progress evaluation (prev) of the unicef education in

Evaluation Office

PROGRESS EVALUATION OF THE

UNICEF EDUCATION IN

EMERGENCIES AND POST-CRISIS

TRANSITION PROGRAMME:

The Philippines Case Study

EVALUATION REPORT

EVALUATION OFFICE

APRIL 2011

PROGRESS EVALUATION OF THE

UNICEF EDUCATION IN

EMERGENCIES AND POST-CRISIS

TRANSITION PROGRAMME:

The Philippines Case Study

EVALUATION REPORT

EVALUATION OFFICE

APRIL 2011

2 Progress Evaluation of the EEPCT programme: Philippines Case Study

Progress Evaluation of UNICEF‟s Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition Programme: the Philippines Case Study © United Nations Children‘s Fund, New York, 2010 United Nations Children‘s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017 March 2011 The purpose of the evaluation reports produced by the UNICEF Evaluation Office is to assess the situation, facilitate the exchange of knowledge and perspectives among UNICEF staff and to propose measures to address the concerns raised. The content of the report do not necessarily reflect the policies or views of UNICEF. The text has not been edited to official publication standards and UNICEF accepts no responsibility for error. The designations in this publication do not imply an opinion on legal status of any country or territory, or of its authorities, or the delimitation of frontiers. All photographs in the evaluation report are the copyright of UNICEF © UNICEF/2010/Columbia Group for Children in Adversity For further information, please contact: Evaluation Office United Nations Children‘s Fund Three United Nations Plaza New York, New York 10017 [email protected]

Progress Evaluation of the EEPCT programme: Philippines Case Study 3

PREFACE

The purpose of this evaluation was to identify and assess progress of the Education in Emergencies and

Post-Crisis Transition (EEPCT) Programme and to enable systematic reflection towards improving

programme results. The EEPCT Programme was examined at global, regional and country levels through

quantitative and qualitative methods that combined comprehensive coverage with in-depth analysis.

The EEPCT Programme began in 2006 as a four year (later extended to five), US $201 million dollar

partnership between UNICEF and the Government of the Netherlands. The EEPCT Programme aims to

―put education in emergency and post-crisis transition countries on a viable path of sustainable progress

toward quality basic education for all.‖ EEPCT funds support UNICEF education programming in 39

countries and territories and are also used to advance the global agenda for education in crisis-affected

contexts.

The Evaluation Office commissioned this independent progress evaluation in June 2010. The global

evaluation was overseen by a Reference Group led by internal and external technical experts in

evaluation, education, and emergencies. The evaluation was conducted by Columbia Group for Children

in Adversity, associated with Columbia University. The independent team of consultants was led by Neil

Boothby and Peter Buckland. The evaluation was managed by Silvia De Giuli (Evaluation Specialist),

and Ashley Wax (Evaluation Specialist).

The evaluation methodology included: extensive document review; six in-depth country case studies in

Angola, Colombia, Cote d‘Ivoire, Liberia, the Philippines, and Sri Lanka; extensive interviews; on-line

surveys for key programme staff; comprehensive focus group discussions; review and analysis of data

collected against the programme Logical Framework.

This report presents in-depth analyses and results of the progress of the EEPCT programme in the

Philippines. Mallika R. Samaranayake lead the case study with support from research associate, Layal

T.E. Sarrouh, and national researchers, Lea Ortega, Sarah Lipnica, Bjorn Oropesa, Vivian Navarro and

Michael Millena.

Special thanks to UNICEF staff across the organization and to the Reference Group who both

participated actively and provided substantive comments on emerging issues and interim reports. We

would like to acknowledge, in particular, the support of Susan Durston, Chief of Education, and Jordan

Naidoo Senior Advisor, Education Section. Likewise, we appreciate the efforts and support by the

country office, including Maria Lourdes de Vera, Education Chief, and Hammad Masood, Monitoring and

Evaluation Specialist. Genuine thanks to the Government of the Netherlands, European Commission and

other partners who have supported education in emergencies and post-crisis transition, as well as

evidence-based decision-making.

Samuel Bickel Officer-in-Charge Evaluation Office UNICEF New York Headquarters


CONTENTS

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .............................................................................................................................. 7

1.0 INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................................................... 12

1.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 12

1.2 Country context ................................................................................................................................. 13

1.3 Education context .............................................................................................................................. 14

1.4 EEPCT programme ........................................................................................................................... 15

2.0 METHODOLOGY .................................................................................................................................. 17

2.1 Evaluation methodology .................................................................................................................... 17

2.2 Cross-cutting issues .......................................................................................................................... 17

2.3 Data collection and analysis ............................................................................................................. 17

2.4 Evaluation team ................................................................................................................................ 20

2.5 Limitations ......................................................................................................................................... 20

3.0 EVALUATION FINDINGS ..................................................................................................................... 22

3.1 Overview ........................................................................................................................................... 22

3.2 Goal One: Improved quality of education response in emergencies and post-crisis transition

countries .................................................................................................................................................. 22

3.3 Goal Two: Increased resilience of education sector services delivery in chronic crises, arrested

development and deteriorating contexts ................................................................................................. 29

3.4 Goal Three: Increased education sector contributions to better prediction, prevention and

preparedness for emergencies due to natural disaster and conflict ....................................................... 31

3.5 Goal Four: Evidence-based policies, efficient operational strategies and fit-for-purpose financing

instruments for education in emergencies and post-crisis situations...................................................... 35

3.6 OECD-DAC criteria ........................................................................................................................... 36

3.7 Cross-cutting issues .......................................................................................................................... 39

3.8 Operational issues and management ............................................................................................... 42

3.9 Partnerships ...................................................................................................................................... 43

4.0 THE WAY FORWARD .......................................................................................................................... 44

4.1 Lessons learned and conclusions ..................................................................................................... 44

4.2 Recommendations ............................................................................................................................ 46

REFERENCES ............................................................................................................................................ 49

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................... 52

Annex I: Progress evaluation framework

Annex II: Philippines participants in the evaluation


Annex III: Sampling

Annex IV: School visit schedule

Annex V: Tools

Annex VI: Child-friendly schools checklist table

Annex VII: List of EEPCT/BSLE assisted schools (November 2010)

Annex VIII: List of BSLE-assisted Schools, by location, by type of assistance (structural)


