate reporting and its timely submission 10%

Output 1.2: Package of ECCD reforms implemented

Number of kindergarten (K) teachers and day care workers (DCWs) trained

This refers to the number of:

Kindergarten teachers trained on the Standard Kindergarten Education Curriculum

Day care workers trained on the following:

1) standard training for day care workers, or induction training for day care workers. UNICEF and its implementing partners agreed that training should only cover the following (16 May 2014 meeting):

DSWD-provided training on the standard curriculum

Disaggregation: By kindergarten and day care workers, sex, LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Training reports with attendance sheets from DSWD/DepEd Training data is cumulative from 2012 to date

4,319* New data: 154 DCWs: 0 Kindergarten teachers: 154

2,500

3,920* New data: 719 DCWs: 155 Kinder Teacher: 410

3,464

DCWs: 1,734

Kinder Teachers: 1,730

5,004 DCWs: 2,662

Kinder Teacher: 2,342

200%

Note that this is not a unique count of teachers and day care workers as some of them were trained

and retrained and thus counted twice.

DepEd for the training for kindergarten teachers DSWD for the training for day care workers






To ensure that the data refers only to the training provided by


31


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

for DCWs starting 2013; baseline data set at zero for DCWs

DepEd-provided training on the standard kindergarten curriculum starting 2012

DSWD and DepEd conducted during the project period (2013-2016), the 3rd round of data collection included a question on the year when the training was completed. This was the basis for generating the new data for 2013 and the basis for the 2014 data. Data for 2015-2016 are those DCWs and Kinder teachers who reported that they received the training in that period during the data collection in June 2016.

Number of accreditors trained

This refers to the number of accreditors of day care centers and workers trained on accreditation system and procedures for day care services nationwide.

Disaggregation: By sex and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Training reports with attendance sheets from DSWD regional office.

79

200

83

83

224

112% (using the new target)

DSWD

Data source: DWSD Reported data is cumulative from 2013 to 2016. Baseline data is not included in the target and in the 2013-2016 data.


32


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

Per cent of accredited day care workers

Proportion of day care workers who has obtained accreditation from DSWD during the project period (Jan 2013 – Dec 2015) to the total number of day care workers. Day care workers with expired accreditation status are considered not accredited. Numerator: Number of day care workers who obtained accreditation from DSWD during the project period (Jan 2013 – Jun 2015) Denominator: Total number of day care workers

Disaggregation: By sex and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of the certificate of accreditation issued/Accreditation reports from DSWD Data for 2013-2016 is cumulative. Baseline data is not included in the 2013-2016.

2.4% (72)

60%

19% (569)

25%

(727)

32.1% (949)

54%

DSWD






To ensure that the accreditation data only refers to the accreditation obtained during the project period (2013-2016), the data was recalculated using the data collected at the end of the project (August 2016). A question on the year when the accreditation certification was obtained was added in the


33


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

data collection instrument.

Per cent of accredited day care centers

Proportion of DSWD accredited day care centers who has obtained accreditation from DSWD during the project period (Jan 2013 – Dec 2015) to the total number of day care centers. Day care centers with expired accreditation status are considered not accredited. Numerator: Number of day care centers who obtained accreditation from DSWD during the project period (Jan 2013 – Jun 2015) Denominator: Total number of day care centers

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of the certificate of accreditation issued/Accreditation reports from DSWD Data for 2013-2016 is cumulative. Baseline data is not included in the 2013-2016.

2% (46)

60%

17% (474)

21%

(596)

31% (891)

52%

DSWD






To ensure that the accreditation data only refers to the accreditation obtained during the project period (2013-2016), the data was recalculated using the data collected at the end of the project (August 2016). A question on the year when the accreditation certification was obtained was


34


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

added in the data collection instrument.

Number of day care centers and K schools provided with teaching and learning materials

This refers to the number of day care centers and K classes provided with the following set of materials (minimum): 1) Standard ECCD

package for day care centers

2) Standard kindergarten package – copy of kindergarten curriculum, curriculum guide, SReYa kit, and learning materials for children.

Disaggregation: By DCC/K schools and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Signed receiving copy from day care center/K schools or DepEd and DSWD progress reports

2,584 Day Care Centers: 1,436 (36 LGUss) Kinder Schools: 1,148 (36 LGUss)

2,500 Day Care Centers: 1,250 Kinder Schools: 1,250

2,398 Day Care Centers: 1,265 (33 LGUss) Kinder Schools: 1,133 (32 LGUss)

2,678 Day Care Centers: 1604 (32 LGUss)

Kinder Schools: 1,074 (30 LGUss)

3,101 Day Care Centers: 1930 (36 LGUss) Kinder Schools: 1191 (36 LGUss)

124% Note that the numbers reported are not unique counts of day care centers and kindergartne schools. Some of them received materials more than once from various sources thus were counted several times.

DepEd for kindergarten teachers DSWD for day care workers


- March 2013 (31 LGUss covered)



– June 2016 (36 LGUss) Data is cumulative from 2013 to 2016.

Per cent of Kindergarten enrolees who completed the school readiness year-end assessment Dropped

Proportion of kindergarten enrolees who completed the school readiness year-end assessment (SReYA) test to the total number of kindergarten enrolees during the school year. Numerator: Number of kindergarten enrolees who completed the school readiness year-end assessment Denominator: Total number of kindergarten

Disaggregation: By sex and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: DepED-BEE reports

Not applicable

80%

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

Not applicable

DepEd

As agreed with DFAT, this indicator was dropped since DepED does not track children who completed the school readiness year-end assessment. Once DepED adopts the SReYA, it is mandatory that all schools assess all children.


35


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

kindergarten enrolees during the school year.

Number of day care centers provided with basic furniture

This refers to the number of day care centers provided with all the following: 1) teacher’s table, 2) teacher’s chair, and 3) chairs and tables

for 30 children

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Signed receiving copy from day care center/DSWD progress reports Data is cumulative from 2013 to 2016

1,084 Total day care centers in the 36 project areas: 2,858

1,500 New target: 1250

1,611

2,281

2,662

213%

DSWD

ECCD data collection in the 36 LGUss




– June 2016 (36 LGUss) Project contribution is for 1,250 DCCs. Other basic furniture received by DCCs came from other sources.

Number of DCCs and K schools with functional operation & maintenance committee New indicator: Number of DCCs with functional operation & maintenance committee

This refers to the number of DCCs/K schools with functional operations and maintenance committee. The committee is considered functional when the following are present: 1) A group/person

responsible for the cleaning of DCCs/K schools toilet

2) A group/person responsible for the

Disaggregation: By K/DCCs, and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of any document indicating the schedule of cleaning/ repair of DCC/K school’s toilet and copy of day care center’s records/K school budget indicating budget allocation for the cleaning/repair;

---

2,500 New target: 1,400 DCCs

362 DCCs: 279 KSs: 83

964 DCCs: 581

KSs: 383

1,065 DCCs: 1,065

76%

UNICEF and its partner CSOs/NGOs in implementing the WASH component of the ECCD project




d round - March 2015 (34 LGUss covered)

– June 2016 (36 LGUss)


36


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

repair of DCCs/K schools toilet

3) A work arrangement and schedule of cleaning (at least one a week); and

4) Budget for the cleaning/repair of DCCs/K schools toilet as indicated in the day care center’s records or K school budget (includes parents contribution/donation)

New indicator: This refers to the number of DCCs with functional operations and maintenance committee. The committee is considered functional when the following are present: 1) A group/person

responsible for the cleaning of DCC toilet

2) A group/person responsible for the repair of DCC toilet

3) A work arrangement and schedule of cleaning (at least one a week); and

4) Budget for the cleaning/repair of DCC toilet as

progress report of UNICEF partner CSOs in implementing WASH

In mid-2015, DFAT approved the request of UNICEF to focus the remaining WASH interventions to DCCs with the proposed new indicator “number of DCCs with functional operation & maintenance committee”. The proposed target for the new indicator by the end of the project is 1,400 DCCs from 2,500 DCCs and Kindergarten schools.


37


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

indicated in the day care center’s records (includes parents contribution/donation)

Per cent of DCCs and K schools with access to functional WASH infrastructure New indicator: Number of DCCs with access to functional WASH infrastructure

Proportion of kindergarten and daycare centers with water supply, functional toilet, and group hand washing facilities which can accommodate 10 pupils at a time to the total number of kindergarten and day care centers in the LGUs Numerator: Number kindergarten and daycare centers with water supply, functional toilet, and group hand washing facilities which can accommodate at least 10 pupils at a time Denominator: Total number of kindergarten and day care centers in the LGUs New indicator: Number of daycare centers with water supply, functional toilet, and group hand washing facilities which can accommodate 5 pupils at a time.

Disaggregation: By kindergarten/day care center, and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: C/MSWD records, and DepEd BIES

22%

80% New target: 1,400 DCCs

15% (596: DCCs- 350; K Schools- 246 DCCs: 350

19% (800: DCCs-473; K Schools- 327

DCCs: 473

DCCs: 1,455

16% 104%







The definition of a group hand washing facility was changed to a facility that can accommodate at least 5 pupils at a time from previous definition of 10 pupils at a time. This was based on the DSWD’s memorandum in 2013 encouraging all


38


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

day care centers to establish group hand washing facility that can accommodate at least 5 pupils at a time. In mid- 2015, DFAT approved UNICEF’s request to focus the remaining WASH interventions to DCCs with a proposed new indicator “number of DCCs with access to functional WASH infrastructure” and proposed new target of 1,400 DCCs.

Number of DCCs and K schools provided with hygiene materials New indicator: Number of DCCs provided with hygiene materials

Number of daycare centers and kindergarten schools provided with hygiene kits (soap, toothbrush, toothpaste) New indicator: Number of daycare centers provided with hygiene kits (soap, toothbrush, toothpaste)

Disaggregation: By DCC/K class and ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: C/MSWD reports for DCCs; BEE reports for kindergarten classes

587 DCCs:456 Ks: 131

2,500 New target: 1,400

1,182 DCCs:753 Ks: 429 DCCs: 753

1,170 DCCs:686 Ks: 484 DCCs:

686

DCCs: 2,279

Using proposed new target:

163%







39


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)


In mid- 2015, DFAT approved UNICEF’s request to focus the remaining WASH interventions to DCCs with a proposed new indicator “number of DCCs provided with hygiene materials” and proposed new 2015 target of 1,400 DCCs.

Per cent of DCCs and K schools conducting daily group hand washing with soap and toothbrushing with fluoride

Proportion of DCCs and K classes conducting daily group hand washing with soap and toothbrushing with fluoride to the total number of DCCs and K classes Numerator: Number of DCCs and K classes conducting daily group hand washing with soap and toothbrushing with fluoride Denominator: Total number of DCCs and K schools in the LGUs

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: C/MSWDO reports and DepEd EBIES

Hand-washing: 46% (DCCs: 55%, KSs: 29%) Tooth-brushing: 50% (DCCs: 66%, KSs: 22%)

50% 50%



Hand-washing: 78.6% (DCCs: 86%, KSs: 70%) Tooth-brushing: 75.6% (DCCs: 87%, KSs: 62%)

157% 151%

UNICEF and its partner CSOs/NGO






Output 1.3: Improved LGUs M&E systems

Number of LGUss with ECCD indicators in its

Number of city/municipalities collecting and utilizing

Disaggregation: By LGUs, day care center and kinder

0

36

36

36

36

100%

UNICEF and implementing partners from

Data source:


40


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

for ECCD programs

monitoring and evaluation systems

LGUs-wide annual data on ECCD indicators to improve the implementation of the ECCD programme at the local level.

school, ECCD indicator FOC: Annual MOV: LGUs profiles on ECCD, database and statistical tables of ECCD indicators collected from all day care centers and kinder schools in all project sites; LGUs profiles on ECCD.

government agencies

ECCD data collection in the 36 LGUss





LGUs annual plans on ECCD

Intermediate Outcome2. Demand for ECCD services stimulated in 36 vulnerable LGUss

Proportion of 3-5 year old children currently attending early childhood education

Proportion of 3-5 years old currently attending school to the total number of 3-5 year old children Numerator: Number of 3-5 year old children currently attending school

Denominator: Total number of 3-5 year old children



Total: 50.8%

M: 73.5% F: 76.6%

Total: 75.0%



M: 58.9%, F: 64.9%, Total: 61.5% 11 LGUs (31%) met the target for total students of 75.0%. The LGUs average annual increase was 7.0%. All LGUs (30) achieved the target of 1% increase annually

M: 58.9%, F: 64.9%, Total: 61.5% 11 LGUs (31%) met the target for total students of 75.0%.


source: 2012 and 2016 Multiple Indicator Survey The 2015 target was set at 1% (percentage point) annual increase from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.


41


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

Proportion of 5-year old children currently attending kindergarten/ preparatory school

Proportion of 5-year old children currently attending kindergarten/preparatory school to the total number of eligible survey respondents Numerator: Number of 5-year old children currently attending kindergarten/preparatory school Denominator: Total number of 5-year old children



M: 58.2% F: 59.6%

M: 64.2% F: 65.6% Total:

65.9%



M: 92.8%, F: 88.6%

Total: 90.5%

(GPI 1.05)


Average annual increase of 6% (boys 6%, girls 6%) which exceeded the target of 2%. 4 LGUs (13%) declined the proportion while all others gained.

M: 92.8%, F: 88.6%

Total: 90.5%

(GPI 1.05)



The 2015 target was set at 2% (percentage point) annual increase from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.

Per cent of 3-5 children not attending school because their “parents think child is too young to be enrolled in grade 1/preschool”

Proportion of 3-5 children not attending school because their “parents think child is too young to be enrolled in grade 1/preschool” to the total number of eligible survey respondents Numerator: Number of 3-5 children not attending school because their “parents think child is too young



76.6% 70.6%



M: 78.0% F: 85.0%

Total 81.2%

(GPI 1.08).


Of the 18 LGUs which participate

M: 78.0% F: 85.0%

Total 81.2%

(GPI 1.08).



The 2015 target was set at 2% (percentage point) annual decline from baseline. Target assumptions and


42


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

to be enrolled in grade 1/preschool”

Denominator: Total

number of 3-5 children not attending school

d in the 2012 baseline, only 3 (17%) LGUs (met or exceeded the target reduction (2%).

computation are available.

Per cent of respondents who agreed that early childhood education prepares a child for school

Proportion of respondents who agreed that early childhood education prepares a child for school to the total number of eligible survey respondents Numerator: Number of respondents who agreed that early childhood education prepares a child for school

Denominator: Total

number of survey respondents


MOV: 2012 and 2015 Multiple

cator Survey Report Reports

92.8%

95.8%



Total 97.6%. 28 (78%) LGUs achieved the target of 95.8%. Only 10 (33%) LGUs met or exceeded the target of 1% annual increase in the percentage. 14 (47%) LGUs declined the percentage.

Total 97.6%. 28 (78%) LGUs achieved the target.



The 2015 target was set at 1% (percentage point) annual increase from baseline. Target assumptions and computation are available.

Percentage of respondents who agreed that it is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that child completes his/her education

Proportion of respondents who agreed that it is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that child completes his/her education to the total


MOV: 2012 and 2015 Multiple Indicator Survey Report

98.9%

98.9%

NA MIS survey was conducted as baseline (partially 2012 and

NA MIS survey was conducted as baseline (partially 2012 and 2014) and

Total: 98.8%.

20 (56%) LGUs achieved the target of 98.9%.

Total: 98.8%.

20 (56%) LGUs achieved the target



The 2015 target was


43


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

number of eligible survey respondents Numerator: Number of respondents who agreed that it is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that child completes his/her education

Denominator: Total

number of survey respondents

2014) and endline (2016)

endline (2016)

9 (30%) LGUs declined the percentage

set at the same level with the baseline. Baseline information is already high; interventions for this indicator may no longer needed.

Output 2.1: Communication strategy to improve parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and practice on ECCD developed and implemented

Presence of a communication strategy for ECCD

Communication strategy/plan to improve parents’ knowledge, attitudes, and practice on ECCD

Disaggregation: National FOC: Not applicable MOV: Copy of the communication strategy/plan

No

Yes

No

No Draft ECCD Communication Strategy reviewed by DSWD, DepED, ECCD Council Secretariat

Yes

100%

ECCD Council

Data source: ECCD Council

Number of parents reached by ECCD education sessions

This refers to the number of attendees to the family development sessions (FDS), parent effectiveness sessions (PES), and empowerment and re-affirmation of paternal abilities (ERPAT) with ECCD topics that are conducted in the communities.

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: C/MSWDO reports

150,118

314,138

232,128

293,916

357,116

114%

DSWD






The 2015 target was set with the


44


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

assumption that the annual increase achieved from baseline to 2013 will continue until 2015.

Additional output indicator:

Number of Focus LGUss trained on how to implement/manage ECCD C4D initiatives

This refers to the number of participating LGUss with at least one staff trained on how to implement/manage ECCD C4D initiatives

Disaggregation: By ECCD target LGUs FOC: Annual MOV: Training report

0

36

0

0

100%

UNICEF and partner CSO.