ACRONYMS BSLE Building Safe Learning Environment programme

CFS Child-Friendly School

CGCA Columbia Group for Children in Adversity

CO Country Office

DAC Development Assistance Committee

DepEd Department of Education

DRR disaster risk reduction

EDPITAF Educational Development Projects Implementing Task Force

EEPCT Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition programme

EiE education in emergencies

INEE Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies

LAPUS Learning And Public Use School

MDG Millennium Development Goal

NGO non-governmental organization

OECD Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development

PRM participative ranking methodology

SAS Statistical Analysis Software

TABI Tarabang Para sa Bicol, Inc. UNICEF United Nations Children‘s Fund

WASH water, sanitation and hygiene


EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

Introduction

The United Nations Children‘s Fund (UNICEF) Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition

(EEPCT) programme began in 2006 as a five-year, US$201 million dollar partnership between UNICEF

and the Government of the Netherlands. It was intended as a strategic intervention in support of the

Millennium Development Goals (MDGs) and the Education For All movement. The programme

interventions associated with the EEPCT have been designed to achieve these targets by increasing

institutional capacity and providing direct programme support. Global initiatives such as Inter-agency

Education Clusters and the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies are supported through

programming in 39 countries.

The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the world, experiencing typhoons and

tropical storms, earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions. Typhoons in particular effect the Filipino

population on a repeated basis, with an average of some 20 typhoons a season, five or six of which

cause significant damage. In 2006, the country experienced a particularly difficult and damaging typhoon

season, culminating with Super Typhoon Reming, which hit the east coast, killing nearly 1,000 people and

displacing more than one million. The equivalent of one month of rain fell within 12 hours, triggering

mudslides and flash floods. In addition to natural disasters, certain regions within the Philippines face

instability from armed groups and conflicts.

The establishment of the Education in Emergencies in Post-Crisis Transition (EEPCT) programme in the

Philippines occurred almost simultaneously with the Typhoon Reming emergency. The newly created

programme funds were accessed to assist with the emergency response to this typhoon in Southern

Luzon, particularly Regions IV-B (Southern Tagalog) and V (Bicol Region), which were the most affected.

Funding received between 2007 and 2009 primarily went to the Building Safe Learning Environment

(BSLE) programme for the Philippines, which supported the reconstruction of school buildings and day-

care centres in the Bicol Region. EEPCT funds were also used to support the establishment and

development of the Education Cluster; to run a disaster risk reduction (DRR) pilot project in six schools in

Bicol; and to support advocacy efforts and policy development, particularly surrounding education in

emergencies (EiE) and DRR.

Approach and methodology

The Philippines evaluation team followed the methodology set forth by the global progress evaluation,

employing a mixed-methods approach to engage EEPCT stakeholders nationally, regionally and within

communities to assess the strengths and challenges of implementation in the first three years of

programming. Interview and focus group questions sought to investigate the programme‘s achievements

against the four EEPCT goals through the lens of five of the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and

Development‘s Development Assistance Criteria. The evaluation also addressed questions within the

progress evaluation framework applicable to the projects implemented in the Philippines. Data for the

evaluation were drawn from key informant interviews, focus group discussions, groups utilizing

Participatory Ranking Methods, Emergency Education-Development Assistance Criteria Scorecards,

direct observation during site visits and a primary and secondary literature review.


The evaluation engaged a total of 504 participants across all three levels (national, regional and

community) and visited 14 schools and one day-care centre. National data were collected in Manila

through interviews and focus groups. Community level data were collected from the sampled schools in

Bicol, the selected field site. A systematic random sample was employed to select both schools and

participants. Ten schools and one day-care centre were selected for site visits and focus groups to

evaluate construction projects, while the DRR pilot was evaluated at four schools.

As the majority of EEPCT funds utilized in the Philippines supported improving the quality of education in

emergency and post-disaster response, the evaluation focused its attention proportionally on activities in

this area. Subsequently, the majority of findings are related to EEPCT Goal One. Most of the remaining

focus and funding contributed to Goals Two and Three. For example, the establishment and development

of the Education Cluster is a major accomplishment of EEPCT in the Philippines. This effort contributed

towards increasing the resilience and the provision of better response and service delivery in

emergencies. UNICEF Philippines also concentrated efforts on increasing DRR activities and promoting

related policies.

Evaluation findings

Stakeholders considered UNICEF‘s programming to be effective and appropriate. Specifically, it has

improved access to and the quality of EiE, although the evaluation was not able to directly attribute any

rise in enrolment figures to EEPCT-funded programmes. In particular, the cluster has improved

coherence and coordination within the sector. The ability and capacity of both the Government and the

education sector to support and respond to EiE programming is considered better than before EEPCT-

supported interventions were implemented.

The BSLE programme in the Bicol Region concentrated on construction and supply provision through two

projects: the Safe Schools Project for school-aged children and the Emergency Support for Day-Care

Centres Project for early childhood.

The Safe Schools Project supported the construction or rehabilitation of classrooms at 87 schools: 72

elementary schools and 15 high schools.1 These schools received one of three types of assistance: a

newly constructed two-classroom, typhoon-resistant Learning and Public Use School (LAPUS) building; a

newly constructed two-classroom building following the Department of Education‘s standard design; or

repairs or rehabilitation to existing classrooms. In focus groups, communities reported that the new or

newly repaired classrooms were improvements to previously available structures. Classrooms were seen

as well constructed, strong and attractive with improved physical appearance. Supplies and classroom

furnishings were considered an important strength of the programme, though these were not uniformly

provided to schools. Despite the overall satisfaction of communities with their schools, some concerns

were noted in the quality of material used in construction as well as the quality of the construction itself. In

addition, focus groups reported that there was a low level or lack of community involvement in the

construction process. The evaluation also found a lack of sufficient monitoring and documentation of

1 As noted in section 2.5, inadequate data, including an accurate list of schools assisted through the Safe Schools Project, was a major limitation of the evaluation. The figure 87 was the best estimate made by the evaluation team while conducting the evaluation in July and August 2010 of the number of schools assisted through the Project. It is based on the lists provided by the CO at the time of the evaluation, discussions and correspondences with engineers and Department of Education staff involved with the project, and information learned during the sampling and data collection stages. In November 2010, an updated list of 91 schools was provided by the CO, but was not included in the analysis as the field work had been completed by then.


construction projects that led to some difficulty in determining which schools received assistance, the type

of assistance received and the location of the schools.

The second component of the BSLE programme, the Emergency Support for Day-Care Centres Project,

is supporting the construction of 30 day-care centres and providing supplies to 85 day-care centres.

Based on a visit to one community that had received a day-care centre, this process included greater

community involvement. The community participated throughout the construction process including in the

design stage, securing funding, choosing materials and quality control of construction. The community

visited was very pleased with the quality and construction of the building, and the weaknesses identified

centred on the size of the structure and added structural items, such as a fence or stage.

Furthermore, EEPCT has been instrumental in establishing, developing and supporting the education in

emergencies cluster in the Philippines. Through support and guidance from UNICEF, a greater

understanding of the importance of and more emphasis on EiE has developed within the Department of

Education (DepEd), which now co-chairs the cluster with UNICEF and Save the Children. The cluster has

facilitated communication between stakeholders and improved coordination and efficiency in emergency

response. These can continue to be improved, however, as can awareness of the cluster and clarity on its

role. The cluster is also still highly dependent on UNICEF funding and support, including the partial

assignment of a staff member supporting response to cluster needs. For the cluster to carry on beyond

UNICEF support and EEPCT funding, it may be prudent to design and agree on a withdrawal strategy

that takes into consideration the current trend in gradually taking over of responsibilities by DepEd

particularly in respect of promoting cluster activities. During key informant interviews and focus groups

with cluster members, it was revealed that DepEd has gradually assumed the task of cluster coordination

by assigning a secretariat function to its planning unit. The role of UNICEF and Save the Children is

facilitating and supporting DepEd‘s efforts.

In addition, there is little awareness of the Interagency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE)

minimum standards among stakeholders, particularly at the regional and community level. As such,

further attention is needed to the implementation of the minimum standards and their integration into

current standards within the Philippines, something DepEd was found to be open to incorporating in the

programme.

Lastly, EEPCT has helped support the growth of and focus on DRR in the Department of Education,

particularly in response to the many natural disasters experienced annually in the Philippines. A DRR

resource manual for teachers has been revised and printed, and there are ongoing efforts to integrate

DRR into the Department of Education curriculum. Focus to date, however, reportedly remains primarily

on response and has yet to fully transition to advance preparedness and prevention. The evaluation

examined the Enhancing School-Community Preparedness of Selected At-Risk Schools in Albay

Province Project. Overall, the project was well received by all who took part, and participants reported

increased knowledge and awareness about potential threats to their communities and how to respond.

The activities and drills undertaken were found to be particularly useful, though all participant groups

mentioned that the duration was too short to ensure proper learning and that they lacked materials to

carry the drills forward. In addition, the lack of follow-up and a plan to support implementation of the pilot

project outcomes challenges the sustainability of such an initiative.

The EEPCT programme also had a substantial role in giving the education in emergencies sector a voice

in the Philippines. UNICEF has played a pivotal role in increasing attention to EiE within the Philippines


and making it a priority. UNICEF‘s brand value contributed strongly to this improvement. Its credibility

across levels – nationally with the Government, among civil society and in communities – facilitated sector

growth and helped move the agenda forward. UNICEF‘s focus on EiE placed weight and importance on

the sector and its initiatives, and facilitated the work of non-governmental organization (NGO) partners.

Through the cluster, a unified voice to advocate and promote EiE and DRR in education emerged, and

the sector gained critical momentum that can be difficult to build in the Philippines. The result has been a

better response in the sector as a whole through improved coordination and communication.

These actions were possible through the substantial financial support and flexibility EEPCT provided

UNICEF Philippines. EEPCT helped increase UNICEF‘s stature and position within the education sector,

giving it a crucial ‗seat at the table‘ from which to advocate and support policy. Thus, while the lasting

impact of EEPCT on the education sector in the Philippines remains to be seen, in the midterm, it has

changed the way EiE is viewed and response approached; and has positioned UNICEF as a key and

instrumental player in the country‘s education sector.

The way forward: recommendations

The first three years of EEPCT in the Philippines have yielded positive results, as well as offered

challenges and lessons to learn from and carry forward in the final year of implementation, particularly as

UNICEF and the Education Cluster shift their focus to the emergency in the southern part of the country.

The recommendations build on the findings and suggestions from interviews and focus groups. They

propose ways to continue to grow and develop the education in emergencies sector and activities within it

in the Philippines, as well as ways to continue to improve coordination and ensure emergency responses

are appropriate, effective, efficient and sustainable.

Government – Department of Education

Support and construct typhoon-resistant buildings – such as core shelters, community centres or

churches – to serve as evacuation centres instead of schools.

Take a proactive approach to DRR and prioritize prevention and preparedness using a

vulnerability model rather than one that is hazards-based.

Prioritize the inclusion of EiE and DRR in the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda and

disseminate curriculum down to the school level.

Include details on value-added tax payments and process in memorandums of agreement with

partners in advance of beginning implementation to avoid delays and confusion.

UNICEF Country Office

Improve tracking, documentation and monitoring and evaluation.

Prioritize gender in all aspects of implementation – both structural and non-structural – and

translate this prioritization into programming that caters to the needs of each gender, by age

group, particularly in the education in emergencies sector.

Prioritize community involvement in all programming from the very start to improve ownership,

build local capacities and increase transparency and understanding of assistance.

Use UNICEF‘s position of leadership to build inter-sectoral linkages within its different sections,

and then beyond, to improve the quality and capacity of the emergency response.


Continue to promote and advocate around the Education Cluster to enhance understanding of its

role and around the INEE minimum standards


1.0 INTRODUCTION

1.1 Overview

UNICEF‘s Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition (EEPCT) programme began in 2006 as a

four- (later extended to five-) year, US$201 million dollar partnership between UNICEF and the

Government of the Netherlands. Intended as a strategic intervention in support of the Millennium

Development Goals (MDGs) and the Education For All movement, the EEPCT programme is intended to

help achieve these targets by increasing institutional capacity and providing direct programme support.

EEPCT supports programming in 39 countries, as well as global initiatives such as the Inter-agency

Education Clusters and the Inter-agency Network for Education in Emergencies (INEE).

The purpose of the progress evaluation is to determine the outcome and indicative impact of EEPCT to

date, and draw evidence-based lessons and recommendations that will be useful for strengthening the

programme‘s on-going practices and policies in the years to come. Within this context, the evaluation

seeks to achieve three inter-related objectives:

Provide an outcome-indicative impact analysis of the EEPCT programme (2006–2009).

Examine DAC evaluation criteria as applied to education in emergencies, transitions and fragility.

Provide evidence-based conclusions, lessons learned and recommendations.