Intermediate Outcome 3. National policies, management and supervision of ECCD programme strengthens

Non Identified

Output 3.1: ECCD curriculum and assessment tools developed and adopted at national level

Adoption of enhanced standard curricula for the major ECCD programs at the national level

This refers to the issuance of policy document/s adopting at the national level the standard curricula for the following ECCD programs: 1. Day care services 2. Supervised neighbourhood playgroup (SNP) 3. Regular kindergarten 4. Madrasah kindergarten

Disaggregation: by ECCD programme FOC: Annual

MOV: Copy of the Memo Circular or any other policy document issued

No for Day Care Services and SNP

Yes for

Regular and Madrasah kindergarten

Yes for Day Care Services and SNP

Yes for



No for



No for


Yes for Day Care Services and SNP Yes for Regular Kindergarten

No for

Madrasah kindergarten (Align- ment of Tahderiyyah and Madrasah curriculum with Kinder and Grade

50%

DSWD for Day Care Services and SNP

DepEd for regular and Madrasah kindergarten

Data source/s: DSWD for Day Care Services and SNP



45


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

1 is ongoing)

Adoption of assessment tools for the major ECCD programs at the national level

This refers to the issuance of policy document/s adopting at the national level the standard assessment tools for the following ECCD programs: 5) Day care services 6) Supervised

neighbourhood playgroup

7) Regular kindergarten

8) Madrasah kindergarten

Disaggregation: by ECCD programme

FOC: Annual

MOV: Copy of the Memo Circular or any other policy document issued at the national level

Yes for Day Care and SNP Services (ECCD Checklist) No for Regular Kindergarten and Madrasah Kindergarten

Yes for Day Care Services and SNP

Yes for Regular Kindergarten and Madrasah (SreYA)

Yes for Day Care Services and SNP No for Regular Kindergarten and Madrasah(SreYA)

Yes for Day Care Services and SNP No for Regular Kindergarten and Madrash: (SReYA under review by DepED

Yes for Day Care Services and SNP Yes for Regular Kindergarten and Madrash:

DSWD for Day Care Services and SNP DepEd for regular and Madrasah kindergarten

Data source/s:

DSWD for Day Care Services and SNP


Output 3.2: Improved teaching competencies of ECCD human resource

Adoption of a competency and training framework for ECCD workers at the national level

This refers to the issuance of a policy document adopting at the national level the competency and training framework for day care workers and kindergarten teachers

Disaggregation: Not applicable FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of the Memo Circular or any other policy document issued at the national level

No

Yes

No

No ECCD Program Standards being developed Work in formulating a set of ECCD Program Standards initiated

Yes for Competency standards No for Training Framework (for review by the ECCD TWG and endorsement to ECCDC GB

50%

ECCD Council


Adoption of a standard training programme and manual for day care workers at the national level

This refers to the issuance of a policy adopting at the national level the standard training programme and manual for day care workers.

Disaggregation: Not applicable FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of the Memo Circular or any other policy document issued

No

Yes

Yes

Yes Trainings rolled out in municipalities and cities

Yes Trainings rolled out in municipalities and cities

100%

DSWD/ECCD Council


Adoption of a national standard training programme and manual for

This refers to the issuance of a policy document adopting at the national level the

Disaggregation: Not applicable FOC: Annual

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes Trainings rolled out in

Yes Trainings rolled out in

100%

DepEd

Data source: DepEd


46


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

kindergarten teachers at the national level

standard training programme for kindergarten teachers which includes trainer’s guide.

MOV: Copy of the Memo Circular or any other policy document issued at the national level

municipalities and cities

municipalities and cities

Hygiene promotion integrated in training packages

This refers to the integration of hygiene promotion in the competency and training framework, and standard training programme and manuals for day care and kindergarten workers.

Disaggregation: Not applicable FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of the training framework, and standard training programme and manuals for day care and kindergarten workers integrating hygiene promotion

No

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

DSWD

Data source: DSWD

Output 3.4: Improved ECCD standards, accreditatio, and research

Adoption of quality standards and tools for kindergarten programme at the national level

This refers to the issuance of a policy document adopting at the national level the quality standards and tools for kindergarten programme as indicated in the National Kindergaten Act – Implementing Rules and Regulations (DepEd Order 32, s.2010). Tools include monitoring checklist to determine compliance with the quality standards.


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

DepEd

Data source: DepEd

Adoption of quality standards and accreditation tools for supervised neighbourhood playgroups

This refers to the issuance of a policy document adopting at the national level the quality standards and accreditation tools for

Disaggregation: Not applicable FOC: Annual MOV: Copy of the Memo Circular or any other policy

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

100%

DSWD

Data source: DSWD


47


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

programme at the national level

supervised neighborhood playgroups programme

document issued by DSWD/ECCD council at the national level

Presence of an enhanced national standards for accreditation of DCC services

This refers to the issuance of a policy document adopting at the national level the enhanced national standards for accreditation of DCC services


Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

Yes

DSWD

Data source: DSWD

Presence of national standards for hygiene promotion and WASH facilities

This refers to the issuance of a policy

document by adopting at the national level the standards for hygiene promotion and WASH

facilities


No Yes No No Yes 100% DSWD Data source: DSWD

Presence of researches on LGUs ECCD bottleneck analyses for improved delivery of quality ECCD programs New indicator: Number of researches/studies initiated or completed that informs policy, programs and investments for quality ECCD programmes

This refers to research/es conducted on LGUs ECCD bottleneck analyses to improve delivery of quality ECCD programs. New definition: This refers to researchers/studies initiated or completed that would inform policy, programs and investments for quality ECCD programmes.

Disaggregation: Not Applicable FOC: Annual MOV: Final report on ECCD research/es conducted

No Using new indicator: 0

Yes Using new indicator: 2

No 0

No 1 (ECCD longitudinal study launched in 2014)

2 (ECCD longitudinal study and Study on the factors affecting ECCD budget allocation at the local level

0 100%

UNICEF, ACER and INTEM

The target two researches/studies under this indicator are: 1) The ECCD

Longitudinal Study, and

2) Study on the factors affecting ECCD budget allocation at the city/municipal levels.


48


on, frequency of

collection (FOC),


(MOV)

Baseline (2012)



of August 2016)

Lead Agency


Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2 August 2016)

Number of ECCD models/innovations/good practices documented

This refers to the number of ECCD models/innovations/good practices documented in any of the 36 target areas

Disaggregation: By ECCD model FOC: End of project MOV: Project document on ECCD good practices

0

5 0 0 5 100% UNICEF and ITEM

This was updated as of 31 August 2016 (UNICEF 2016)

B.3 Basic Education Complete Results Framework

B.3.1 Basic Education: Summary Status against Key Indicators

Outcome Indicator Definition Data

disaggregation, frequency of collection (FOC), means of verification

(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)

Results Achieved Percent Achieved (as of August 2016)

Lead Agency (for achieving

performance targets)

Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

End of Programme Outcome: By the end of Country Programme, the proportion of 6–11 year old children

Percent increase in the proportion of 6-11 years old children currently attending school, by

Proportion of 6-11 year old children currently attending school to the total number of eligible survey respondents in

MIS Data Total 97.8% M: 97.0%, F: 98.2%, GPI 1.01

5% increase

2012 MIS baseline in 18 focus areas: 97%- male 99%-female

2014 MIS baseline in 12 focus areas of Regions 9, 12 and ARMM

Total: 92.7

Total 98.6%

M 98.2%, F 99.1%, GPI 1.01

Total gain

0.9%

M 1.2%, F 0.6%

Total gain

0.9%

M 1.2%,

F 0.6%

1 LGU (3%) met the target increase

The indicator was not appropriate


49

Outcome Indicator Definition Data disaggregation, frequency of collection (FOC), means of verification

(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

participating in quality elementary education is increased by 5% in 36 vulnerable Local Government Units, focusing on disadvantaged children, with gender parity.

sex (Existing RAM)

endline less baseline.

Numerator: Number of 6-11 year old children currently attending school Denominator: Total number of 6-11 year old children

(M:91.5: F:93.9)

1 LGU (3%) met the target increase

11 LGU (33%) decreased

Objective 1: Enhanced policy and programme environment for achieving universal primary education (UPE) with equity and gender parity

Indicator 1: Schools with school development plans that explicitly address equity issues and that were developed (thanks to UNICEF support) (Global Indicator)

SIPs available

Progress Monitoring Reports from Convergence Schools

350 schools in the 36 LGUs as well as selected schools affected by typhoon Haiyan in regions 6 and 8 (2015)

36 elementary schools in convergence communities have equity-driven SIPs (ECCD-ES Link pilot schools)

222 elementary schools in CPC7 areas in ARMM (or 100%) with child-friendly SIPs

All 36 priority schools in the target barangays for the advocacy on the ECCD link of ECCD to primary school have completed their community mapping as part of the SIP preparation. The mapping exercise identified the magnitudes, conditions and reasons why children are not in school, which are critical information in the formulation of investment plans for education.

Source: UNDAF Progress Reporting;

RAM 2016


50


(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

Indicator 2: Existence of a national education strategy/plan that promote equity in terms of access and learning (Global Indicator)

Progress Monitoring Reports from DepED National

LML Situational Analysis completed and endorsed to DepED

1 Tool kit for District Synthesis completed

The Last Mile Situational Analysis on the conditions of children who are not in school, where they are and reasons for not enrolling has been presented to DepED Executives. The analysis informed the initial development of a strategic plan to reach these disadvantaged learners including the priority focus of the new administration to expand the Alternative Delivery System.

The tool kit for district synthesis was developed through technical assistance to DepEd School Effectiveness Division in line with the conduct of a research on the effect of District Synthesis on raising the Special Education Fund allocations according to the identified needs of schools within the districts. In addition to the District Synthesis

Source: RAM 2016


51


(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

1Policy research on equity focus – particularly multigrade education is at concept development

toolkit, technical assistance was also provided in developing the automation of the School Report Card and District Synthesis from the EBEIS data. The review of the multigrade education program implementation as an Alternative Delivery Modality is a priority research agenda of DepED to inform the development of an omnibus policy on multigrade education. Majority of the multigrades are located in remote and poor communities. The effective implementation of MG program will improve equitable access to quality service delivery. The research concept has been jointly prepared by UNICEF and SEAMEO-Innotech for approval by a Research Advisory Panel chaired by DepED.


52


(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

Additional support was provided to DepED in the development of teacher hardship index aimed to attract and keep good teachers in remote and hardship post.

Objective 2: Strengthened capacity, systems, processes and structures for achieving UPE with equity and gender parity with focus on remote and disadvantaged areas


Progress Monitoring Reports from DepED National

350 schools in the 36 LGUs as well as selected schools affected by typhoon Haiyan in regions 6 and 8 (2015)

36 elementary schools in convergence communities have equity-driven SIPs (ECCD-ES Link pilot schools)

All 36 priority schools in the target barangays for the advocacy on the ECCD link of ECCD to primary school have completed their community mapping as part of the SIP preparation. The mapping exercise identified the magnitudes, conditions and reasons why children are not in school, which are critical information in the formulation of investment plans for education. .

Source: UNDAF Progress Reorting; RAM 2016

Indicator 2: Availability of culturally-sensitive, inclusive and flexible learning

Progress Monitoring Reports from 36 ES from convergence barangays

36 elementary schools (144 teachers and school

Development of culturally-sensitive teaching/ learning materials for

The documentation of IP knowledge, skills and practices paved the way for the development of learning materials that are culturally-

(2015) COLF, DepED, UNICEF

Source:

UNDAF Progress Reporting;


53


(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

delivery for disadvantaged children (Suggested Addition)

Progress Report from BLD-MG in DepED National

Printed IP Teach-Learn Package available at the Division Level (Sarangani)

heads) trained on LAC with learner-centered teaching approaches (2015)

3 IP tribes in Sarangani Province (B’laan, T’boli, Tagakaolo)

sensitive to 3 Indigenous Peoples tribes (B’laan,T’boli, Tagakaolo) in the Sarangani Province (Region XII). As initiated by DepED Sarangani Division in collaboration with UNICEF, these learning materials in their mother tongues are ready for pilot test. The contextualised materials are expected to improve the teaching and learning outcomes for the IP children who have been long disadvantaged due to language barriers.

(2016) DepED Sarangani Division and UNICEF

RAM 2016

Indicator 3: Availability of a risk reduction strategy within education sector plan/policy (Global Indicator)

Printed DRRM Training Package available for roll-out of DepED National Contingency Plan (with Cluster TOR) and prepositioned supplies available

1 Comprehensive DRRM training package developed based on DepED-Central standards and cluster contributions;

The development of the DRRM training package for DepED personnel informed the preparation of a medium-term DRRM workplan for inclusion in the 2017 budget. The training package is for final editing and its implementation will commence next year.

Source: RAM 2016


54


(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

Objective 3: Strengthened evidence-based advocacy and resource leveraging for basic education through quality assurance, research and documentation

Indicator 1: Availability of research studies, advocacy materials on disadvantaged children

Research reports, policy papers, dissemination for a documents

Out-of-School Children Study (PIDS and UNICEF) (2014,2015)

LML Situational Analysis completed and endorsed to DepED

The Last Mile Situational Analysis on the conditions of children who are not in school, where they are and reasons for not enrolling has been presented to DepED Executives. The analysis informed the initial development of a strategic plan to reach these disadvantaged learners including the priority focus of the new administration to expand the Alternative Delivery System

Source: RAM 2016

Objective 4: Strengthened education delivery for disadvantaged children in ARMM


SIPs available

Progress Monitoring Reports

222 elementary schools in CPC7 areas in ARMM (or 100%) with child-friendly SIPs

Of the 222 elementary schools in ARMM, 160 have prepared their SIPs. The remaining 62 schools are undergoing mentoring on their SIP preparation

Source: RAM 2016


55


(MOV)

Baseline

(2012)

End of Projec

t Target (2016)




Notes

2013 2014


2016 (As of 2

August 2016)

Indicator 2: Availability of a risk reduction strategy within education sector plan/policy (Global Indicator)

DepED ARMM Policy Issuance on Conflict sensitive DRRM

Prepositioned supplies available

1 Conflict sensitive DRRM policy developed for ARMM; 9 Schools Divisions in ARMM capacitated

The DRRM coordinators from the region and 9 Divisions of DepED ARMM gained greater understanding of the complexity of mitigating the effects of disaster within their conflict-affected environment. The draft policy for issuance by DepED ARMM Secretary in 2017 clarifies the roles, accountabilities and protocols during disaster as well as capacitating the schools on preparedness to mitigate the effects of disasters and armed conflicts to the education of children.

Source: RAM 2016

Indicator 3: MILF Education Committee oriented on Education Sector Planning

Workshop documentation


56

B.4 Summary of UNICEF’s ECCD Activities

Main Partner National Agency

Support to development of policies, programs, tools and manuals (NATIONAL LEVEL)

Support to Strengthening of Capacities, Systems, and Processes for improved Implementation of ECCD Services (REGIONAL AND/OR PROVINCIAL LEVEL)

Support to implementation of ECCD program in 36 focus and other LGUs (MUNICIPALITY/CITY AND/OR BARANGAY LEVELS)

ECCD Council Secretariat

Printing of National Early Learning Framework (2012)

Development of the National Curriculum for 0-4 y/o

Orientation of Social Welfare Officers (national and provincial level) on the NELC

Printing and distribution of NELC-Learning Resource Packages (LRPs)

Development of new Standards and Guidelines for Recognizing Center-Based ECCD Service Providers (funded by the ECCD Council Secretariat)

Orientation of Social Welfare Officers (national and provincial level) on the Standards and Guidelines

Printing and distribution of the Standards and Guidelines

Development of Competency Standards for ECCD Workers and Training Framework

Issuance of the Joint Memorandum Circular on WASH in ECCD between DILG and the ECCD Council

Development of System for Prevention, Early Identification, Referral and Intervention

Training of Trainers on the system for prevention, early identification, referral and intervention (October-September 2016)

Development of National ECCD Communication Strategy and National ECCD Communication Plan


57

Content development of ECCD communication materials for use in conducting Parenting Education sessions -- Frequently Asked Questions, Flipcharts, short video (part of the National ECCD Communication Plan)

Review of the Home-Based ECCD Program

Creating institutional arrangements with international/national ECCD resource centers for continuing knowledge exchange/benchmarking study

Support to strengthening ECCD management and coordination

Training of Trainers on Induction Program for Child Development Teachers/Child Development Workers on ECCD

Induction Training of selected Child Development Teachers/Child Development Workers

Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD)

Supervised Neighborhood Playgroups

Development of Guidelines for Accrediting Supervised Neighborhood Playgroup (2012)

Printing and distribution of Service Manual and Activity Guide for SNP

National TOT on SNP Implementation, including 36 focus areas

Training of Day Care Workers/Child Development Workers

Development of Standard Training for Day Care Workers

National TOT on the Standard Training for Day Care Workers integrating WASH in ECCD modules, including 36 focus areas

Roll-Out of Standard Training for Day Care Workers (LGU funded)

Development of WASH in

ECCD modules for LGUs

and Day Care Workers

Orientation and Technical Support to 25 LGUs on the implementation of WASH in ECCD

Training of Social Welfare Officers/ECCD Focal of all regions and provinces and focus areas and selected Day Care Workers on the NELC-LRPs


58

Roll-out of NELC orientation-training in some focus LGUs is on-going (LGU funded)