The Philippines case study follows a common approach and methodology with the other EEPCT case

study countries, and is aligned with the context and objectives of the global progress evaluation. At the

same time, it focuses on the specific projects and context in the Philippines, providing feedback to the

Country Office (CO) on the first three years of implementation and making country-specific

recommendations as the next country programme is formulated and as EEPCT-funded education in

emergencies programming expands into Mindanao.

The evaluation examined implementation of the EEPCT programme to date on both a global scale and

specifically in six case study countries. The evaluation‘s objectives include:

1. Taking stock of the first three years of implementation to determine, as systematically and

objectively as possible, the EEPCT programme‗s relevance/appropriateness, effectiveness,

efficiency, coherence/coordination and, to the degree measurable, indicative impact and

sustainability in relation to its objectives;

2. Evaluating both the intermediate results achieved and the processes set in motion by the

programme, with a view to critically reflect on its value-added to the education sector and to

education service provision in emergencies and post-crisis transitions as well as UNICEF specific

added value to the programme;

3. Gathering relevant and applicable lessons learned on education interventions in emergencies,

transition and fragility-affected contexts; and

4. Providing recommendations to improve future programming and support more informed decision-

making by UNICEF Headquarters, Regional and Country Offices, and relevant stakeholders.


This case study examines the implementation of EEPCT specifically in the Philippines. Findings from the

Philippines also contributed to the Global Progress Evaluation Report that examines the overall

implementation of the EEPCT funds.

The Philippines is one of the most natural disaster prone countries in the world with an average of about

20 typhoons in a season in addition to earthquakes, landslides and volcanic eruptions. It is also noted that

the situation is further aggravated in certain regions by instability caused by armed groups and conflicts.

Its inclusion in the larger global evaluation thus provides a representative case in point learning

opportunity for EEPCT un-paralleled elsewhere.

1.2 Country context

The Philippines has a population of nearly 88.6 million,2 and currently

faces the dual challenges of population growth – with an annual

growth rate between 2000 and 2007 of 2.04 per cent – and

urbanization, with nearly two-thirds (64 per cent) living in urban

areas.3,4

The population is youthful; 41 per cent are under 18 years

old.5 Poverty among families in the Philippines has increased in

recent years from 24.4 per cent in 2003 to 26.9 per cent in 2009, and

80,000 Filipino children under the age of five die every year, mainly

from preventable causes.6

The Philippines is one of the most disaster-prone countries in the

world, experiencing typhoons and tropical storms, earthquakes,

landslides and volcanic eruptions. There are some 20 typhoons each

year, on average, with five to six resulting in significant damage.7 In

addition to the instability caused by these storms and other natural

disasters, the country is also affected by a series of ongoing national

conflicts. In recent years, four major conflicts have affected Filipino

citizens, including the continuing emergency in Mindanao province

between the Government and the Moro Islamic Liberation Front. The

peace process, which began in 2003, stalled in 2008. The protracted

violence had displaced close to half a million people.8

In 2006 the Philippines experienced a particularly difficult and damaging typhoon season, culminating

with Super Typhoon Reming, which hit the Bicol Region on the east coast. The equivalent of one month

2 National Statistics Office, ‘Population and Annual Growth Rates for Region, Provinces and Highly Urbanized Cities’, 2007,

<www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html>, accessed 30 September 2010. Based on Censuses 1995, 2000 and 2007 3 United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities: National Report Philippines’, UNICEF, Manila, 2010. 4 United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘UNICEF Philippines Annual Country Report 2009’, UNICEF, Manila, 2010. 5 Ibid. 6 National Statistics Office and ORC Macro, ‘National Demographic and Health Survey [NDHS] 2003’, National Statistics Office, Manila and ORC Macro, Calverton, MD, October, 2004. 7Esteban, P. and Fabian, D., ‘Briefing on The Philippine Disaster Management System’, 2004, <www.pctc.gov.ph/updates/tpdms.htm>, accessed 1 November 2010. 8 Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and the Norwegian Refugee Council, ‘Cycle of Conflict and Neglect: Mindanao’s displacement and protection crisis’, 2009, <www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/VVOS-7WNLMS-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf>, accessed 4 November 2010.

Map of the Philippines

http://www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html

http://www.pctc.gov.ph/updates/tpdms.htm.%20Accessed%20November%201

http://www.pctc.gov.ph/updates/tpdms.htm.%20Accessed%20November%201

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/VVOS-7WNLMS-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf

http://www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/VVOS-7WNLMS-full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf


of rain fell within 12 hours, triggering mudslides and flash floods. Typhoon Reming killed nearly 1,000

people and displaced more than one million.9

1.3 Education context

Education within the Philippines is a massive undertaking, utilizing 15 per cent of the total national budget

with over 54,000 schools catering to almost 20.5 million students.10

The delivery of education encounters

numerous challenges related to the vastly diverse contexts and hazards faced by students and educators

alike throughout the country. While the Government is highly decentralized, education remains centrally

controlled and overseen by the Department of Education (DepEd) in Manila. With the recent national

election in May 2010, and the advent of a new Government, the President has identified the need for

changes to the current education system, including outlining 10 steps to improve education nationally.

These changes include mandatory kindergarten for all children and a plan to extend high school from four

years to six.

Progress has been made on several of the Millennium Development Goals (MDGs), but much remains to

be accomplished. The 2007 Philippines mid-term progress report on the MDGs highlighted that the 2005–

2006 school year suffered a decline in the school participation rate, with the most startling decrease in

urban areas.11

The School Readiness Assessment shows that 61 per cent of young children are not ready

for school and more than half (53 per cent) of children the appropriate age for grade 1 are not enrolled.12

While the decline in elementary education participation noted from 2002 to 2006 has begun to be

reversed, in 2008 30 per cent of children still did not complete primary education and 39 per cent did not

attend secondary education.13,14

Given these challenges, it is unlikely that the Philippines will reach the

goal of universal access to primary education by 2015.

Although the Government mandates free education, other school-related costs exist; therefore, poverty

remains the primary cause of non-enrolment and school dropout.15

Barriers to education access are also

experienced by children with disabilities, working children, children affected by armed conflict, indigenous

children and children living and working on the street.16

Boys, who typically begin working at a young age,

are more likely than girls to leave school early.17

The education sector was severely impacted by Typhoon Reming: Schools were disrupted for over a

month, and more than 357,400 school children were affected.18

In Albay Province, the epicentre of the

disaster, 90 per cent of schools were destroyed. The cost of the damage to school buildings was

estimated at US$66 million, the equivalent of the Department of Education‘s annual school construction

9Bignell, P., ‘Typhoon Durian Leaves 1,000 Dead in Philippines Chaos’, The Independent, 2006, <www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/typhoon-durian-leaves-1000-dead-in-philippines-chaos-426933.html>, accessed 4 November 2010. 10 Philippines Department of Education, ‘Factsheet’, 2009, <www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/Factsheet2009%20Sept%2022.pdf>, accessed 30 September 2010. 11 United Nations Development Fund, ‘Philippines Midterm Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals’, UNDP, New York, 2007. 12 United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities: National Report Philippines’, UNICEF, Manila, 2010. 13 Ibid. 14 Global Campaign for Education, Back to School: Worst places in the world, Global Campaign for Education, Saxonwold, South Africa, 2010. 15 United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘UNICEF Philippines Annual Country Report 2009’, UNICEF, Manila, 2010. 16 Moselina, L., Ramos-Llana, M., and Wilson A.C., ‘Strategic Moment of Reflection (SMR) Meeting of the UNICEF Philippines Country Office’,

12–14 April 2010, United Nations Children’s Fund, Manila, 2010. 17 Ibid. 18 United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘Education In Emergencies & Post Crisis Transition Programme: Building Safe Schools Learning Environment – Safe Schools Project’, UNICEF, Manila, 2009.

http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/typhoon-durian-leaves-1000-dead-in-philippines-chaos-426933.html

http://www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/Factsheet2009%20Sept%2022.pdf


budget for the entire country.19

UNICEF was able to reach more than 25,000 pre-school and school-aged

children through a variety of education interventions, including the construction of facilities, the delivery of

support to 58 day-care centres, 68 home-based Early Childhood Care and Development (ECCD) sites, 60

Temporary Learning Structures and 40 schools. Additional support included the training of over 140 day-

care workers, 134 home-based workers and 420 teachers on alternative delivery modes for ECCD and

basic education, psychosocial techniques and education in emergency minimum standards.20

1.4 EEPCT programme

EEPCT is in its fourth year of supporting education in emergencies programming in the Philippines

through the UNICEF Country Office (CO) in Manila.

The development of the EEPCT programme in late 2006 occurred almost concurrently with the landing of

Typhoon Reming on the eastern coast of the country. The newly created programme funds were

accessed to assist with the emergency response in Southern Luzon, particularly in Regions IV-B

(Southern Tagalog) and V (Bicol Region), the latter being the most affected area.21

Funding received

between 2007 and 2009 was primarily for the Building Safe Learning Environment (BSLE) programme,

which supported the reconstruction of school buildings and day-care centres in Bicol. EEPCT funds were

also used to support the establishment and development of the Education Cluster in the Philippines,

which in 2006 had not yet been established; to run a disaster risk reduction (DRR) pilot project in six

schools in Albay Province, Bicol Region; and to support advocacy efforts and policy development,

particularly surrounding education in emergencies (EiE) and DRR. Since late 2009, EEPCT funds were

also directed towards the education response to the complex emergency in Mindanao region. The fact

that implementation was in its nascent stages in Mindanao – and given its location in the far south of

Philippines, the limited time for field research during the evaluation, and factors of accessibility and

security – it was decided that activities there were beyond the scope of this evaluation.

1.4.1 Building Safe Learning Environment programme

The Building Safe Learning Environment (BSLE) programme is integrated into the education sector, with

the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Department of Social Welfare and Development as the

main implementing partners. Habitat for Humanity is also a BSLE implementing partner, working with six

schools on this project. The BSLE programme in the Philippines has a very construction-heavy focus,

linking into government initiatives to rebuild the education sector‘s physical facilities in Bicol Region. It has

two projects: one for school buildings primarily implemented through DepEd called the Safe Schools

Project (SSP); and a second for day-care centres implemented through the , in partnership with Local

Government Units (LGUs), called the Emergency Support for Day-Care Centres Project.

1.4.2 Safe Schools Project

EEPCT funds supported construction of new classroom buildings as well as repairs and rehabilitation of

existing classrooms. New construction followed two different Department of Education designs:

19 United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition Programme: Building Safe Learning

Environment – Safe Schools Project’, UNICEF, Manila, 2008. 20 United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘UNICEF Philippines Annual Country Report 2009’, UNICEF, Manila, 2009. 21 From here on, the report will refer to Bicol Region when referencing the Reming response as most of the need and funding was directed to this region and it was where the evaluation efforts were thus focused.


Learning and Public Use School (LAPUS) building: The LAPUS building design is a typhoon-

resistant building that contains two classrooms separated by an accordion-style movable

partition, allowing the two rooms to open up into one larger space. It is intended for use as

classrooms and community meeting rooms and to serve as an evacuation centre during

emergencies. The structure includes four washrooms and two kitchens and is wheelchair

accessible.

DepEd standard two-classroom building: a two-classroom building, each 9m x 7m, with a corridor,

ceiling and galvanized iron sheeting for the roof.

Further, the project provided water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH) facilities, school supplies and

classroom furniture to selected recipients.

1.4.3 Emergency Support for Day-Care Centres Project

In partnership with the Department of Social Welfare and Development and the Local Government Units,

UNICEF Philippines supported the construction and furnishing of day-care centres in Bicol Region as part

of the post-Reming response and reconstruction efforts. The day-care centre design consisted of a

typhoon-resistant building with gender-segregated toilets and a kitchen. It can also serve as an

evacuation centre for recipient communities.

1.4.4 The Enhancing School-Community Preparedness of Selected At-Risk Schools in

Albay Province Project

UNICEF Philippines partnered with a local NGO, Tarabang Para sa Bicol, Inc. (TABI), to pilot a DRR and

first aid training project in six schools in Albay Province. The project, referred to here as the DRR pilot,

was intended to teach DRR concepts, pilot DRR preparedness practices with students, educators,

parents and community members and encourage joint DRR preparedness planning between schools and

communities.

1.4.5 Education in emergencies cluster

While the majority of EEPCT funds supported construction projects, the programme also supported the

establishment and development of the humanitarian cluster for education in emergencies (hereafter

referred to as ‗the cluster‘) within the Philippines. Work on this initiative also included advocacy on EiE

and support for policy development within the sector.


2.0 METHODOLOGY

The progress evaluation was emphasised as a learning exercise with the underlying principle of leading

to improved project interventions.

2.1 Evaluation methodology

The evaluation was structured to examine the four EEPCT goals and related indicators (see Annex I).