Through partnership of UNICEF and Community of Learners Foundation (COLF), training of selected M/CSWDO/ECCD focal and selected Day Care Workers on Enhancement of ECCD Programmes Responsive to 3-4 y/o Children (focus on brain development and implications for working with children)

Training for Supervisors

Development of Training Program for Day Care Workers/Child Development Workers Supervisors

Training on Supervising Child Day Care / Child Development Workers (Batches 1 and 2) from focus and non-focus areas (with low percentage of accredited Day Care Workers and Day Care Centers)

Service Manual

Enhancement of Child Development Service Manual

Parenting Education

Development of the ECCD Modules of the Family Development Sessions (FDS) of the Conditional Cash Transfer/Pantawid Program

Training of Supervisors and Implementers on the Conduct of ECCD Module of Family Development Sessions (for Conditional Cash transfer Program Beneficiaries)

Roll-out of the ECCD Modules of FDS (funded by CCT Program)

Conduct of parenting education sessions using other available modules such as the Parents Effectiveness Seminar (funded by the LGUs)

Accreditation of Day Care Centers and Day Care Workers1

1 Based on the standards of DSWD which was already superseded by the new standards and guidelines for recognizing center-based ECCD service providers adopted by ECCD Council in 2015


59

Engagement and training of Day Care Accreditors in 17 regions nationwide

Support to the actual accreditation process --7,538 DCCs and DCWs assessed nationwide, 5,105 of which were accredited; in focus areas, out of 295 DCC assessed 75 were newly accredited

Activity Dialogue/Meeting re 2013 Support to Day Care Service Accreditation System

New Standards and Guidelines for Recognizing Center-Based ECCD Service Providers

Orientation of Day Care Worker Federation Officers and Training towards Deputation of Local Social Welfare and Development Officers (LSWDOs) on the new Standards and Guidelines for Center-Based Early Childhood Program for 0-4 y/o (all regions and provinces and 36 focus areas)

National and Regional ECCD Conferences

Participation of Social Welfare Officers from DSWD Central and Regional Offices and from focus areas in the Regional ECCD Conference conducted by ARNEC

Conduct of center-and home-based ECCD Service Providers’ Summit/National ECCD Conference

Provision of basic furniture and materials

Provision of basic furniture and ECCD kits to 1,250 priority Day Care Centers (direct implementation by UNICEF)

Provision of ECCD kits to about 250 SNP sites (direct implementation by UNICEF)

Provision of hygiene kits to 2,166 day care centers in 25 LGUs

Technical support to construction of group handwashing facilities in 1,455 day care centers

Provision of ECCD Checklist to DCCs and SNPs in convergence barangays implementing the ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link (direct implementation by UNICEF)


60

Provision of ECCD kits to 144 DCCs in KALAHI-CIDDS (mostly in non-focus areas; direct implementation by UNICEF)

ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link

Conduct of series of workshops to plan, design and monitor implementation of interventions (direct implementation by UNICEF)

Support to the implementation of ECCD Program for marginalized and disadvantaged children: a) establishment of

DCCs for young children affected by conflict in Zamboanga City (through UNICEF-WMSU partnership);

b) implementation of Tahderiyyah Program for 3-5 y/o Muslim children (through UNICEF-Bangsamoro Development Agency partnership; beyond focus areas)

c) establishment of 100

SNP sites in areas

without access to DCC

in 10 focus areas

covering about 2,400

2-4 y/o (through

UNICEF-Plan

International

partnership)


61

Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG)

Development of Advocacy Program for LGUs through Leagues of Barangay Chairmen, Mayors and Vice-Mayors

Conduct of advocacy to Leagues of Barangay Chairmen

Conduct of advocacy to Leagues of Mayors and Vice-Mayors (Oct/Nov 2016)

Development of Training Program for Mainstreaming ECCD in LGUs

Training of key members of the Local Council for the Protection of Children on Mainstreaming ECCD in LGUs (Sept/October 2016)

Orientation-Training of key LGU stakeholders (Mayors/Vice-Mayors; and Planning, Budget and Social Welfare and Development Officers on evidence-based ECCD planning and programming (directly implemented by UNICEF)

Development of ECCD advocacy Kit for LGUs, including SNP material (directly implemented by UNICEF)

Printing and distribution of ECCD Advocacy Kit for LGUs, including SNP material through the focus provinces (directly implemented by UNICEF)

Source: UNICEF Philippines 2016

B.5 Summary of UNICEF’s Kindergarten Activities

Program Areas

National Level Region and Division Level

36 Focus Areas (District and School Levels)

Enhance policy and program environment for achieving universal Kindergarten Education

Support to strengthening capacity, systems and processes for the implementation of the Universal Kindergarten

Support to improving quality of Kinder program implementation in focus areas

Curriculum

Refinement of the National Kindergarten Curriculum Guide

Printing and distribution of the NKCG nationwide

(through division offices)

Development of standard training program for Kindergarten (Use of the NKCG)

National Training of Trainers on NKCG

Training of Kinder teachers on NKCG (DepED counterpart funds)


62

Development of the Kindergarten Catch-Up Education Program (KCEP): 20-Week Curriculum Guide and Guidelines for Implementation

Orientation-training of Regional and Division Kindergarten Coordinators on the implementation of KCEP

Provision of training kits (ECCD learning materials, ECCD assessment kit, and sample classroom posters and charts).

Development of KCEP plans in 10 focus municipalities and 6 cities

Alignment of Kinder curriculum with Grade 1 curriculum

Revision of Kinder Madrasah Teacher’s Guide based on the aligned curriculum mentioned above

Contextualization of Kinder 8-week curriculum for Tedurays in Maguindano (indigenous people)

Assessment tools

Refinement of the School Year End Readiness Assessment Tool (SYREA)

Note: In the recently issued

Omnibus Policy on

Kindergarten mentioned ,

the SYREA will no longer

be used. Instead, the main

tool both for formative and

summative assessment is

the ECCD Checklist both

for formative and

summative assessment

Through technical assistance from COLF, provision of sample tools to measure knowledge on alphabet, phonological awareness, number and numeration and attributes in terms of color, shape, and size

Writeshop on classroom-based assessment tools in Kindergarten (Output: Assessment policy standards identified,

Provision of ECCD Checklist (tool for monitoring developmental milestones of children 3-5.11 y/o) to all regions, divisions and schools nationwide


63

crafted and appended to the DepED Omnibus Policy mentioned below)

Learning Materials

Simulation on the process of levelling Kinder to Grade 3 supplementary reading materials

Provision of ECCD kits to kinder classes in 100 Elementary Schools

Provision of Kinder materials - educational toys, story books, etc (DepED funds)

Training of Kinder to Grade 3 teachers

Development of National Training on Developmentally-Appropriate Practices on Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy for all Regional and Division CLMD Chiefs, Supervisors in charge of Kindergarten, English, Filipino,

National TOT on Developmentally-Appropriate Practices on Early Language, Literacy and Numeracy for all Regional and Division CLMD Chiefs, Supervisors in charge of Kindergarten, English, Filipino, Mother Tongue and Mathematics Kinder to Grade 3 teachers

Training of Kinder to Grade 3 teachers and school heads in 100 Elementary Schools on a) Understanding the Child; b) What to teach (Kinder to Grade 3 curriculum); and c) How to Teach (age and developmentally-appropriate teaching approaches; play-based approach)

Orientation-training of District and Division Supervisors on the LAC starter modules to facilitate provision of technical assistance to 36 ES and replication to other schools

Training of Kinder to Grade 3 teachers and school heads of 36 Elementary Schools in convergence barangays implementing the “Link” on the use of starter modules for


64

Learning Action Cell (LAC) sessions.

The modules

focused on play-

based learning

strategies in

teaching early

literacy and

numeracy for

Kinder to Grade 3

pupils, classroom

management and

positive discipline.

These modules

now become part of

the LAC starter

modules for ELLN

of DepED (for use

nationwide)

mentioned above.

Review, Evaluation of Kindergarten Program

Formative evaluation of model Kindergarten Schools (findings and recommendations were considered in the formulation of the Omnibus Policy on Kindergarten mentioned below)

Series of consultations to review the Kindergarten Program Implementation

Series of consultations/workshops on the formulation of the Omnibus Policy on Kindergarten

ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link

Participation of DepED Central and Division Offices in the series of workshops on the implementation of ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link

Establishing and strengthening the ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link in 36 focus areas (1 convergence barangay per LGU)


65

Establishing and strengthening the ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link in Teduray Communities (Indigenous groups) in 3 LGUs of Maguindanao, ARMM (recently started)

Advocacy Development of Kindergarten advocacy materials for schools heads, , LGUs and parents

Printing and distribution of Kindergarten advocacy materials to all regions, divisions and schools nationwide

Source: UNICEF Philippines 2016


66

Annex C Object of the Evaluation (Details)

Table 1 UNICEF ECCD Programme Funds: 2012-2016

Project

Project Actual Fund Utilization, USD (per end project report)

DFAT Counterpart

UNICEF Counterpart (with contribution from

other partners)

Total

A. ECCD-Creating a Foundation for Lifelong Learning (CFLL) Project

7,082,319 9,617,119 16,699,438

42% 58% 100%

B. Non - CFLL projects on ECCD

1. Tahderiyyah Project - Phase 2 4,792,704 Data unavailable 4,792,704

2. Tahderiyyah Project-Phase 3 1,553,804 473,801 2,027,605

3. Contextualization of kindergarten Curriculum for Tedurays (IP community)

0 16,726 16,726

4. Establishing 'link' in Teduray Communities

0 139,689 139,689

Total (B)

6,346,508 630,216 6,976,725

91% 9% 100%

Grand Total (A+B) 13,428,827 10,247,335 23,676,163

% 57% 43% 100%

Evidence relating to ECCD

A large and growing body of literature provides evidence that ECCD interventions have short-

and long-term benefits (UNESCO 2006, Walker et al. 2011, Black et al. 2016). Education

interventions, whether family- or centre-based, foster cognitive, socio-emotional, and physical

development in the short term, and facilitate the acquisition of further skills in primary and

secondary education.2 In the long term, they can result in better adult outcomes in higher

education, employment, pay, health, behaviour, and self-esteem. Research shows that the most

vulnerable children require more attention and family support before birth and in their first years

2 Here, it is important to be clear about the different concepts of ECD, ECCE, and ECCD: they imply different purposes, pedagogical practices and forms of delivery, not to mention the varying social and economic status of the personnel involved. ECE is favoured by education authorities or others who are inclined to see early childhood from an educational point of view: learning is central to this tradition. ECCE is an expansion of ECE, with the care component added. ECD emphasises a holistic approach attending to the child’s physical, emotional, social as well as cognitive development, while ECCD again tries to span the divide between care and development/education. In reality, ECC, ECD, ECCD and ECE are not invariably institutionalised or practised separately.


67

of life to reach their full development potential. Holistic high-quality interventions which improve

nutrition and health practices and promote play-based learning for young children increase their

cognitive capacity and overall well-being (Nores and Barnett, 2010). Designing and supporting

intensive and individualized early childhood intervention services for children with development

delays, disabilities and atypical behaviours are essential for inclusion and participation of all

children. Despite these established benefits, pre-school programmes reach only a small minority

of the population of young children in many developing countries.3 In the Philippines,

notwithstanding recent government efforts to improve the policy environment, expand access,

and enhance quality of pre-schooling, implementation gaps persist and significant challenges

remain.

ECCD national policy framework

In addition to the brief discussion of the national policy framework discussed in the main report,

it must be noted here that the government has enacted progressive legislation for the provision

of ECCD and kindergarten services for 3–5 year old children under the Universal kindergarten

Act of 2012. In Basic Education, the government put in place the legislation Enhanced Basic

Education Act of 2013, which took the Department of Education (DepEd) to embark on the

biggest ever education reform “K to 12”. This reform has added mandatory kindergarten and two

additional years of senior high school education to the current 10-year education system. This

added a significant number of additional children to the whole system.4

Despite the increase in investment in education, the share of national income devoted to basic

education has only recently returned to the levels of the early 2000s; and spending per student

in the Philippines is still low compared to spending in other middle-income countries (World

Bank and DFAT, 2016). These relatively low levels of spending per student are likely to have

limited the scope of the improvements in education outcomes over the last decade.

As far as the education sector and, more specifically, the ECCD and kindergarten services are

concerned, leveraging increasing fiscal revenues from a rapidly growing economy into tangible

benefits for school readiness and other developmental outcomes for 3-5 year old children

remains a challenge. The box below elaborates on the state of ECCD and kindergarten access

and school readiness outcomes.

Box 1 A brief overview of access to ECCD/kindergarten services & school readiness outcomes in the Philippines

There has been low access to and enrolment in pre-schools, with steady improvement in the past few years:

Low access to ECCD services recently showed signs of improvement–, in 2012, net enrolment rate (NER) among 3-4 year-old children in public ECCD programmes was at 42.3%, compared to 19% in 2010 (DFAT, 2015).

3 The gross enrolment ratio (GER) in pre-primary grades (both sexes) was around 54 per cent in 2009 for Philippines (this has rapidly increased from 25 per cent in 2000). It is very similar to the East Asia and Pacific countries’ GER of 55 per cent in 2009, even though the region’s trajectory has been flatter than Philippines’. The world average was however much lower at 36 per cent in 2009. This is the last year for which Philippines GER data is available on the UNESCO Institute of Statistics public database. 4 In the senior education level, approximately 1.3 to 1.5 million children were added. The number added to the kindergarten level is to be confirmed.


68

Some improvement in K.G. enrolment was also witnessed: from 2.1 million or 74.2% in 2011-12 to 2.2 million or 77.4% in academic year 2012-13(DFAT, 2015).

In the 2012-13 school year, 82.4% of Grade-1 entrants in public schools had attended pre-school. This can be contributed to the Universal kindergarten and Enhanced Basic Education Laws passed in 2012 (DFAT, 2015).

Research shows that children who do not start school at the right age are more likely to have learning difficulties, to repeat or drop out. In the Philippines, most dropouts occur in Grades 1 and 2, which could indicate lack of school readiness, which can be improved through access to quality ECCD (UNICEF, 2012). According to the Philippines ECCD Longitudinal Study Baseline Report, students who reported attending preschool performed better across the measured domains of literacy, numeracy, and social and emotional skills than students who reportedly had not attended preschool.

Results of the baseline survey of the ECCD Longitudinal Study also indicate that students entering kindergarten have low proficiency in both English and Filipino, with lower proficiency in English.5 Results show that approximately half the students were not able to answer questions in English, with students from conflict-affected areas exhibiting lower scores.

Moreover, results of the Filipino Oral Language Assessment indicate that even Filipino language results are not as high as expected, particularly in Luzon and conflict-affected areas. Overall, the study also finds that students in conflict-affected areas are the lowest performers in the three measured domains of literacy, numeracy, and social and emotional skills.

UNICEF support in ARMM

The challenges faced by DepEd, DSWD, UNICEF, and implementing partners are compounded

by ongoing conflict and violence. This has implications for the continuity and quality of service

delivery on ground. For example, in Mamasapano, there are a total of 16 day care centres but

only 14 were operational at the time of the research visit as two day care centres were non-

functioning due to bullet damage.

As the development wing of MILF, the BDA does not have a formal relationship with Local

Government Units (LGUs). In addition, there have been tensions between MILF and the

different levels of local government, including the regional, municipal and barangay level, driven

by long-running conflict between Muslim insurgent groups and local leaders and elites. In

addition, over the years, the pace of progress on the peace process has impacted BDA and

MILF’s position regarding engagement with the Philippines government and vice versa, with

both BDA and DepEd-ARMM reluctant to engage in official meetings together in the early years

of the programme. In the earlier phase of the 7th CP, it was expected that MILF would officially

participate in governance in ARMM through the passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL).

Had this happened, BDA would have received a greater degree of legitimacy to undertake

operations in the region, including running programmes such as the tahderiyyah centres.

However, given a change of government in recent elections (2016), the passage of the BBL has

5 It should be noted here that DepED is not expecting kindergarten entrants to be proficient in both English and Filipino. The purpose of measuring such proficiency is to establish what “competencies” children already have upon entry to kindergarten. Both EYA and Universal Kindergarten Law mandate the use of mother tongue or child’s first language as medium of instruction.


69

become unclear. Thus, tensions between state and non-state actors continue to pose a risk to

the sustainability of programmes implemented outside of government structures.

Box 2 ARMM conflict background

Understanding the conflict in Mindanao requires closer scrutiny of the causes of long standing violence in the land, partly a result of historic socio economic, political and cultural inequity. Mindanao is the second largest island in the Philippines, with a population of 21.5 million people covering an area of 37,657 square miles. Although Christians are an overwhelming majority in the Philippines, Mindanao has for centuries been home to both indigenous peoples and Muslims called Moro (from the Spanish word “Moor”) or Bangsamoro (the “Moro Nation”). While the Moro share a common identity as Muslims, they are also quite diverse with 13 different ethnic groups, each speaking their own language. Mindanao is divided into six administrative regions, including the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM), with approximately 4.1 million people, largely dominated by Muslims from the Meranaw, Tausug, and Maguindanaon ethnic groups. The vast diversity of ethnicity in the island has become the genesis of the long history of conflict in Mindanao, with armed groups including Muslim separatists, communists, clan militias, and criminal groups active in the area.