The evaluation was informed by the Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development‘s (OECD)

Development Assistance Committee (DAC) Criteria for Evaluating Development Assistance – i.e.,

relevance, effectiveness, efficiency, impact and sustainability.22

Specific questions were crafted to

examine the DAC criteria in the context of EEPCT‘s four goals and related indicators.

2.2 Cross-cutting issues The global evaluation also examined cross-cutting issues from perspectives that would affect EEPCT‘s

ability to meet its objectives. The Philippines evaluation examined five such issues:

Gender: Are equity, equality and empowerment taken into account in EEPCT programmes? Does

programming include the needs of girls and women and boys and men?

A rights-based approach to programming: Is a rights-based approach a cornerstone for all

programming? Does EEPCT help increase participation and equitable inclusion?

Disaster risk reduction: Does EEPCT help minimize vulnerabilities and disaster risks throughout

society? Does it take measures to avoid (prevention) or to limit (mitigation and preparedness) the

adverse impacts of hazards, within the broad context of sustainable development?

Accountability, monitoring, evaluation and learning: To what degree have best practices in

monitoring, evaluation and knowledge transfer been adopted in implementing the programme?

Sensitivity to conflict and fragility: Have conflict- and fragility-sensitive approaches been

implemented when possible and can these be institutionalized?

As DRR was a main component of implemented programmes in the Philippines, it was considered as a

major contributor to EEPCT‘s goals rather than a cross-cutting issue and given more attention as a stand-

alone issue. However, the other areas were considered and investigated within each project.

2.3 Data collection and analysis

Globally, the progress evaluation employed a sequential mixed-methods approach to combine more

comprehensive coverage with in-depth analysis. The approach aimed to: strengthen validity through

triangulation; extend the comprehensiveness of the findings; and generate new insights.

The Philippines team followed the planned evaluation methodology and targets. Quantitative and

qualitative data were collected at three levels: national, regional (sub-national) and school/barangay.23

22 Development Assistance Committee, ‘DAC Principles for Evaluation of Development Assistance’, Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development, Paris, 1991. 23 ‘Barangay’ refers to community and the terms ‘community’ and ‘barangay’ are used interchangeably throughout this evaluation.


The evaluation sought to engage a minimum of 400 participants across all three levels. National data

were collected in Manila through interviews and focus groups. Selection of the field site – and thus the

location of regional and barangay-level data collection – followed the criteria outlined in the evaluation

inception report.24

Based on these, Bicol Region – where the majority of funding from EEPCT has been

directed, most of the recipients are located and all the programmes are being implemented – was

selected as the field site. Within Bicol, community level data were collected from sampled schools.

2.3.1 Data collection tools

Multiple tools were used with a range of participants to gather feedback on EEPCT programming within

the Philippines. Data collection engaged UN, government and NGO staff, donors and cluster members at

the national and regional levels, and students, educators, parents, community members and leaders, and

government employees at the barangay level.

In total, 504 participants participated in the evaluation and 15 site visits (14 schools and 1 day-care

centre) were completed. A breakdown of participants by level and sector can be found in Annex II. A brief

explanation of the different tools and methods follows, along with the total number of each conducted.

Documents and literature reviews: Both primary and secondary sources, including the Philippines

CO self-assessment, were used for background information and to inform participant and field

site selection, sampling and data collection.

Key informant interviews: Structured and semi-structured interviews were conducted with UN,

government, donors, NGO and community-based organization staff, and with students,

educators, parents and community members and leaders. Identification of key informants was

done in collaboration with UNICEF Education Section staff members, from literature reviews and

from informants themselves. A total of 58 interviews were conducted across all three levels.

Emergency Education-DAC Score Card: The EE-DAC Score Card provided a consistent format to

measure how changes in programme implementation are affecting the global, regional and

country levels. The EE-DAC Score Card was designed to measure perceptions of progress on

the four EEPCT goals in the context of the five DAC criteria: relevance/ appropriateness,

effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and coordination, and sustainability and connectedness.

Participant groups provide consensus responses on a scale of 1 (much worse) to 5 (much better),

with 3 meaning that no change has taken place. The EE-DAC Score Card was employed with

nine groups in the Philippines: three at the national level (government, UN, NGO); three

regionally (two government and one NGO); and three groups of educators at the barangay/school

level. Sampling followed the evaluation plan with the exception of a regional-level UN group, as

there were no UN staff members working regionally. A second group of regional government

members was conducted instead.

Focus group discussions: Focus groups were held at schools with students, educators, parents

and community members. These sought information on changes since the programme began

using EEPCT indicators, participant feelings and perceptions towards the programme and cross-

24 “Criteria: Funding received, duration of programme implementation, number of project implemented, number of beneficiaries, possibility for comparison groups, accessibility and security, and relevance to the goals of the evaluation”, PREV [progress evaluation] Inception Report, p. 24.


cutting issues. Participants were asked to provide one collective ranked response to each

question on a scale of 1 (much worse) to 5 (much better), with a score of 3 meaning no change.

Forty focus groups were conducted in total: 22 with students (10 all girls; 11 all boys; 1 mixed), 9

with educators, 5 with parents and 4 with school DRR Councils.

Participative ranking methodology (PRM) group discussions: PRM is a participatory, mixed-

methods approach to data collection in which a group of knowledgeable participants are guided in

responding to a specific question or set of questions thereby generating rich, contextualized data

that can be counted, ranked and compared across or within groups. This methodology promotes

an engaged and participatory process that rapidly highlights key findings while providing the

opportunity for deeper analysis as resources permit. At each school site visited students,

educators, parents and community members participated in PRM group discussions providing

their views on the strengths and weaknesses of the programme and the definition of a resilient

education system; the latter feeding into the global component of the progress evaluation. In all,

23 groups of students (11 all girls, 11 all boys, 1 mixed), 9 groups of educators, 4 groups of

parents and 4 DRR Councils participated in a total of 99 PRM discussions.

Direct observation: A child-friendly schools checklist, completed by direct observation with

support from school records or principal interviews, was fully completed at 12 and partially

completed in an additional 2 schools. Please refer to Annex V under Tools for the checklist and

Annex VI for the results of the observations as per the checklist.

To ensure concepts and terms were well translated and their meanings were clear and commonly

understood, all tools used in the schools were back translated twice between English and Filipino.