The main armed conflict between the Muslim groups and the Philippines government started in the 1960s, when a Muslim armed group (Moro National Liberation Front, or MNLF) started to advocate their right to self-determination of the Muslims in the Philippines (“Moro homeland”). The Philippine government responded through military means, resulting in numerous deaths and displacement of civilians. The peace talk between the Philippines government and MNLF, which started in the 1970s, led to the establishment of ARMM in 1990, obtaining the right from the Philippines government to elect its own officials, levy taxes, and set their individual education and development policy. However, armed confrontations with other Muslim groups broke out every now and then. The signing in 2014 of the Comprehensive Agreement on the Bangsamoro (CAB) by the Philippines government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF), a separatist breakaway group from MNLF, in 1990s, sets out a multi-step process for the creation of a new autonomous entity, the Bangsamoro, which is expected to replace the current ARMM in the 2016 election.

As a result of the transition process, conflict between the Philippines government and the MILF has dramatically declined. However, armed conflicts by other Muslim separatist groups (such as New People Army (NPA), Private Armed Groups (PAG) and Bangsamoro Islamic Freedom Fighters (BIFF) still remain serious in Mindanao. In addition to this, other forms of low intensity violence driven by the existence of landlords, elections, rich clans who are at the same time the political drivers, and organized criminality including private armies, drugs, kidnapping and gun trade are major factors in the wide spread of violence.

It is these low intensity (protracted) conflict which affect the safety and security of children, schools and the community, which is often driven by the Bangsamoro populace that is determined by their social class, religion and status. This breeds the seemingly acceptable culture of violence which penetrates eventually at the household level. The level of unspoken distrust among the tri-people is also deeply rooted, often sparking prejudices and biases resulting in violent encounters. This type of conflict driver is more evident and loud. The disaggregation based on religion, ethnicity and geographical origin are often highlighting the differences rather than complementarity and richness in diversity. This often deepens the roots of marginalization and insecurity among the general populace and the most common notion of conflict in the region.

Source: UNICEF Philippines (2016). Peacebuilding and Education in Mindanao: Concept note UNICEF Philippines


70

Box 3 Tahderiyyah background

In April 2007, UNICEF and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF) signed a Joint Communiqué calling for "deliberate and extraordinary efforts to provide services for children in conflict-affected communities in Mindanao". Together with the Philippine government, the Joint Communiqué launched a campaign called Days of Peace in Bangsamoro communities. The campaign initially focused on micronutrient supplements and immunisation, and the distribution of early childhood care and development materials in local communities.

After reviewing the campaign results, the partnership saw the need to introduce a new strategy to achieve a more lasting legacy for Bangsamoro communities. Thus, an Islam-responsive kindergarten curriculum was designed and implemented in 13 pilot sites through the Talaynged Foundation and the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA), established in 2001 in accord with the humanitarian and development aspects of the Philippine government and MILF Tripoli Agreement. With the support of the Government of Australia, the programme was expanded to 300 tahderiyyah (kindergartens in Islamic schools) in 2010, and to 815 sites for the third phase of the project (starting in 2015). Currently the programme operates across six regions in Mindanao (Central Mindanao, Southern Mindanao, Ranaw, Zamboanga Peninsula, Zamboanga and Basilan, and Davao Region.

The tahderiyyah programme, supported by UNICEF, is an ECCD programme for the Bangsamoro children aged 3-5 years old. The objective of the programme is to provide balanced education to young children – an education that imparts the values and teachings of Islam while developing the learning competencies of young children to make them school-ready. In partnership with BDA, the tahderiyyah programme aims to provide holistic teaching-learning approaches for children in safe and secure environments. Further, it helps address the long-standing problem of providing a “right start to learning” to disadvantaged children in conflict-affected communities, to give them a solid foundation for their future schooling and life-long learning.

Sources: http://bangsamorodevelopment.org/tahderiyyah-program/; https://www.unicef.org/philippines/reallives_21534.html#.WIxQl_l942x

Key Stakeholders

The Department of Social Welfare and Development (DSWD) is the lead agency in social

welfare and development. Amongst its functions is the development of programmes and

services for children and youth, women, family and communities, single parents and persons

with disabilities. The Department implements the Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Program (4Ps) a

conditional cash transfer scheme, in partnership with DepEd, Department of Health and DILG in

coordination with LGUs. DSWD also implements a Supplementary Feeding Program (SFP) to

provide regular meals to children currently enrolled in day care centres and supervised

neighbourhood play (SNP) centres nationwide including ARMM as part of its contribution to the

government’s ECCD programme. Despite improvements in legislation and increased awareness

of the importance of ECCD, DSWD facilities still receive less resources and planning support at

the local levels, as is evident in the DSWD’s reliance on volunteers to staff day care and SNP

facilities.

DepEd formulates, implements, and coordinates policies and programmes in the areas of formal

and non-formal basic education. It works with UNICEF and other agencies in the ECCD sub-

sector to support the establishment of ‘link’ in selected barangays, where interventions for both

http://bangsamorodevelopment.org/tahderiyyah-program/

https://www.unicef.org/philippines/reallives_21534.html#.WIxQl_l942x


71

ECCD and elementary education are provided to assist ECCD completers to transition to

kindergarten, then to primary education.

The Department of Interior and Local Government (DILG) assists the President in supervising

local governments and develops policies and coordination mechanisms for LGUs. It is set up to

establish a system of coordination and cooperation among the citizenry, local executives and

the Department, to ensure effective and efficient delivery of basic services to the public,

including ECCD. It also formulates plans, policies and programmes which will meet local

emergencies arising from natural and man-made disasters.

The ECCD Council was established to coordinate the ECCD sector under the Early Years Act

(EYA) of 2013. It is composed of the ECCD Governing Board and Secretariat. The Council is

responsible for developing policies and programmes, providing technical assistance and support

to ECCD service providers in consultation with coordinating committees at different levels, and

in monitoring ECCD service benefits and outcomes. The Secretary of DSWD convenes and

chairs the Council. Board members include the Secretaries of the Department of Education,

Department of Health, the Executive Director of the National Nutrition Council, the President of

the Union of Local Authorities of the Philippines, and one ECCD practitioner (private individual)

recommended by the Board. This suggests a broad, holistic and, cross-sectoral approach to

early childhood development.

The DILG is not a member of the Council, and this is generally accepted as an oversight, as

LGUs play a governing role in the implementation of the 0-4 year provision of ECCD. DILG does

participate in a working group established to address ECCD issues, and is mandated to assist

the Office of the President in supervising the LGUs.

At the subnational level, the Bangsamoro Development Agency (BDA) is the development arm

of the Moro Islamic Liberation Front (MILF). The BDA supports tahderiyyahs by providing

learning materials, furniture and training. At present, the BDA does not have a formal

relationship with LGUs, and tensions exist between the MILF and the different levels of local

government, due to conflict between Muslim insurgent groups and local leaders and elites.

ECCD services such a day care centres receive relatively less attention in resource allocation

and planning at the municipal and barangay level, in comparison to other priority sectors.

Nevertheless, day care centres rely heavily on financial and logistical support provided by

Barangay Local Government Units (BLGUs). Our research suggested that in areas where

barangay captains were active, day care centre workers were better motivated and the facilities

were better equipped. In other areas where they were not active, some day care centres were

either not functional or poorly equipped. In contrast to day care centres, most tahderiyyahs did

not receive much financial or operational support from the barangay. No honorariums for its

teachers were being paid by the BLGUs. This is because the tahderiyyah programme is being

implemented by BDA, a non-state actor which exists outside of the government. During

research, all tahderiyyah principals emphasised the need for BLGUs to support and recognise

the programme.

Day care workers, SNP workers and tahderiyyah teachers are not considered to be ‘regular’

staff. They are instead considered to be ‘volunteers’ and are therefore paid honorariums instead

of salaries, either through the BLGU or from parents’ fees and private donations. Honorariums

are variable in amount and frequency across centres, and are not considered a reliable source


72

of income. Amongst other factors, this contributes towards a high level of turnover for ECCD

workers, as well as poor morale. This in turn serves as a disincentive to conduct training of

volunteer staff as trainees are expected to leave the system.

Parents and community members are also key stakeholders and provide significant contribution

to ECCD programmes at the local level. Across all municipalities, SNPs relied on financial and

time contribution of parents and community members. Research suggest that parents are also

contributing funds for ECCD materials, assisting in construction and repairs for ECCD facilities,

and contributed to day care worker remuneration. As part of the DSWD School Feeding

Programme, parents prepare meals in day care centres, feed children, and assist with

handwashing.

UNICEF works with Plan International, a non-profit organisation, to support DepEd and

municipalities. Their work includes support to SNPs through the Early Learning for Life Project

in partnership with LGUs. This includes delivery of an 11-day training to SNP workers and

orientation sessions for local stakeholders about developing enhanced School Improvement

Plans (eSIPs).

International assistance to the ECCD sector is key. DFAT accounts for a significant proportion

(57%) of the programmatic funding of UNICEF’s ECCD outputs. It supports the DSWD’s social

protection reform agenda through funding in the amount of AUD 27.8 million from 2009 to 2017,

including support to the design, management and implementation of the 4Ps.

The World Bank supports social protection projects via the DSWD’s Philippines Social Welfare

Development and Reform Project II in the amount of USD 455.2 million, from February 2016 to

December 2019, to improve the use of health and education services for poor children. The

project supports the continuous delivery of the 4Ps conditional cash transfer program, as well as

strengthening implementation, monitoring and evaluation of the programme. The National

Community Driven Development Project empowers communities in targeted municipalities to

improve access to services and participate in more inclusive local planning, budgeting and

implementation. The project contributes USD 663.9 million from February 2014 to December

2019.

The ADB provided USD 400 million in financing to the DSWD for the Social Protection Support

Project (SPSP) from September 2010, with additional financing of USD 1.5 million to December

2018. The funding supports the government’s social protection agenda including health and

education grants to poor households and strengthening capacity for CCT programme

operations. The ADB supported the improvement of access to quality early childhood

education services through DepEd in the amount of USD 1.5 million from March 2012 to May

2016.


73

Annex D BE programme (Details)

D.1 BE component funding

Table 2 UNICEF Basic Education Program Funds: 2012-2016

Outputs Actual cost in US$

1. Enhanced policy and program environment for achieving UPE

41,059

2. Strengthened capacity, systems, processes and structures for achieving UPE with focus on remote and disadvantaged areas

1,762,349.23

3. Strengthened evidence-based advocacy and resource leveraging for basic education through quality assurance, research and documentation

61,364

4. Strengthened education delivery for disadvantaged children in ARMM

4,253,252

Total 6,118,024

D.2 Basic Education – National Policy Framework

Guided by the Philippines Development Plan 2011 – 2016 and its international commitments,

under a former Administration, the Government of Philippines developed a package of policy

reforms through the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA). BESRA is a package of

policy reforms that seeks to improve ‘regulatory, institutional, structural, financial, cultural,

physical, and informational conditions’ that affect basic education service provision and delivery.

Five key reform trusts identified in BESRA are as follows:

1. Get all schools to continuously improve

2. Enable teachers to further enhance their contribution to learning outcomes

3. Increase social support to attainment of desired learning outcomes

4. Improve impact on outcomes from complementary early childhood education, alternative

learning systems and private sector participation

Change institutional culture of DepEd to better support these key reform thrusts

Through BESRA, the Government defined the agenda for restructuring education and

implementing the K-12 Program, which would increase the total number of years of school

system service from 10 to 13 years across the country. The K-12 Program is comprised of:

Kindergarten for 5 year old children, six years of elementary school, four years of junior high

school, and two years of senior high school (K - 6 - 4 - 2).


74

The Enhanced Basic Education Act further strengthened the restructuring proposed through

BESRA, by mandating: the increase in number of years of basic education and strengthening of

the curriculum for all years of basic education. Under the guidance of these laws and the K-12

Program, DepEd has shifted its focus towards learning at lower grade levels and the adoption of

developmentally appropriate pedagogical practices.

The Basic Education Act mandates the design of the enhanced basic education curriculum

primarily upon DepEd. The basic standards of the curriculum are that it is learner-centred,

standards-based, culture-appropriate, global, adheres to the principles of mother tongue-based

multilingual education, follows spiral progression – which would ensure mastery of skills and

knowledge at every level- and is flexible enough to be incorporated in the differing social

contexts.

Among other things, the Basic Education Act also stipulates the teacher training programmes

that would complement the enhanced basic education curriculum. Training programmes are to

be conducted for: new teachers, in-service teacher and school leadership from both public and

private institutions.

D.3 Basic Education - Key Programme Features

UNICEF’s Basic Education (BE) component focuses on ‘enhancing access to, completion of,

and the quality of learning for disadvantaged children as they progress through the six-year

elementary school cycle in the Philippines’.6 UNICEF’s Basic Education component is expected

to build on the gains from the ECCD component and existing foundation of the basic education

system in the Philippines. The expectation is that this approach will lead to an increased

proportion of 6–11 year old children participating in quality elementary education is increased by

5% in 36 vulnerable Local Government Units, focusing on disadvantaged children, with gender

parity.7

The four main objectives of UNICEF’s basic education component identified in the

logframe (UNICEF 2012b) are:

a) Enhanced policy and programme environment for achieving universal primary education

(UPE) with equity and gender parity

b) Strengthened capacity, systems, processes and structures for achieving UPE with equity

and gender parity with focus on remote and disadvantaged areas

c) Strengthened evidence-based advocacy and resource leveraging for basic education

through quality assurance, research and documentation

d) Strengthened education delivery for disadvantaged children in ARMM

The basic education component views elementary education (Grade 1 to 6) in two distinct

phases. This is already recognised as such in the Philippines, which distinguishes Grades 1-4

as primary level and Grades 5-6 as intermediate level. In the first three years, the emphasis is

6 Business Case 7 Logframe


75

on ‘learning how to learn’ with a focus on developing the processes for learning and ensuring

gains in basic literacy and numeracy skills, preferably in a child’s mother tongue. In the latter

three years, the emphasis is on utilising the ‘basic opportunity to learn’ (BOTL) approach for all

learners, thereby providing each learner a fair and equitable chance to learn and achieve.

The basic education component utilises innovative approaches to address barriers to access

and completion of elementary education to create scalable models which can be adopted. It

aims to reach hard to reach and disadvantaged groups of children across the country, with

emphasis on reducing gender disparities, with boys disadvantaged; conflict and disaster prone

areas; and the urban poor populations.

UNICEF Philippines is supporting a number of specific programmes to achieve their objectives

in basic education. Some of the most important ones have been discussed here in brief.

Table 3 UNICEF Basic Education Program Funds: 2012-2016

Outputs Actual cost in US$

1. Enhanced policy and program environment for achieving UPE

41,059

2. Strengthened capacity, systems, processes and structures for achieving UPE with focus on remote and disadvantaged areas

1,762,349.23

3. Strengthened evidence-based advocacy and resource leveraging for basic education through quality assurance, research and documentation

61,364

4. Strengthened education delivery for disadvantaged children in ARMM

4,253,252

Total 6,118,024

Key Components

This section briefly outlines the main activities planned and completed under each of the four

key objectives of the UNICEF basic education programme.

Objective 1: Enhanced policy and programme environment for achieving universal primary education (UPE) with equity and gender parity

Output 1.1 Strengthened educational planning with enhanced School Based Management

Implementation activities include:

1. Provision of support to roll-out the school based management planning framework –

School Improvement Plans –through provision of training of trainers (ToT) in 36 LGUs

and 40 LGUs in Haiyan-affected areas

2. Technical assistance for Toolkit Development through consultation workshops


76

3. Development of draft policy on the use of District Synthesis

4. Support to the roll-out of District Synthesis in CPC 7 areas, with particular focus on

DepEd division office in school supervision, support leadership, and local level resource

mobilisation for schools, and

5. Preparation of test material in pilot elementary schools for SEA-PLM (Southeast Asia-

Primary Learning Metrics)

Box 4 Overview of the School Improvement Plans (SIP)

A major component of UNICEF’s Basic Education Programme involves the provision of technical support

to Department of Education (DepEd) to develop and refine the enhanced School Improvement Plans

(SIP), and harmonizing it with other school based management and planning approaches. UNICEF

initially supported DepEd in the pilot rollout of the enhanced SIP manual in certain priority regions and

Haiyan affected Regions 6 and 8. Lessons from the pilot contributed to the development of the SIP

guidelines later adopted by DepEd. The support UNICEF provided through School based

management and enhanced School Improvement Plans was a key focus of the research.

The enhanced SIP guidelines developed with UNICEF’s support were finalised and adopted through the

DepEd Order No.44 issued in September 2015. UNICEF’s approach to enhanced SBM was based on

the recommendations provided by the World Bank before the UNICEF component commenced. The

nationally implemented SIP guidelines help schools prepare for the development of quality school

improvement plans with a focus on reducing out of school children. The revised guidelines support school

empowerment by encouraging child-centred and child-friendly approaches in its planning principles.

The enhanced SIP process is expected to promote evidence-based and child-centred planning at the

school and community level. The planning process commences with a situational analysis of the children,

schools and community. For this purpose, all children in the barangay are mapped through the support

of local government. The mapping exercise helps identify out of school children in the barangay and

plans for new intake and ensures transition from day-care centres to primary schools, therefore ensuring

greater access to appropriate education interventions.