2.3.2 Sampling methodology

Construction

A systematic random sample was taken of the school and day-care construction. As BSLE funding

heavily concentrated on the Safe Schools Project (which had 89 per cent of total funds), the number of

schools versus day-care centres was selected proportional to the amount of invested funding. Within the

schools, selection was representative by level (elementary or high school) and by construction type

(LAPUS, new construction or repair/rehabilitation). For time and security reasons, the sampling pool was

restricted to schools within a three-hour drive of Legazpi, the capital of Albay Province. This reduced the

number of schools from 81 to 64. One school was used as a field-testing site, reducing the sampling pool

to 63 schools. Schools participating in the DRR pilot were also not included in the construction sample.

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) pilot

Six schools (four elementary schools and two high schools) participated in the DRR pilot. The original

sampling plan included a systematic random sample of half of these (two elementary schools and one

high school). The total sample was increased to four, based on feedback from the implementing partner,

to ensure both the perceived ‗best‘ school and the school struggling the most were included for

comparison. This resulted in a sample of four schools, where seven groups of students and four DRR

Councils, including two teacher groups within them, were engaged in discussions about the project.


Selection of participants from different stakeholder groups for conducting focus group discussions for the

assessment of the above categories of project interventions was on the basis of a systematic random

sampling procedure (described in Annex III). The stakeholder groups comprised students,

educators/teachers, parents and community members.

Data analysis

Quantitative data were analysed by the Columbia Group for Children in Adversity (CGCA) biostatistician

using Statistical Analysis Software (SAS), except for the PRM data, which were synthesized by the

evaluation team. PRM-ranked responses were grouped and the top five responses were compiled. The

mean rank for the top five was also calculated. Qualitative data were analysed by the country evaluation

team.

2.4 Evaluation team

The Philippines evaluation team comprised 10 members: a total of five involved in the evaluation process

in Manila, and nine engaged during the field data collection phase in Bicol. A CGCA senior technical

member served as team leader and held overall responsibility and oversight of the evaluation. A

Columbia University research associate supported the team leader, serving as the technical focal point on

the evaluation and leading the field team. The rest of the field team was made up of three national

researchers and five research assistants. National researchers assisted with data collection in Manila and

the field site, including conducting interviews and focus group discussions. The research assistants

served as note-takers during focus groups. All members of the field team contributed to the translation of

qualitative data and the data entry process.

2.5 Limitations

The global team took several steps to ensure comparability across countries and applicability of

measures across programmes. This approach did, however, result in tools that were not specific to a

particular country or context. Questions were therefore added, removed or modified to better suit the

Philippines context. The evaluation inception report also called for comparison groups to help determine

programme outcome-related findings. Discussions with the CO determined that this would not be possible

or useful in the Philippines given the context of an emergency response where assistance – by the

Government, UNICEF or other organizations – targeted all those affected. Instead, adequate

comparisons could be made within UNICEF-assisted schools using the evaluation tools to solicit

participant feedback through a ‗before and after‘ approach. This meant asking participants to compare

and contrast the situation before and after the programme, which coincided with the Typhoon and the

commencement of EEPCT-funded initiatives.

In addition to the shared limitations and mitigating actions taken by the evaluation team on a global level,

the case study team encountered additional limitations in the Philippines. Significant time constraints

proved a challenge. Originally designed for five to seven weeks, with three weeks for field data collection,

the case study ultimately spanned four weeks, with seven days of data collection at the field site.

Interviews in Manila continued until the day before the team departed. The evaluation team worked to

mitigate these challenges and was able to meet all data collection targets. This was accomplished by:

splitting the evaluation team and pursuing a difficult schedule; reducing the sampling pool to include more


easily accessible schools; re-arranging the school visit schedule; hiring a larger team; and conducting

much of the data entering, cleaning and analysis after departure from the country. However, the time

constraints and actions taken to overcome them added further difficulties by limiting which data could be

collected and inhibiting post-collection corroboration and follow-up.

Other challenges faced by the evaluation team include inadequacies in data availability and the time it

took to compile what data were available. Indeed, data required for taking the intended sample could not

in the end be fully complied to create a reliable sampling frame. The data available at the time of the

evaluation were incomplete, missing information such as the locations of schools, or kept changing, such

as the number of schools. These challenges continued even after the first sample and a back-up were

taken. In addition, information on security and accessibility was not known until after arrival at the field

site, These challenges, and the numerous times the sampling frame had to be changed to accommodate

revised information, caused significant delays and changes in the schedule, as noted above.

The fact that Philippines CO was able to provide the evaluation team with a list of schools and

corresponding information for 91 schools on 11 November 2010 is considered a positive response, even

though the evaluation fieldwork was completed in July and August. As such, it is noted that any additional

information may not be included in the analysis.

Once at the field site, limitations and challenges specific to the field data collection process arose that are

important to note. First, the passage of time since the programme was implemented meant that one

programme was concluding and another had been completed nearly two years prior, rather than being

midway through implementation, which was the design of the evaluation. The evaluation team exerted

extra effort to engage principals, teachers and students directly involved in programmes. This was not

always possible as many of the school principals involved in the programmes during implementation had

been transferred to other locations.

Second, full completion of the observation checklist tool at all schools proved challenging due to time

constraints and the sheer size of schools in the Philippines. Some schools visited had thousands of

students and hundreds of classrooms. Observation of all these to complete the checklist was not feasible.

Therefore, some statistics, such as number of classrooms and toilet facilities, were obtained from school

administration and could not be confirmed by sight. In the case of toilets, it was assumed that all the

facilities reported were functioning.

Third, while Filipino is the national language, there are over 170 languages used throughout the

Philippines, including a regional language as well as smaller dialects in the field site. Fluency in English,

particularly outside Manila, varies. To reduce any impact on the quality of data, data collection at schools

was conducted in Filipino mainly, unless English was possible or requested. All tools were back-

translated twice to ensure accuracy in meaning in Filipino. Further, each focus group team consisted of at

least one member who spoke both Filipino and Bicolano, the local language, so that participants could

respond in the language in which they were most comfortable. Lastly, for consistency across translations

from Filipino and Bicolano to English, a lexicon of frequently appearing or difficult to translate words and

concepts was created and used by the research team.


3.0 EVALUATION FINDINGS

3.1 Overview The majority of EEPCT funds utilized in the Philippines supported improving the quality of education in

emergency and post-disaster response, and thus the evaluation focused its attention proportionally on

activities in this area. Subsequently, the majority of findings are related to EEPCT Goal One. Most of the

remaining focus and funding contributed to Goals Two and Three. The establishment and development of

the Education Cluster is a major accomplishment of EEPCT in the Philippines. This effort contributed to

increasing the resilience and the provision of better response and service delivery in emergencies.

UNICEF Philippines also concentrated efforts on increasing DRR activities and promoting related policies.