Following the issuance of the national SIP guideline, UNICEF also supported DepEd in conducting

national Training of Trainers on the SIP Guidelines. The SIP Guidebook were also adopted for ARMM.

Through the SIP Guidelines, the use of the 4As framework has been promoted to help create indicators

that can easily be used within communities to monitor progress. The 4As framework (Access,

Attendance, Attainment, and Achievement) helps focus on factors that are required to increase access

to school, help maintain regular and punctual attendance once enrolled, ensure children learn

(achievement), and enable earners to stay in school and help them complete the elementary cycle

(attainment). The SIP Guidebook also incorporates the areas of UNICEF advocacy on child-mapping,

child-friendly school indicators and child protection policy implementation checklist.

UNICEF’s basic education component also includes support for the implementation of WASH in schools

programme as an inter-sectoral intervention on elementary education. According to the CPC 7 business

case the WASH in schools programme can focus on preventive measures to address common ailments

among school children which contribute to incidence of absenteeism. An inter-sectoral collaboration is


77

expected to involve collaboration between and among DepEd, LGUs and WASH(UNICEF, 2012b). In

this regard UNICEF has provided support to develop and pilot school-based management of WASH in

schools module and the WinS Online Monitoring System. These activities strengthen the inclusion of

WASH activities in enhanced SIP.

Output 1.2 Developed strategic plan for disadvantaged groups or Last-Mile Learners

(LMLs)

This component aims to inform national education strategies and plans that promote equity in

terms of access and learning. Under this component, UNICEF conducted a situational analysis

on the issue of Last Mile Learners in 2015. Last mile learners are defined as disadvantaged

groups that are not able to access any available – formal or alternative – learning modalities.

Moreover, these groups were intended to be the target of a government programme called ‘Abot

Alam’ (reaching knowledge). The situational analysis has been presented to DepEd and is

expected to guide DepEd policy makers in developing strategic plans for out of school children

and youth through the Alternative Delivery System.

Objective 2: Strengthened capacity, systems, processes and structures for achieving UPE with equity and gender parity with focus on remote and disadvantaged areas

Output 2.1 Capacitated schools on equity-based school-community planning process

through enhanced SIP and School Report Cards (SRCs)

Activities towards this objective include development and production of advocacy and

instructional materials in support of school-community planning processes and technical support

to quality assurance and monitoring of School Improvement Plans national roll-out strategies.

The Data Must Speak (DMS) initiative is a key programme geared towards this output. The

Philippines DMS initiative is derived from a multi-country programme which provides capacity

and technical support to government and communities for the effective and transparent use of

data in education. The initiative is implemented by UNICEF, and co-funded by UNICEF, the

Global Partnership for Education, and the Hewlett Foundation. It enables the use of technology

and data for better management of schools, enhanced governance of education systems, and

improved social accountability through citizen engagement. DMS promotes effective use of

evidence in order to strengthen equity focus in educational planning, support equitable financial

incentives, develop tailored interventions and support disadvantaged schools and children.

DMS seeks to support the enhancement of School Report Cards (SRCs) and District Synthesis

through review of the existing processes and tools and consultations with education managers

at all levels (School, district, division, regional and national). The goal is to link the automated

production of School Report Cards (SRCs) and District Synthesis to the EBEIS – existing EMIS

system – to facilitate bottom-up education planning and to strengthen the existing management

and information system. The DMS also supports the review of the existing policy and guidelines

for the provision of teacher hardship allowance to inform the development a rationalised and

equity driven teacher hardship index. DepEd intends to use the teacher hardship index as a

basis for refinement of policies on resource allocation, teacher deployment, and provision of

allowance or incentives for those in hardship post. The DMS initiative was not the primary focus


78

of the BE evaluation. Specific interventions were selected for this evaluation based on extensive

consultations with UNICEF and the evaluation team’s understanding of priority areas within BE.

Box 5 Overview of Data Must Speak

The Philippines Data Must Speak (DMS) initiative is derived from a multi-country programme which provides capacity and technical support to government and communities for the effective and transparent use of data in education. The initiative is implemented by UNICEF, and co-funded by UNICEF, the Global Partnership for Education, and the Hewlett Foundation. It enables the use of technology and data for better management of schools, enhanced governance of education systems, and improved social accountability through citizen engagement. DMS promotes effective use of evidence in order to strengthen equity focus in educational planning, support equitable financial incentives, develop tailored interventions and support disadvantaged schools and children (UNICEF, 2012d).

The draft baseline report on Data Must Speak identifies some limitations of the current production of SRCs. It finds that the production of SRCs is time and resource intensive, involves repetition of data collection with the annual EBEIS and does not allow easy comparison of data across different schools. These limitations are meant to guide the work of DMS (UNICEF, 2012d).

Data Must Speak (DMS) seeks to support the enhancement of School Report Cards (SRCs) and District Synthesis through review of the existing processes and tools and consultations with education managers at all levels (School, district, division, regional and national). The goal is to link the automated production of School Report Cards (SRCs) and District Synthesis to the EBEIS – existing EMIS system – to facilitate bottom-up education planning and to strengthen the existing management and information system. The DMS also supports the review of the existing policy and guidelines for the provision of teacher hardship allowance to inform the development a rationalised and equity driven teacher hardship index. DepEd intends to use the teacher hardship index ias a basis for refinement of policies on resource allocation, teacher deployment and provision of allowance or incentives for those in hardship post.

Output 2.2 Capacitated schools to implement culturally-sensitive, inclusive, and flexible

learning strategies for disadvantaged children

UNICEF aims to prepare the multi-grade teaching curriculum guide for the new K-12 curriculum.

To date, UNICEF has provided funding and technical support to DepEd Bureau of Learning

Delivery for the preparation of Curriculum Guide (Budget of work) for multi-grade teachers

through consultation workshops. This activity formed the basis for the preparation of Daily

Lesson Logs and Daily Lesson Plans by multi-grade teachers. Following this, planned activities

include providing technical assistance to DepEd for the development of Teach-Learn Package

(TLP) for K-6 – which would supplement regular textbooks for multi-grade classrooms – along

with a corresponding assessment toolkit, which would be used for monitoring and quality

assuring the implementation of multi-grade teachers. Additional plans include conducting the

evaluation of the multi-grade programme.

UNICEF is providing funding and technical support to indigenise the curriculum to implement

culturally sensitive and inclusive teaching and learning strategies for disadvantaged children,

particularly for learners of 3 IP Tribes (B’laan, T’boli, and Tagakaolo) in Division of Sarangani

Region 12. The initiative for IP Curriculum contextualisation evolves from the existing resources

found in the province and draws from the sharing of the tribal elders by documenting their


79

Indigenous Knowledge, Skills, and Practices (IKSPs), which are validated prior to the integration

in the K-3 curriculum. Activities for this purpose include strengthening the implementation of

Indigenous Population Education Curriculum Framework, developing indigenised or culturally-

appropriate learning materials for selected groups, and processing documentation of the IP

Curriculum development cycle.

Other activities include development of a concept note with DepEd on the design of Alternative

Delivery Mode for disadvantaged children. Alternative Delivery Modes are non-traditional

education programmes that employ flexible learning philosophies – including audio and visual

tools, and peer learning groups – to help learners continue their education. The capacity

building initiatives mentioned here were beyond the scope of this research.

Box 6 Overview of Mother Tongue Based Multilingual Education

DepEd has refocussed efforts towards learning at lower grade levels and the adoption of developmentally

appropriate pedagogical practices. Therefore, DepEd is focusing on institutionalizing the mother tongue-

based multilingual education (MTB-MLE) method – as mandated by Universal Kindergarten Act of 2012

(RA 10157) and Enhanced Basic Education Act of 2013 (RA 10533). The MTB-MLE method promotes

the use of the child’s mother tongue or regional language as the medium of instruction from Kindergarten

to Grade 3. The curriculum also integrates the MTB-MLE method to improve the ease of understanding

through the use of the child’s dominant language as the medium of instruction. It is expected that this

method would lead to retention of learner’s ethnic identity, culture, heritage, and values.

UNICEF has provided technical support towards DepEd’s mother tongue-based multilingual education

policy from Grade 1 to 3 by providing translation support to the local languages to ensure appropriate

implementation of MTB-MLE. This evaluation explores the implementation challenges of the MTB-MLE

policy as part of a formative assessment.

Output 2.3 Materials developed and school heads/teachers trained on continuous school-

level professional development with child development principles through the Learning

Action Cells (LAC)

UNICEF and DepEd worked together to roll-out LACs in UNICEF focus local government units.

Learning Action Cells are school-based teacher professional development mechanism which

form a part of DepEd’s recent policy to enhance teachers’ continuous professional development

– through DepEd Order no. 35, s. 2016. Through a highly participatory training and hands-on

approach, LACs help teachers’ practice child-centred teaching and learning methods and

subsequently enhances the K-12 curriculum implementation.

Activities planned under this component include trainings of trainers (TOTs) for the

implementation of LAC modules and quality assurance through monitoring, review, and

documentation of LAC implementation in selected areas.

The development package for trainers and teachers on enhancing learner-centred and inclusive

education was prepared in partnership with the Community of Learners Foundation (COLF)

from January 2013 to March 2016. The series of interventions varied from module development

(i.e. LAC Modules 1 and 2 focusing on child development principles mentioned below and play-


80

based learning approaches for early literacy and numeracy); orientations and trainings for

teachers and education supervisors for selected schools in the 36 focus LGUs; provision of

teaching/learning kits; and monitoring and site-based consultations

Output 2.4 Developed capacity at the national and sub-national level to implement

harmonised education DRRM systems strengthening

Output 2.4 is part of the education in emergencies (EiE) work derived from the Haiyan

experience. During typhoon Haiyan, various stakeholders implemented different DRRM

trainings, some of which were particularly geared towards continuous education. DepEd and

UNICEF hope to institutionalise the learning derived from the Haiyan experience by harmonizing

and updating the different DRRM training modules implemented.

Therefore, this output includes the development of DRRM training packages for DepEd regional

and division level coordinators. Some of the activities already performed include: processing the

results of training needs analysis conducted with the cluster partners and DRRM Coordinators;

developing the training modules; and revising the DRRM training modules according to partners’

feedback. Planned activities include finalising the training modules based on pilot testing,

providing management support for training roll-out and providing resource persons who can

deliver 2 or 3 modules of the training package.

Output 2.5 Strengthened emergency preparedness and response through cluster

coordination mechanisms and emergency supplies prepositioning for disaster and

conflict situations (EiE)

Under this component, UNICEF is providing support to DepEd and the Education Cluster for

emergency preparedness and response.8 It does so by providing technical inputs to national

and regional contingency planning; providing inputs to develop the draft response plan for hydro

meteorological hazards and the response plan for the terrorism-related hazards; providing

coordination support to the Education Cluster; helping DepEd develop the Education Cluster’s

capacity and providing Education in Emergencies (EiE) interventions to affected schools

according to needs.

Objective 3: Strengthened evidence-based advocacy and resource leveraging for basic education through quality assurance, research and documentation

Output 3.1 Produced and disseminated analytical researches and/or studies, advocacy

materials on equitable and inclusive primary education

The completed research under this component is the translation of test material for SEA-PLM

(mentioned above) and a situational analysis of Out of School Children (OOSC) conducted

8 Education cluster is part of the cluster approach to humanitarian response to large scale disasters/shocks. Clusters are groups of humanitarian organizations, both UN and non-UN, in each of the main sectors of humanitarian action, e.g. water, health and logistics. The aim of the cluster approach is to strengthen system-wide preparedness and technical capacity to respond to humanitarian emergencies, and provide clear leadership and accountability in the main areas of humanitarian response. At country level, it aims to strengthen partnerships, and the predictability and accountability of international humanitarian action, by improving prioritization and clearly defining the roles and responsibilities of humanitarian organizations. (See https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/philippines/education).

https://www.humanitarianresponse.info/en/operations/philippines/education


81

through the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS). The OOSC report provides a

comprehensive analysis of the OOSC situation in the Philippines, along with a record and

analysis of the progress over the previous five years. The findings of the study were

disseminated to educators and policymakers in Philippines and Southeast Asia in 2015. The

results were also used to conceptualise a roadmap for developing OOSC strategies; with

UNICEF as a part of the working group.

Box 7 Out of School Children

In 2015, a situational analysis of Out of School Children (OOSC) was conducted through the Philippine Institute of Development Studies (PIDS). The study was a collaboration between PIDS, DepEd and UNICEF. The report provides a comprehensive analysis of the OOSC situation in the Philippines, along with a record and analysis of the progress over the previous five years.

The OOSC Study reported that the number of out of school children between 5 to 15 years of age, declined from 2.9 million in 2008 to 1.2 million in 2013 (Albert, 2015).With the reduction in incidence of out of school children, the study aims to understand effective ways of reaching the last mile of enrolling all children to school (UNICEF, 2015). The study identified poverty, perceptions of readiness for school, mothers’ education and differential expectations from genders to be the leading barriers for timely enrolment and completion of education. The study also presents an array of policy options which could be utilized to address the barriers identified. While UNICEF cannot incorporate each policy option into its basic education programme, to a large extent UNICEF’s support is informed and steered by the OOSC study’s findings and recommendations.

However, the scope of the OOSC study is beyond providing policy guidance to UNICEF alone. The study aims to inform the debate on out of school children in the Philippines and to inform evidence-based policy development. For this purpose, the findings of the study were disseminated to educators and policymakers in Philippines and Southeast Asia in 2015. The results were also used to conceptualise a roadmap for developing OOSC strategies; with UNICEF as a part of the working group.

As mentioned above, UNICEF also conducted a study on last-mile learners to inform the

strategy and policy debate on this issue. Additionally, there is on-going research of a

longitudinal study on the effects of ECCD on the learning experiences and performance of

Kindergarten pupils through Grade 2. The analysis covers cognitive, social and emotional, and

language skills in English and Filipino. The findings of the four year study will inform the

continuing refinement of the pre-school and K-12 curriculum, teacher professional development

and policies by DepEd and DSWD. For UNICEF, the results will inform the programme focus of

the next Country Program for Children.

Box 8 Last mile learner results

UNICEF conducted the Last Mile Learner (LML) situational analysis study to analyse the magnitudes of Last Mile Learners in the Philippines in order to inform the strategy and policy debate on this issue. Last Mile Learners are defined as those who are not able to access any available learning delivery modalities, including formal and informal (alternative) learning modalities.

The LML situational analysis identifies the education exclusion as predominantly befalling upon indigenous people, conflict affected populations and certain disadvantaged groups. Interventions were identified and recommended on the basis of the LML problem identified. Interventions include: alternative delivery modes, alternative learning systems, multi-grade education, inclusive education, conditional cash transfers and DepEd bridging programmes such as Abot-Alam (reaching knowledge) (UNICEF, 2016d). The results of the study was presented to DepEd policy makers and is being used to DepEd’s renewed priority for out of school children and youth through the Alternative Delivery System.


82

Another planned evaluation study is on the effectiveness of the multi-grade education

programme. This study will examine current policies and practices on multi-grade education

programme, identify key issues and challenges, and recommend evidence-based policy options

for improving the overall quality of multi-grade teaching. The study is based on classroom

observation on how multi-grade teachers manage teaching and learning in practice.

Objective 4: Strengthened education delivery for disadvantaged children in ARMM

Output 4.1 DepEd ARMM and selected schools capacitated on equity-based, risk

informed, conflict sensitive school community planning process

UNICEF recognises the geographical disparity in access to elementary education in the

Philippines, with the Autonomous Region in Muslim Mindanao (ARMM) being one of the

disadvantaged regions. Therefore, UNICEF has been working closely with DepEd ARMM and

other relevant stakeholders in the region to strengthen education delivery for disadvantaged

children in ARMM.

UNICEF is supporting DepEd ARMM to introduce improved school community planning

processes through the School Improvement Plans (SIP), with a focus on equity-based, risk-

informed and conflict sensitive planning processes. This would involve tailoring the SIP

Guidebook for the complex emergency context of ARMM with peacebuilding strategies on

learning institutions as zones of peace and flexible learning options for vulnerable populations.

Additionally, UNICEF provided repeated trainings on eSIP in ARMM. Through these trainings,

UNICEF facilitated the development of a continuous mentorship arrangement between schools

and the Norte Dame University. The adoption of enhanced SIP would also comprise building the

capacity of DepEd ARMM and selected schools in the region on the improved processes.

In ARMM, the enhanced SIP process has been rolled-out in 222 selected schools in 7 LGUs.

For this purpose, orientation workshops were conducted at the regional and division level with

focal persons and selected district supervisors and head teachers, and at the school level in

selected municipalities.

Output 4.2 Capacitated DepEd ARMM on DRRM and Education response in a complex

emergency context (combination of armed conflict and natural hazards)

UNICEF is working towards building the capacity of DepEd ARMM and the education cluster on

disaster risk reduction and management in a complex emergency context. Key activities include

providing consultations to DepEd ARMM on strengthening their contingency and response

strategies for continued provision of education – this activity has resulted in UNICEF working

closely and continuously with DepEd ARMM, DepEd Central office and the Mindanao Education

Cluster.

UNICEF has provided technical assistance to DepEd ARMM to develop a policy framework

which integrates the complex conflict context into the education sectors DRRM and Education in

Emergencies (EiE) policies. UNICEF carried out a series of consultation workshops for this

purpose. Consequently, DepEd and UNICEF drafted the Education in Emergencies (EiE) and

DRRM training packages for DepEd ARMM staff members – mentioned above.


83

Output 4.3 Capacitated the MILF Education Committee to undertake strategic planning

for the new Bangsamoro basic education system in preparation for the impending

approval BBL

In 2015, Bangsamoro Development Authority (BDA) – the development arm of the Moro Islamic

Liberation Front (MILF) – requested UNICEF’s support to formulate a Bangsamoro Education

Transition Plan. UNICEF provided funding and technical support to hold regional consultations

with relevant stakeholders (Bangsamoro based CSOs) to develop an understanding of the

education sector and share the vision and needs of disadvantaged children in Bangsamoro.

This activity subsequently led to the development of a draft Bangsamoro Education Transition

Plan. It was expected that MILF would officially participate in governance in ARMM through the

passage of the Bangsamoro Basic Law (BBL). Had this happened, BDA would have received a

greater degree of legitimacy to undertake operations in the region, including running

programmes such as the tahderiyyah centres. However, given a change of government in

recent elections (2016), the passage of the BBL has become unclear. Thus, tensions between

state and non-state actors continue to pose a risk to the sustainability of programmes

implemented outside of government structures.

This brief overview of some of UNICEF Philippines’ key activities in basic education

demonstrates the breadth and depth of UNICEF’s engagement in the education sector.


84

Annex E Evaluation Purpose, Objectives and Scope (Details)

The following Theory of change was developed to guide the design and implementation of the

ECCD support:

Figure 1 Intended results for the ‘Early Learning for Life’ Project


85

Annex F Evaluation Methodology (Details)

Figure 2 Evaluation Matrix

Criteria Evaluation Questions

Sub-questions Source of

Information Remarks

Rele

van

ce

To what extent did ECCD and Basic Education outputs suit the priorities and policies of government stakeholders, focus LGUs, DFAT, and international partners?

What are the key priorities of relevant stakeholders in BE and ECCD?

How was the UNICEF CP formulated?

What kind of consultations informed the design and implementation of the UNICEF CP?

How relevant and coherent is the TOC? How does it link to other interventions?

Have risks and assumptions been well identified? Are mitigation strategies in place?

Qualitative: Mapping of education and ECCD sectors in the Philippines

Rigorous analysis of strategic policy documents (such as country programmes, mid-term and annual reviews, meeting minutes, and planning guides)

Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders at the national level Quantitative: Analysis of available data to determine progress towards programme outputs and outcomes and to investigate disparities influencing impact and effectiveness. In particular disparities concerning gender, income and poverty levels and disability if available and other factors influencing participation and access to education.

The DAC criteria are obviously related to each other, and so should be considered together to inform the findings across the OECD DAC criteria

To what extent were outputs suited to cater for disadvantaged children and disadvantaged areas such as ARMM and their context?

How are the challenges faced by disadvantaged children and pupils in disadvantaged areas different from other parts of the country?

What forms of UNICEF support have been implemented to address these challenges? How appropriate are they?

To what extent are the objectives of the Education Country

Have the key priorities changed for any of the relevant


86

Programme still valid?

stakeholders? Why or why not?

How will the programme adapt to these priorities?

Eff

ecti

ven

ess

To what extent were the objectives achieved/are likely to be achieved?

What were the objectives of the BE and ECCD programmes?

How successful have each of the key programmes (such as School Based Management systems, inclusion-related programmes, and support to disadvantaged areas in Basic Education) been, and why?

Has UNICEF’s contribution been ineffective in any areas? Why?

Qualitative: KIIs, FGDs, and formal and informal observations with UNICEF staff, implementing partners, and beneficiaries of the associated programmes Quantitative: Analysis of available data to determine progress towards programme outputs and outcomes and to investigate disparities influencing impact and effectiveness.

The effectiveness of the various programmes in BE will also depend on the stage of their implementation

What were the major factors influencing the achievement or non-achievement of the objectives?

What contributing

factors have influenced the implementation of the key programmes?

What challenges have been faced during this time? How have they been addressed?

Eff

icie

nc

y

Were the UNICEF ECCD and Basic Education activities cost-efficient?

How much did the key programmes cost for UNICEF? How much did the overall programmes themselves cost, and what was the size and proportion of UNICEF’s contribution to those programmes?

Qualitative: Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) with funding agencies and UNICEF staff

Quantitative: Secondary costing data to carry out a comparison of planned expenditure

The efficiency of the various programmes in BE will also depend on the stage of their implementation


87

Were there any unexpected costs? How were they met?

in budgets against actual expenditure in reports Comparison of budget against programme outputs and outcomes.

Were the UNICEF ECCD and Basic Education efficient in terms of working with the government programmes and systems?

What role did UNICEF programmes play in supporting government programmes and systems?

What are UNICEF’s strategic advantages and how has UNICEF capitalized on these advantages?

How could UNICEF strengthen government systems further?

Qualitative: Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders at the municipal, district, and local levels

Quantitative: Analysis of available data to determine progress towards programme outputs and outcomes and to investigate disparities influencing impact and effectiveness.

Were ECCD and Basic Education objectives achieved on time?

What progress has been made towards achieving key objectives?

What challenges have been faced, and how can they be addressed? Extremely difficult to

analyse the potential benefits (and expected challenges) of a counterfactual.

Was the Education programme and ECCD and Basic Education component implemented in the most efficient way compared to alternatives?

Who are some of the key players in BE and ECCD in the Philippines and what approaches have they pursued?

What alternatives can be/have been explored to achieve UNICEF priorities?

Imp

act

What has happened as a result of the Education component of the CP and the ECCD model?

Who are the intended beneficiaries of each of the key programmes?

Qualitative: Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders at the

The effectiveness of the various programmes in BE will also depend on the stage of their implementation


88

What real difference has the BE and ECCD model made to the beneficiaries?

What impact have beneficiaries felt as a result of the programmes? Are there likely effects that might be felt in the future?

What is the assessment of beneficiaries of their condition over the course of UNICEF’s interventions?

municipal, district, and local levels Quantitative: Analysis of available data to determine progress towards programme outputs and outcomes and to investigate disparities influencing impact and effectiveness. Analysis of household survey data such as MIS. If possible analysis of data concerning counterfactuals (comparative LGU in which UNICEF did not focus inputs)

Su

sta

inab

ilit

y

To what extent did the benefits of ECCD and BE continue after DFAT funding ceased?

What support is UNICEF providing or intend to provide after the completion of DFAT funding? What has happened (or will happen) to the key programmes supported by UNICEF and/or DFAT since the funding ended?

Qualitative: Key Informant Interviews (KIIs) and Focus Group Discussions (FGDs) with key stakeholders at all levels Quantitative: Time series analysis of available and relevant data in relation to budget inputs.

Analysis of available data to determine progress towards programme outputs and outcomes and to investigate disparities influencing impact and effectiveness.

The BE component was not funded by DFAT, so this question might need to be adapted to be relevant to this component

What were the major factors which influenced the achievement or non-achievement of the sustainability of the Education component of the country programme?

What can be done to safeguard the gains from these programmes even after the completion of the immediate projects?

How could UNICEF better focus their resources in the future to improve impact and effectiveness? Why?

Since DFAT funding has ended very recently, it might be too soon to assess the sustainability of the programme following the end of this support


89

The evaluation questions in this matrix have not been framed specific to individual programmes

supported by UNICEF, but at the level of the programme components. The research

instruments combined these research questions and sub-questions to the expected outputs

from the key programmes in BE and ECCD to be able to assess findings against the DAC

criteria (see Annex for research instruments).

For ECCD, the evaluation covered the DFAT component of UNICEF’s ECCD under the

“Creating a Foundation for Lifelong Learning” (CFLL) programme and other ECCD support

provided by UNICEF, including ECCD activities in ARMM. This evaluation presents the research

team with a unique opportunity to carry out primary research to understand the education

dynamics from the grassroots level as well as assess policy priorities at the central, national

level. This includes the interactions between the various levels. Together, this approach is

expected to provide strategic direction that is evidence based and contextual.

Qualitative research instruments

The table below summarises the research methods we used for different types of respondents,

along with their particular contribution to this research.

Table 4 Research Methods and Purpose

Method Purpose

Interviews

To obtain in-depth information from individual respondents and stakeholders.

To provide respondents with privacy and freedom to respond openly without the presence of other group or community members.

FGDs

To understand multiple viewpoints and capture differential experiences and perceptions.

To increase research coverage.

To allow for internal verification of information through the participation of multiple respondents.

To gauge degree of agreement and disagreement on key themes.

Informal observations

To build rapport with respondents.

To assess the general situation in our research sites.

To develop an informal understanding of programme plans, operational quality, and efficiency.

To verify the findings gathered through more formal research processes.

Short workshops

To review and discuss findings, key implications of findings, and to garner consensus on emerging findings.

Analytical Methodology

Thus, significant gains or shortfalls can be better explained by examining the specific issues that

emerged in each of the different regions in which UNICEF undertook initiatives. Disparities in

outcomes, such as regional and gender, can be explained in terms of qualitative assessment

and in terms of the specific programmes UNICEF implemented in each of the areas in which it

was active between 2012 and 2016.


90

This type of data analysis is most relevant when assessing where and how UNICEF were

successful in targeted LGU and in targeted schools. This is most suitable for assessing the

impact of the targeted ECCD programme. Data derived from household survey and from

education information systems are the main sources used to indicate whether there have been

significant gains in the target areas and schools in terms of participation, quality, access and

achievement whilst undergoing assistance from UNICEF. Assessment of survey data directly

pertaining to the interventions will be most valuable in assessing impact.

There are two main regions of intervention covering two sub-sectors, Basic Education and

ECCD. The first is interventions targeting 36 LGU and in some cases specific education

institutions within those regions, the second is intervention targeting national or regional reform,

particularly in the areas of Education Planning, Monitoring and Evaluation. The UNICEF

monitoring and evaluation framework describes and assesses the intervention logic or theory,

including underlying assumptions and factors affecting the success of the intervention. This is

used as the basis for analysis.

Data sources and sample

The key secondary data sources are discussed in detail below.

Secondary Data Sources

A principal source of data used to evaluate the impact of UNICEF’s interventions in the

Philippines was the Multiple Indicator Survey (MIS) undertaken by the Demographic Research

and Development Foundation. The MIS is a stand-alone survey aimed at providing baseline

and endline information on education social security; water, sanitation and hygiene; child

protection; disaster risk reduction; and, mother and child’s health like antenatal care,

breastfeeding and complementary feeding for 36 municipalities. Owing to the limited

timeframes for this evaluation and the complexity of the data sets, the first line of enquiry in

relation to UNICEFs interventions was taken first from the analysed and published MIS data in

2016. The sampling strategy and questionnaire design of the MIS was inconsistent across

years, posing challenges for comparability. Box 9 explains these issues in detail and Annex K

shows the list of MIS sampled areas by year of implementation of the baseline and endline

surveys.


91

Box 9 MIS comparability over years

Results of the MIS surveys were published in three separate and non-uniform reports (UNICEF 2012; UNICEF 2014; UNICEF 2016). Ideally the Multiple Indicator Survey in the 36 municipalities and cities should have been conducted in 2012, at the beginning of the 7th Country Program to gather baseline levels of the indicators of impact of the programmes UNICEF will undertake under the 7th CP. These can then be compared with results from another data gathering round at the end of the 7th CP.

As it happened, the baseline MIS was conducted in two separate phases. The first was conducted in 2012 in 21 municipalities, 18 of which are among UNICEF’s 36 focus LGUs, by the then National Statistics Office. The baseline MIS on the 6 cities was conducted in 2013 but it covered only informal settlers. This survey was undertaken by the Institute of Philippine Culture of the Ateneo de Manila University (IPC- ADMU). The baseline survey on the remaining 12 of the 36 areas under the 7th CP in 2014 was conducted in 2014 by still another organization, the University of the Philippines Population Institute (UPPI).

The same instruments from the baseline were used for the end line survey to be able to compare the levels of the indicators that UNICEF tracks for monitoring its progress toward achieving the goals set for the 7th CP, between the two surveys. Among the 36 municipalities, testing for significance of differences is possible only in the 12 areas where UPPI conducted the baseline survey conducted in 2014 because there is no report on the number of cases per municipality and per indicator in the published results of the NSO conducted survey on the 18 municipalities in 2012 and repeating all analysis would have been too time consuming for this evaluation.

The MIS covers the 36 areas under the 7th CP in which UNICEF had intervention and the data can be classified into three groups: the 18 municipalities whose baseline MIS was conducted by the NSO, the 12 municipalities whose baseline was conducted by the UPPI and the 6 cities. Where baseline and end line results are compared we conducted tests of significance of differences for the 12 municipalities only. For the 18 municipalities, no significance testing was done. For the 6 cities, only end line data is available.

For the 2016 end line MIS, new questions on education indicators were added to the survey instruments used in the baseline surveys to respond to the need for data for UNICEF’s ECCD and Basic Education programmes. Historical comparison for these questions was not possible but these did not cover the main indicators examined in this evaluation.

Qualitative Data Sources

It is important to highlight key differences across sampled LGUs and these should be taken into

account whilst analysing the findings arising from field research. A brief comparison of LGU

context is presented in Table 5 below.

Table 5 Research LGU context and background

LGU Context

Northern Samar, Barangay Arenallo

Northern Samar is a second class municipality, and it has 569 barangays.

An overwhelming majority of households were reported to be 4Ps Beneficiaries.

Men are mostly involved in income generating activities for the family. Their main

livelihood includes driving habal habal (motorcycle), while others are involved as

construction workers (in other municipalities), and farming.


92

Arenallo was affected by Typhoon Nona in December 2015 and Typhoon Glenda in

2014.

Health and sanitation are major concerns in the community, as most households do not

have toilets or showers, and very limited access to potable water.

Aroroy, Barangay Syndicate

Aroroy is a first class municipality, and it has 41 barangays.

The main livelihoods in the area included mining, fishing, and agriculture.

Although Aroroy is part of the Bicol region, the communities there use various dialects

such as Cebuano, Masbateno, and Tagalog.

Syndicate has not been affected by any natural disasters in the last 5 years.

Mamasapano, Barangay Pidsandawan

Mamasapano is a fifth class municipality, and it has 14 barangays.

The main livelihoods in the area include farming of rice, corn and coconut, as well as

micro scale businesses and carpentry etc.

A majority of the population is Maguindanaon (Muslim).

Mamasapano has not been affected by conflict recently (although there were reports

of armed conflict in two barangays at the time of research).

This is a low lying barangay so it is almost always flooded, including the elementary

school and day care buildings.

Pidsandawan was a convergence barangay for UNICEF’s programming.

South Upi, Barangay Pandan

South Up is a sixth class municipality, and it has 11 barangays.

Main livelihoods include farming of scorn, root crops (cassava), coffee and bananas.

70-80% of the population are IPs. 60% are Tedurays, 20% are Muslim and 20%

Christian.

The area experiences family or clan feud “rido” in some parts of the municipality.

Gender violence in the form of rape and incest rape is a known issue in the community

Barangay Pandan is rural and remote, and hard to reach in rainy season. The distance

between sitios9 is really far. Parts of Pandan have no electricity or running water.

The rates of malnutrition in the community are high.

Pandan has 12 sitios, 2 of which are newly formed and yet unregistered. The said sitios

are considered as relocation sites for internally displaced persons, mostly ‘Muslims’

(ethnic affiliation - uncertain). There’s also a perception that a portion of these serve as

MILF Camps.

Malungon, Poblacion

Malungon is a first class municipality, and it has 31 barangays.

Main livelihoods include farming of bananas, coconut, corn and mangoes, casual

labour and small scale enterprise, followed by animal husbandry.

Malungon is one of the largest municipalities in Sarangani in terms of land area and

population, with nearly 81,000 hectors of land area and population of 23,000

households according to the 2011 census, and estimated 25,000 households in 2016.

Some parts of Malungon are remote and hard to reach, and there is no water access

or portable water in some of these areas.


93

Limitations

Qualitative Research Limitations

We faced a number of challenges during our fieldwork, and although we tried to address them

through our iterative research process, we are aware of some limitations of this research. We

wish to acknowledge them here, and some of the implications of these limitations will be

discussed in greater detail in the substantive chapters.

Location and timing of IDIs and FGDs

The research team sought to conduct all interviews and FGDs in private to ensure a safe space

for the respondents. However, this was not always possible at either the government offices or

during community visits for a number of reasons. At the government offices, the lack of

availability of free rooms meant that a number of interviews had to be conducted in the rooms of

the officials. In some cases, our respondents shared their office with other officials, and

although we requested respondents to look for alternative spaces to carry out interviews, this

was not always possible. When an alternative office was available, we tried to use that space,

but this meant that some interviews were carried out in the offices of senior staff. Although these

senior officials were not present during our interviews in these cases, the lack of a neutral space

for these conversations could have affected our respondents.

Barangay Poblicion is selected as the UNICEF convergence barangay, and owing to

being central, the barangay has more resources than remote parts of Malungon

Malungon has a high proportion of IP communities, which are primarily composed of

B’laan.

Pasay, Barangay 98 and 104

Pasay city is a highly urbanized city, and has 201 barangays.

It has a high population density of 22,000/km.

Pasay City is the third smallest political subdivision in the National Capital Region -

the City has a total land area of 18.50 square kilometres.

Most residents are employees from private (malls) and public offices, small sized

business owners and tricycle drivers.

People living is Pasay city are mainly migrants from other provinces.

There are a lot of informal settlements in the city.

Siayan, Barangay Paralunglumba

Siayan is a second class municipality, and has 22 barangays.

Siayan has very high incidence of poverty, but this has recuded over the past five

years.

It has a population of 34,966 people, with a high IP population.

Subanen people account for about 80% of the population.

It is a landslide and drought prone area.

Barangay Paranglumba was a difficult location to reach in terms of accessibility.

Certain parts of the barangay were especially difficult to reach, as people live in

remote locations.


94

The issue of space was similarly relevant in the community context as well, as we had to rely on

spaces such as barangay halls, classrooms, and offices of school and local officials to speak

with different stakeholders. Public buildings were especially concerning because various

officials could be in the vicinity, and so could try to influence proceedings or, more often, be

curious to listen in on our conversations. Whenever possible, we requested our contacts and

other officials to afford our research teams and participants enough privacy for us to maintain

anonymity and confidentiality while carrying out our work. At the same time, our arrival would

generate a lot of excitement and interest in our field sites, so even when we made it clear that

we wanted to speak only to our sampled group of respondents, a number of other parents

regularly congregated to listen to our conversation and share their views. Given the nature of

our field sites, it was never really possible to ensure fully that non-participants were not within

earshot of our interviews or discussions. Although our respondents did not seem too hesitant

engaging with us in these communal spaces, they would have been presumably more

comfortable in a different setting without these disturbances.

The timing of our interactions also posed some problems for us. Government officials were often

very busy, and so we had to schedule (and sometimes reschedule) our conversations with them

to fit their needs. Many of our interviews and conversations were interrupted by other officers as

well as people visiting these offices, and their work necessarily took priority over our

conversation. In one municipality, for instance, a couple of senior officials had scheduled

meeting times with us, but they were required to attend high level meetings with central officials

at the last moment, thereby denying us the opportunity to speak with them in detail.

Sampling difficulties

Although the research team had planned a random sampling strategy to select our respondents,

especially for FGDs, ground realities required us to adapt our plans. For instance, we wanted to

select parents and learners by using the attendance sheets used by day care centres and

elementary schools in our target barangays. However, this sampling method often required us

to seek respondents from villages or localities far away from our primary research sites. It was

not possible for the research team to travel to those sites, and requiring potential respondents to

travel a significant distance to participate in our discussion would place an undue burden on

them. In such situations, the research team worked with local officials and villagers to identify

appropriate respondents who could provide us the necessary details through their participation

without having to face significant difficulties in the process.

This problem was not limited to individual respondents but extended to barangays as well. One

of our pre-selected barangays required the evaluation team to travel for up to six hours each

day just to reach the field site, which was not feasible for us to carry out our work effectively. We

had to liaise with UNICEF’s field office and the central office to select another rural barangay to

carry out the fieldwork, but the replacement was predictably less rural than the original site.

In practical terms, this approach was necessary because of time and resource constraints, but it

meant that our sample was biased towards accessible respondents who were able to meet with

us more easily. We tried to mitigate this problem whenever possible by reaching out to more

rural respondents wherever possible, including using alternative means of transport such as

motorcycles. At the same time, these challenges also serve to demonstrate the difficult


95

circumstances within which UNICEF is operating its programmes. As discussed earlier, if the

evaluation team was unable to access some of the beneficiary sites or meet with some of the

beneficiaries in remote parts of the Philippines even for evaluation purposes, it is not difficult to

estimate the difficulties of implementing development programmes in such rural and

geographically challenging contexts. Future programmes, and evaluation activities, have to

remain mindful of these realities.

Lack of programme knowledge

We had identified a list of key stakeholders to collect information about UNICEF’s key BE and

ECCD programmes, and expected to triangulate our findings at each level through responses

from multiple actors in each municipality. However, during the course of the research, it became

clear that many of our respondents were not always certain about the key facets of the

programme. In particular, many officials were not always aware about various UNICEF

programmes because of high staff turnover, whereas beneficiaries and non-beneficiaries were

unable to either confirm or attribute the specific nature or impact of BE and ECCD programmes

to UNICEF directly.

Turnover

UNICEF worked closely with government officials to implement a number of BE and ECCD

programmes, but the turnover in the civil service was very high throughout this phase. As an

example, only two of the seven Mayors we met over the course of the evaluation had served in

the same position for more than the last six months, so most Mayors were not sure about the

exact nature of UNICEF’s work. We interviewed a number of other staff, including high ranking

officials, who were not in the target LGUs for part or all of the time when the programmes were

being implemented. Similar problems arose, to a lesser degree, at the barangay and

school/community levels as well, with a number of local officials and head teachers also being

relatively new in their positions.

Problem of attribution

UNICEF has carried out a number of different programmes within BE and ECCD in its target

LGUs, and this evaluation sought to find detailed information about each programme. However,

this was not an easy task, especially because most respondents at the municipal and local

levels were unable to articulate exactly the key components of UNICEF’s support to various

complex programmes. Our respondents appeared to be confused by two key points. First,

UNICEF has been providing widespread support to a number of different programmes, and

respondents were not clear about the extent of this support. Second, UNICEF’s support

appeared to account for a proportion of a larger programme in most cases, so it was difficult for

respondents to know exactly the nature and extent of UNICEF’s impact in these cases. This

issue was further compounded by the fact that a number of national and international

organisations were also working on similar issues, often in partnership with UNICEF, at the

same time. As a result, it took the evaluation team a long time to work with respondents to

establish their understanding of UNICEF’s work and verify the accuracy of the perceptions of

UNICEF’s work in the field.


96

A focus group discussion in one of our field sites provided a good example of some of these

problems of attribution. Our respondents reported to us unanimously that UNICEF had provided

their school with a large water tank as part of their WASH programme. They spoke highly of

UNICEF’s support in this area, and requested UNICEF to continue providing similar

infrastructural support in the future as well. However, the evaluation team noted during our

observations that the water tank in question clearly bore the logo and name of Save the

Children, implying that the facility had not been provided by UNICEF. Yet, respondents clearly

associated the water tank with UNICEF and had formed strong opinions about UNICEF’s

programmes based on this tank.

If the problem of attribution was visible in this case, it was accentuated further in cases where

multiple actors extended support together towards a particular programme. This has already

been discussed in the report with reference to the partnership with Plan International and

DepEd.

Quantitative research limitations

Government data from the EBEIS is likely unreliable 10. Participation rates calculated using

EBEIS data do not align well with participation rates in household surveys. In addition, UNICEF

selected regions are challenging regions facing unique barriers to participation in education.

Further, UNICEF initiatives were not applied equally in each LGU. Therefore, similar regions

must be identified and clarified through some field work to confirm that conditions are

comparable. Typically, reliable comparative analysis must be considered during the design of a

monitoring and evaluation strategy and strategies to enable comparison built into the monitoring

and evaluation process. This was not the case for UNICEF and therefore limited comparison to

counterfactuals is possible.

Indicators

Eight of 10 outcome indicators used in the ECCD monitoring framework are monitored using the

MIS. The issues concerning the MIS are stated in the section above. The use of the MIS

inherently limits the framework to evaluation only at the completion of the final MIS as the initial

10 Participation rates calculated using EBEIS data do not align well with participation rates in household surveys. There are issues with the accuracy and completeness of EBEIS (and LIS) data, particularly in the region of ARMM. Conflict areas tend to have poorer data, incentives such as per capita funding mechanisms also impact the quality and accuracy of data and the systems are still becoming established in Mindanao and issues remain (DFAT 2016). There is also likely to be incomplete registries of education institutes in these same regions, particularly for ECCD which relies on complete registries of day care centres and other types of institutions often not recorded in government systems. In addition, any participation rates calculated from EBEIS data are based on the national population figures. The population census was in 2015 however given that ARMM was a conflict zone during the census, figures may be inaccurate. Further, participation rates are based on population data as the numerator. Population data can face the same problems administration data has which can be compounded by errors resulting from projection. In the case of Philippines population data, the 2012 to 2015 figures are based on projections of the 2010 population census. In addition EBEIS has moved from a system recording aggregate numbers of pupils to one storing individual pupils since 2012 so baseline data shows much higher participation rates in 2012 than in 2015 as indicated in this report. This phenomenon is common in systems moving from aggregate to individual pupil data as schools are forced to account for all pupils reported to government systems. This is most evident in ARMM, which is in line with expectations as to the quality of data in conflict and poorly governed regions. This ensures that use of EBEIS data problematic for monitoring of programme outcomes. Household survey data is generally considered to be far more accurate in such circumstances.


97

MIS was used to establish baseline. The non MIS indicators are concerning dropout rates in

grades 1 and 2 (grade 3 having been dropped) and may have better been monitored using the

MIS to ensure reliability and consistency.

The MIS is used exclusively to monitor intermediate outcome indicators. This is problematic as

intermediate outcome indicators can then only be evaluated at the end of the programme

timeframe. This means that evaluation of success can only be determined at the completion of

the programme which does not allow for proper intermediate (mid-term) evaluation. This limits

the capacity of the programmes to realise their achievements to date and to make changes

where required to help address shortcomings or other issues. A limited MIS mid-term to help in

this regard and to ensure robustness of timeline data would have been beneficial.

5 of the indicators are concerned with participation of 3-6 year old children in ECCD and Grade

1 and with comparisons to those having received ECCD. 2 indicators are concerned with

dropout rates of grades 1 and 2 and three with perceptions of parents.

The indicators concerning measuring dropout rates in two separate years, grade 1 and 2, are

problematic. EBEIS data is generally unreliable in comparison to household surveys11. A

comparison to dropout rates of those having received ECCD and those without may have been

either a useful compliment or replacement for the general dropout indicators.

3 of the indicators are relating to the perceptions of parents including:

Proportion of 3-5 children not attending school because their “parents think child is too

young to be enrolled in grade 1/preschool” to the total number of eligible survey

respondents

Proportion of respondents who agreed that early childhood education prepares a child

for school to the total number of eligible survey respondents

Proportion of respondents who agreed that it is the parents’ responsibility to ensure that

child completes his/her education to the total number of eligible survey respondents

11 Participation rates calculated using EBEIS data do not align well with participation rates in household surveys. There are issues with the accuracy and completeness of EBEIS (and LIS) data, particularly in the region of ARMM. Conflict areas tend to have poorer data, incentives such as per capita funding mechanisms also impact the quality and accuracy of data and the systems are still becoming established in Mindanao and issues remain (DFAT 2016). There is also likely to be incomplete registries of education institutes in these same regions, particularly for ECCD which relies on complete registries of day care centres and other types of institutions often not recorded in government systems. In addition, any participation rates calculated from EBEIS data are based on the national population figures. The population census was in 2015 however given that ARMM was a conflict zone during the census, figures may be inaccurate. Further, participation rates are based on population data as the numerator. Population data can face the same problems administration data has which can be compounded by errors resulting from projection. In the case of Philippines population data, the 2012 to 2015 figures are based on projections of the 2010 population census. In addition EBEIS has moved from a system recording aggregate numbers of pupils to one storing individual pupils since 2012 so baseline data shows much higher participation rates in 2012 than in 2015 as indicated in this report. This phenomenon is common in systems moving from aggregate to individual pupil data as schools are forced to account for all pupils reported to government systems. This is most evident in ARMM, which is in line with expectations as to the quality of data in conflict and poorly governed regions. This ensures that use of EBEIS data problematic for monitoring of programme outcomes. Household survey data is generally considered to be far more accurate in such circumstances.


98

Whilst change in perceptions is important, responses to the questions asked in the MIS survey

would have been complimented and made more informative with the use of more in-depth

research techniques that may help to uncover real extent of opinions and underlying causes. In

particular the indicator relating to parent’s responsibility to ensure a child completes their

education is a question concerning good and responsible parenting. As evidenced by the

baseline, few parents are likely to disagree with this statement and thus the differential between

regions and gender was, as anticipated, small.

The overall outcome of the ECCD programme is to have increased the proportion of 3-5 year

old children with quality ECCD experience in 36 vulnerable LGUs by 15 per cent from the 2012

level by the end of CP, while focusing on disadvantaged children, with gender parity. The focus

on disadvantaged children is not evident in any of the indicators and there is not a reliable

method such as the Washington Standards, with which to identify and classify disadvantaged

children.

Of note, there are no indicators measuring the quality of education service delivery which belies

the nature of the interventions which are designed to increase participation and the quality of

service delivery. Intermediate outcome 1 is focussed on improving the quality of ECCD

provision for 3-5 year olds yet quality is not measured in any of the indicators, only participation

and parental attitudes towards education. A survey of reading and numeracy capacity of

children may have been informative towards the quality of service delivery. The ECCD

Longitudinal study- which covers the analysis of cohort of K-Grade 2 pupils on literacy,

numeracy, socio-emotional domains and analyses the impact of pre-school experiences before

formal kindergarten- is expected to fill this gap both to report on the project gains and to inform

policy to improve early learning delivery.

Challenges of the MIS data

The MIS data presented the following challenges:

Standards for analysis and data presentation varied for each publication of data. The

weakest analysis was undertaken for the 2012 data by the National Office of Statistics which

may have resulted in a change of vendor. The strongest data analysis was undertaken by

Demographic Research and Development Foundation, Inc for the endline.

Sampling was inconsistent over time: 3 LGUs, Taft, Midsalip, Tukuran were sampled in 2012

using the MIS however UNICEF is not actively involved in these three LGUs. As a result,

they were not sampled again in 2016.

UNICEF had interventions in all LGUs. Therefore, there is a lack of counter factual

comparison upon which to determine whether UNICEF’s interventions may have led to

improved results over regions in which UNICEF did not intervene.

The analysis undertaken by the three vendors was a statistical analysis of the frequency of

responses for each LGUs. In some cases, depending on the variable used, the sample size

of respondents was very small and may not be statistically valid. Sample sizes were verified

and confirmation published for the 2016 MIS but not for the 2014 and 2012 MIS.


99

There was no analysis of the population taken as a whole in any of the MIS analytical

reports (UNICEF 2012; UNICEF 2014; UNICEF 2016). For example correlating language

used at home with participation in grade 1 education or with attending kindergarten. If time

permits, analysis to help determine characteristics of those either benefiting from or being

marginalised from being able to participate in education. If not then recommendations for

further analysis will be included.

Some indicators require a careful assessment of change over time. For example, UNICEF

have established a target of a 2% annual increase in the percentage 6 year old children

having completed kindergarten/ preparatory school between 2012 and 2016. Reviewing

change over time is also challenging because the subset of LGUs sampled in 2012 are not

equivalent to the subset of LGUs sampled in 2014. The 12 LGUs sampled in 2014 are

located in Mindanao. Mindanao varies considerably from the other LGUs both socially and

economically and in particular the southern region of ARMM which contains 6 of the 12 LGU

assessed in Mindanao. Therefore, trend analysis through these years is not viable and as a

result the group of LGUs or each individual LGUs must be considered separately when

determining change over time.


100

Annex G Data Collection Instruments and Tools

The evaluation team used a wide range of local, regional, and central level tools to carry out this evaluation, as has been detailed in the Research Methodology chapter. In this annex, we provide only two evaluation tools to illustrate the nature and kind of the questions posed by the evaluation team for the sake of brevity. Additional tools can easily be made available upon request.

G.1 Introduction and Consent: Sample text

The evaluation team was extremely careful to seek informed consent all our respondents. The

introduction below highlights our approach to the evaluation, including informing respondents

about the purpose of the conversation, establishing our independence from UNICEF and the

government, confirming that their responses would be kept confidential and anonymised if used

in the report, informing them that this was a voluntary exercise, and giving them the opportunity

to both ask questions and choose not to participate, should they not wish to do so for any

reason. We also sought explicit permission to record the conversation for transcription

purposes.

Introduction Hello. My name is …………. and my colleague’s name is ……………. We are working for OPM, a research institute from Oxford. We have come to ask you some questions about Basic Education and/or ECCD in the Philippines, and particularly UNICEF’s support to these programmes. We do not work for UNICEF or the government of Philippines. We are an independent company who are doing an independent review of BE and ECCD. We are trying to find out more about various UNICEF supported projects, how they worked, and what could be done to improve them in the future. We would like to ask your views on a range of questions. The answers that you give us will be completely confidential and will not be linked to you. We are asking these questions in different communities in ______ (name of provinces) to understand and assess how these programmes are working in different localities. Your personal contributions and views will not be shared with anyone else in a way that identifies you. Therefore, nobody – in this community, in the district, at UNICEF or any other concerned organization or person working for the programme – will know what you tell us. This information is not being collected to assess your community, school or district but to understand UNICEF programmes, so please feel free to share your thoughts without any reservations. Before we begin, we would like to ask for your explicit oral informed consent. Please note that this interview is voluntary and you are under no obligation to answer any or all of our questions, although it would help us if you did. You are welcome to ask us any question during or after the interview. If you agree to this interview, you can still ask not to answer any question during the interview, or to terminate the interview at any time.


101

Before we start, could I also ask you a logistical question? Would you be ok with us recording this interview, in case we are unable to note everything down when we talk? We would then go back and transcribe the interview for missing information, but nobody else except the researchers will have access to this. (If the researchers sense any discomfort or uncertainty from the respondents, assure them again that only you will have access to this recording, and also that you can either not record in particular places or not record at all if they are uncomfortable with it.) Do you have anything you want to ask me, or can we start?

Social Welfare Officer KII

UNICEF Evaluation, Nov 2016

Date of interview

Province/LGU

Barangay/community

Researcher and Note taker

Start Time and End time

Introduction (See above)

Profile of Respondent

Interviewer: Note down participant details. Participants are free to withhold personal identification details (name and number) if they choose to do so. This information must not be disclosed to members outside of the research team.

# Consent (Y/N)

First and Last Name

Gender (M/F)

Number of years in current position

Reports to? Level of formal

education

Contact #

1

Interviewer: make sure the questions are open ended and use the probes below to help you ask the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions.

Introduction

1. How long have you been in your current position? What did you do before this?

2. What are your key roles and responsibilities?

Probe: relation with and difference from District Education Supervisor and District ECCD

Supervisor

3. What are your specific roles in terms of the provision of ECCD in your area? Do you

coordinate activities related only to ECE or more broadly ECCD? Please explain.


102

Probe: Follow up in detail according to the response.

Overview of ECCD situation 4. What is the current level of access to Early Childhood Care and Development in your

District? Do children face any challenges in accessing day care centres and kindergartens?

5. Is there any difference in terms of access for different groups of ECCD students in your barangay?

Probe: children from remote areas, indigenous populations, conflict prone areas, disaster

prone areas, urban poor, and gender considerations (with boys disadvantaged as well).

6. Has this changed in the last five years? Why or why not?

7. Have the challenges faced by kindergarten-aged children changed over the past five years? Why or why not?

Local coordination, management and capacity building

8. How are ECCD activities coordinated at the district level?

Probe: ask for roles of ECCD Council, Mayors, Local Council for the Protection of Children

(LCPC) at the district level

9. Are there any challenges in coordination? If so, please explain. 10. How do you think these challenges can be resolved?

11. (If an ARMM district) Does ECCD activity coordination differ here than in other districts? How?

12. Have you been involved in any data collection efforts for ECCD? What activities did you

undertake? What was the last year when this happened? Which organisation was involved

in this process?

Probe: MIS software training, data validation workshops, role of social district officers

13. Has this data been used in any district or LGU level analysis? Have you been involved in

data analysis or communication of results emerging from this data collection exercise?

Probe: data used in the preparation of the LGU’s annual ECCD plans and budget.


103

14. Do you know whether District situational analysis/synthesis was produced in your district? (Prompt: District synthesis is a compilation of the results of the education mapping from all barangays in the district and is compiled by the School District Supervisor.)

a. If so, how was it prepared? Who was involved? b. What was the purpose of the district synthesis? How was the information supposed

to be used? c. Did the Local School Board (LSB) or any other entity use this information in the

planning process? How or why not? d. How effective were the District Synthesis reports? What were the key strengths? e. What were some of the challenges faced in utilizing the district synthesis report?

How were these challenges addressed? f. How could this synthesis be improved in the future?

15. Have you received any ECCD related training since 2012? What types of training have you

undertaken? Who gave the training? Was the training helpful?

Probe: ask for UNICEF or DFAT training. Training on content of curriculum, management

and planning, training on MIS software for administrative data collection

16. Is there an accreditation process of ECCD workers?

a) What does that entail? Who does it target? Who supports this process?

b) How does this affect teachers and district management?

c) What are its strengths and weaknesses?

17. Are there any competency standards for ECCD workers?

d) What do they entail? Who do they target? Who supports their development and

enforcement?

e) How does this affect teachers and district management?

f) What are its strengths and weaknesses?

18. Is there a monitoring and supervision process involving ECCD centres (preschools and day

care centres)?

a) What does that entail? Who does it target? Who supports this process?

b) How does this affect teachers and district management?

c) What are its strengths and weaknesses?

19. Are you involved in the monitoring or supervision of ECCD activities? Please explain how.

What are the challenges in this task?

Probe: ask if they conduct monthly or quarterly visits, fill in any forms, provide feedback

UNICEF activities

20. Do you know about UNICEF? What activities do UNICEF support that have an impact on

you and/or your school?


104

21. Do you coordinate with UNICEF in any way? What is the nature of your relationship with

them? (Do you work with them through other organisations?)

22. What activities does UNICEF support in ECCD?

23. What do you think of the support provided by UNICEF? What are their key strengths? Are

there any challenges to carrying out this work?

24. Is UNICEF involved in providing budget support to ECCD activities at the district level? How? What activities does that involve?

25. Are there other organisations or groups that support your school? What do they do?

26. What do you think of this support provided by UNICEF for the following programmes? We

would like to hear your thoughts about the ECCD programmes specifically operating in your

district:

a) Supervised Neighbourhood Playgroups: Why was this programme needed? What are

the key strengths and weaknesses? Have there been any challenges to carrying out this

work?

b) Kindergarten Catch up: Why was this programme needed? What are the key strengths

and weaknesses? Have there been any challenges to carrying out this work?

c) Kinder-Primary Education link: Why was this programme needed? What are the key

strengths and weaknesses? Have there been any challenges to carrying out this work?

d) Tahderiyyah support: Why was this programme needed? What are the key strengths

and weaknesses? Have there been any challenges to carrying out this work?

a. How has this programme affected peace building efforts in this community?

How?

e) Handwashing in kindergartens: Why was this programme needed? What are the key


f) Teacher/Day Care worker training: Why was this programme needed? What are the key


g) KG curriculum development: Why was this programme needed? What are the key


Probe: ask separately for curriculum development for Tahderiyyahs and Teduray

communities

h) Parental awareness: Why was this programme needed? What are the key strengths and

weaknesses? Have there been any challenges to carrying out this work?


105

i) Community based child protection system: Why was this programme needed? What are

the key strengths and weaknesses? Have there been any challenges to carrying out this

work?

27. How does UNICEF’s work in ECCD relate to other government initiative such as the: a) The K to12 programme (including mother tongue learning) b) Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programme (Conditional Cash transfer Programme)

Sustainability for Early Childhood Care and Development

28. Are you aware of UNICEF’s plans to support ECCD after 2016?

29. What will happen to the key ECCD programmes supported by UNICEF after this year?

Probe separately for ECCD: Supervised Neighbourhood Playgroups, Kindergarten Catch up, Kinder-Primary Education link, Tahderiyyah, handwashing in kindergartens, teacher training, KG curriculum development, parental awareness

30. What are the key lessons that can be learned from the support provided by UNICEF over the last few years?

31. What can be done to safeguard the gains from these programmes even after the completion of the immediate projects?

32. What role do you see for UNICEF in the ECCD sector in this district?

33. In your view, what kind of ECCD-related activities should UNICEF support in the future to

help your district? Why?

So far, you have been very patient with answering all our questions. Is there anything else you would like to tell us, either about education or anything else? If so, please feel free to do so. Do you have any questions for us? Please feel free to ask us anything. Thank you very much for your time; we really appreciate your help and support.


106

Head teacher Basic Education KII

UNICEF Evaluation, Nov 2016

Date of interview

Province/LGU

Barangay/community

Researcher and Note taker

Start Time and End time

Introduction (See above)

Profile of Respondent

Interviewer: Note down participant details. Participants are free to withhold personal identification details (name and number) if they choose to do so. This information must not be disclosed to members outside of the research team.

# Consent (Y/N)

First and Last Name

Gender (M/F)

Name of school/institution

Level of formal

education

Contact # No. of years in current position

1

Interviewer: make sure the questions are open ended and use the probes below to help you ask the ‘why’ and ‘how’ questions. If your respondent(s) is not enrolled in the sub-programme then skip the questions to the next section.

Introduction

1. How long have you been at this school? How long have you been a head teacher here?

2. What do you like most about your job? What are the key challenges you face in this job?

3. What is your assessment of the performance of your school? What are your strengths and

where do you see room for improvement?

UNICEF activities

4. Do you know about UNICEF? What activities do UNICEF support that have an impact on

you and/or your school?

5. Do you coordinate with UNICEF in any way? What is the nature of your relationship with

them? (Do you work with them through other organisations?)


107

6. What activities does UNICEF support in basic education?

7. What do you think of the support provided by UNICEF? What are their key strengths? Are

there any challenges to carrying out this work?

8. Are there other organisations or groups that support your school? What do they do?

9. In your view, what kind of activities should UNICEF support in the future to help your

community? Why?

School based management:

10. What is the current level of access to elementary education in this barangay? Do children

face any challenges in coming to school?

11. Is there any difference in terms of access for different groups of students in your barangay?

Probe: Is there any specific group that is more likely to not attend school? Children in hard

to reach/remote areas, indigenous populations, conflict prone areas, disaster prone areas

urban poor populations and gender (with boys disadvantaged)

12. Has this changed in the last five years? Why or why not?

13. Have the challenges faced by elementary school aged children changed over the past five years? Why or why not?

14. What is the current level of completion from elementary education in this barangay? Has this

changed in the last five years? Why or why not? Probe: children from remote areas, indigenous populations, conflict prone areas, disaster prone areas, urban poor, and gender considerations (with boys disadvantaged as well).

15. Do students face any challenges in completing school? 16. Do you know about an education mapping exercise in this barangay? Did you have any role

in this process?

When was the mapping carried out? (Prompt if needed: Mapping of children: Jan

to March; preparation of SIP: March to June; and Implementation and monitoring:

July to Dec)

a. Please describe the mapping process (situational analysis) adopted in your barangay b. Who was involved in the process? Who led it? Who participated? Did you think

anyone who should have participated in the process was missed out? (Check to see if they mention a school community planning team to map elementary school children)

c. What were the main activities conducted for this purpose? d. What was the purpose of the mapping? Who was supposed to benefit from it, and

was the information used in this way?


108

(Check to see whether mapping was used to inform barangay and school

planning and budgeting)

e. How effective was the mapping exercise? What were its key strengths? f. What were some of the challenges faced during the mapping exercise? How were

these challenges addressed? g. How could this exercise be improved in the future?

17. Do you know whether District situational analysis/synthesis was produced in your district?

(Prompt: District synthesis is a compilation of the results of the education mapping from all barangays in the district and is compiled by the School District Supervisor.)

a. If so, how was it prepared? Who was involved? b. What was the purpose of the district synthesis? How was the information supposed

to be used? c. Did the Local School Board (LSB) or any other entity use this information in the

planning process? Why or why not? d. How effective were the District Synthesis reports? What were the key strengths? e. What were some of the challenges faced in utilizing the district synthesis report?

How were these challenges addressed?

f. How could this synthesis be improved in the future?

18. Have enhanced School Improvement Plans (SIPs) been developed in your school?

a. When was this carried out?

b. Who was involved in the process? Who led it? Who participated? Did you think

anyone who should have participated in the process was missed out?

SIP based training:

c. Are you aware of any trainings for teachers and barangay officials on enhanced School Improvement Plans?

d. When were the trainings conducted? And who conducted the training? e. What did the trainings cover? f. What were some of the main strengths of the training? g. What were some of the challenges faced during the training? How were these

challenges addressed?

SIP purpose and implementation h. What were the main activities conducted for this purpose? i. What was the purpose of the SIPs? Who was supposed to benefit from it, and how

was the information used? j. What activities and priority improvement areas have been identified based on the

enhanced SIP exercise? k. To what extent are the activities and priority improvement areas identified in the

School Improvement Plans appropriate for the challenges faced by your community? How and why?

l. To what extent have priority improvement areas been implemented? m. Under what circumstances can these plans be implemented effectively? n. Under what circumstances will it be difficult to implement these plans effectively?

What were some of the challenges faced in implementing the plans?


109

o. How could the SIP be improved in the future?

19. Do you think you will use these enhanced SIPs in the future? Why or why not?

20. What are the strengths of the enhanced SIPs? How could the SIPs be improved in the

future?

21. In your view, is there integration between schools and barangay plans and budgets? Why or

why not? a. How could this be improved in the future?

22. In your view, what difference have the enhanced School Improvement Plans made to

education planning in your convergence barangay? a. How has education planning changed, if at all? b. What factors influence this change (or lack of change) in education planning?

23. Does your school have any water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) activities? What are

they? 24. Are there any organizations supporting these WASH activities? If so, who and in what way? 25. What is the impact of these activities on the pupils and teachers in school? How? 26. Do you think these activities will continue in the future? Probe: Ask if they will continue even

without external support. School Report Cards:

27. Are you aware of school report cards generated by schools in your community? a. What is the purpose of the report cards? b. How are they made? By whom? c. Is there any change to how these report cards are prepared? d. How effective are these report cards? Why? e. How can these report cards be improved in the future? f. Do you think School Report Cards are an appropriate form of getting feedback on

school’s performance? Why or why not? g. Will these report cards continue to be used in the future? Why or why not? h. What else could be done to improve these report cards?

Professional development 28. What is the overall quality of teaching in the school in your community? 29. What is the current level of quality of learning among elementary school aged children in

your community? Has this changed in the last five years? Why or why not?

30. In terms of learning, what are the main challenges faced by elementary school aged children (6-11 years)?

a. Are there any groups of pupils in this school who find learning particularly difficult? Why?


110

Probe for the following disadvantaged groups depending on location of interview:

children in hard to reach/remote areas, indigenous populations, conflict prone areas,

disaster prone areas urban poor populations and gender (with boys disadvantaged).

31. Do you think that the challenges faced by elementary school aged children have changed over the past five years?

a. If so, how do you think it has changed? Why do you think has it changed? What factors have contributed to the changes?

32. Do you know about Learning Action Cells? (Learning Action Cells are groups where teachers get trained on learner centred and inclusive teaching practices. This is followed by peer discussions.)

a. What is the purpose of LAC? b. How effective has it been?

Probe: Do you know if teaching and learning methods have changed in classrooms (K-3)

due to LACs?

c. What are its strengths? What are the challenges? d. How can they be improved?

33. Are you aware of any training or orientation that teachers receive for learning action cells (LAC)?

a. Have you or teachers in your school/community received the training? Who provided the training?

b. When was the training/orientation session? c. What were its strengths? What were the challenges? d. How can they be improved?

34. What do you think will happen to LACs in the future?

Inclusive Learning Strategies

35. Do you know about the mother tongue-based multilingual education (MTB-MLE)? 36. In your experience, has the teacher’s approach to language of instruction changed in

classrooms? How? Why did the approach change, or why not? 37. In your view, what is the impact of teaching in children’s mother tongue? Why and how? 38. Do you think teaching in children’s mother tongue influences children’s ability to learn basic

literacy skills? 39. What is the impact of the adoption of mother tongue as a medium of instruction in

classrooms in terms of retention of ethnic identity, culture, values and heritage for pupils? a. What factors contribute to this?

40. What are the challenges faced in teaching in a child’s mother tongue? How have they been mitigated?


111

41. How do you think children in early grade MTB-MLE classrooms will adopt to the transition in the medium of instruction after Grade 3, since mother tongue education might not continue after that?

a. What are the expected challenges and how can they be mitigated? 42. What do you think will happen to mother tongue-based multilingual education in the future? ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link

43. Are you aware of the ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link programme? Does your school participate in it? What does it include?

Probe: parental awareness sessions, mapping of children in the community, ECCD checklist

44. Who introduced this programme? What is the age group of children that this programme targets in the community?

45. When did you first hear about ECCD-Kinder-Primary Education Link?

Probe: before or after 2012, child late for school, conflict, learning difficulties, Pantawid Pamilyang Pilipino Programe (CCT)

46. Are there any government bodies or government officers that you interact with regarding this programme? Is that interaction helpful? Are your requests fulfilled in time?

Probe: social welfare officer, planning officer, ECCD councillor, Mayor, Department of Education, Bangsamoro Development Agency

47. How do you think this programme has impacted the school in which you work? Why do you think this change has come about (or not come about?)

Probe: change in enrolment and transition rates, greater use of resources

48. How do you think this programme has impacted the community in which you work? Why do you think this change has come about (or not come about?)

Probe: change in parental attitudes, enrolment and transition rates, illnesses

49. How would you want to change this programme? What are the things that can be improved? What is working well and should be maintained?

So far, you have been very patient with answering all our questions. Is there anything else you would like to tell us, either about education or anything else? If so, please feel free to do so. Do you have any questions for us? Please feel free to ask us anything. Thank you very much for your time; we really appreciate your help and support.


112

Annex H ECCD Qualitative Data Analysis

See main report document


113

Annex I Basic education qualitative data analysis

See separate document.


114

Annex J ECCD Quantitative Data Analysis



115

Annex K Basic Education Quantitative Data Analysis



116

Annex L ECCD additional tables for quantitative analysis



117

Annex M Efficiency analysis (details)


evaluation of the unicef philippine country office 'early ... · d.3 basic education - key...

Documents