A detailed account of the major findings follows, with attention given to the limitations encountered,

specified in section 2.5 above, that may account for any gaps or needs for further investigation.

3.2 Goal One: Improved quality of education response in emergencies and post-

crisis transition countries

3.2.1 Building Safe Learning Environment: Safe Schools Project

The BSLE programme in the Philippines sought to improve the quality of EiE primarily through the

provision of the physical structures –

classrooms – required to house and

shelter the students after the majority

were destroyed by Typhoon Reming.

These efforts were further supported in

some schools by provision of school

supplies and furniture, electricity and

WASH facilities.

The Safe Schools Project supported the

construction of classrooms at 87 schools25

throughout Regions IV-B and V: 12

schools received LAPUS buildings; 24

schools received the DepEd standard two-

classroom building; and 53 schools benefited from repair/rehabilitation to existing structures.26

See

Annexes VII and VIII for a complete list of schools and type of assistance received.

DepEd identified which schools would receive assistance. Formal selection criteria were defined and

acknowledged in interviews with DepEd and UNICEF officials (see Box 1).27

However, the evaluation

team was unable to verify the application of these criteria due to a lack of documentation. Schools were

recommended for assistance and determined ‗in need‘ on a division-level ad hoc basis.

25 See footnote 1. 26 Note: one school received both a new standard design building and had existing structures repaired 27 Key informant interviews, Manila and Bicol.

‘Need’ as determined by damage to the structures;

Assistance from other sources;

Enrolment;

Physical space for new structures;

For repairs: extent of the damage and determination of ‘real need’ as well as support from the school community for maintenance; and

For LAPUS: identification as an evacuation centre.


Observations of schools receiving (or not receiving) assistance within the sample and interviews

conducted at these schools do not fully support application of the selection criteria detailed in Box 1. At

least five of the schools visited received assistance from other sources, some extensively.28

For example,

one of them had received construction assistance from four other groups prior to receiving UNICEF

assistance. Lastly, while only four schools visited received LAPUS buildings, eleven said that they served

as evacuation centres – reported to be a main criteria for receiving a LAPUS building – for their

communities, which was mandated by law when BSLE began. It is noted that the construction cost of a

LAPUS building far exceeds that of a DepEd standard two-classroom; however, a documented process

for determining which schools would and would not receive LAPUS buildings was not available to the

evaluation team, nor made known to the school administrators interviewed.

The level of support for schools that received repair or rehabilitation assistance varied. Documentation is

lacking for the process of determining what would be repaired or reconstructed. Key informant

interviews29

outline a process where engineers from DepEd and UNICEF assessed buildings and

determined the level of assistance received within the budget allotted the school. Budgets for repairs

varied widely: from Php 120,000 to Php 800,000 for repairs to one to three classrooms. Documentation

on the budget allotment process was not made available to the evaluation team. Feedback from

communities who received schools suggests that the repairs made were not always exhaustive. For

example, two schools noted that assistance included repairs to the roof but did not include a ceiling inside

the classroom.

3.2.2 Child-friendly schools checklist

Schools visited were assessed using the child-friendly schools observation checklist tool (see Annex V).

The tool was developed by the global evaluation team for broad use in case study countries – and not

solely intended for programmes implementing Child Friendly Schools (CFS), to assess how well EEPCT-

assisted schools complied with CFS criteria. In the Philippines, EEPCT-supported schools were not

intended to be CFS. However, given the heavy focus on construction, the tool was revised in the

Philippines to accommodate and highlight differences between UNICEF-assisted and non-UNICEF-

assisted classrooms. Through direct observation and interviews with principals, the checklist was

completed at 12 schools and partially completed at the remaining two.30

The checklist was modified to

delineate differences between UNICEF-assisted classrooms and other classrooms at the school as the

programme within the Philippines focused so heavily on school construction. Annex VI displays the

results of the checklist combining all 14 schools, with the number of reporting schools in parentheses for

each question.

Among UNICEF-assisted classrooms, only about half of those in which data on were collected (6/11) met

CFS standards. While none of the schools visited could meet the full criteria, many have numerous child-

friendly aspects. The LAPUS-design classrooms most closely met the CFS criteria, fulfilling an average of

10.33 of the 16 criteria (65 per cent) on the checklist. By comparison, schools receiving new construction

averaged 7 of 16 criteria (44 per cent) when looking at the UNICEF-assisted classrooms only. Schools

receiving repairs fared the worst, averaging 5 of 16 criteria (31 per cent) on the checklist.

28 Principal interviews and direct observation, Bicol. 29 Globally, the progress evaluation is ensuring the confidentiality of data and therefore is not providing identifying information. 30 Completed questionnaires indicate that no more than two questions on the list went unanswered. Questions most often unanswered relate to sanitation facilities: latrine to student ratios, gender-split facilities and locks on doors. Incomplete checklists are addressed in the section 2.5 Limitations, under Methodology.


The largest and most visible challenges to meeting child-friendly requirements were around safety.

Dilapidated buildings were observed and old latrines that had fallen into disrepair were still accessible to

young children. In some cases there was accumulated waste, hazards and stagnant water sites on school

grounds. One school still had evacuees living on the premises. While it was evident that significant efforts

were taken at all schools to make them colourful and engaging within the resources possible, larger-scale

safety concerns remain.

Other items on the checklist related to safety and child-friendly criteria scored more positively. From

observation, all 14 schools had windows in all classrooms and all could be opened without locks. Further,

8 of 14 UNICEF-assisted buildings had two doors for each classroom, which would facilitate evacuation in

emergencies. All six buildings that did not have two doors per classroom were recipients of repairs rather

than new construction. Only one school of thirteen fulfilled these safety criteria in its non-UNICEF

classrooms.

3.2.3 Water, sanitation and hygiene (WASH)

Water

Water facilities were reported or observed on school grounds at 13 of 14 schools. However, these were

not always functional and/or available to all students within a school, and water was often reported as not

being potable. Provision of water was not a consistent part of implementation, and many schools reported

that their water was provided by local or municipal governments. Students identified the lack of potable

water on school grounds as one of the top five weaknesses of the programme, including students at three

schools that reported or were observed to have water on site. This suggests that provision of water is a

priority area for students and identifies an area that can be systematically incorporated into future

programming.

In contrast, at one school that received a water supply from UNICEF, parents ranked water as the top

strength of the assistance, ahead of the construction work and provision of school supplies. Boys in focus

groups at this same school ranked provision of small plastic (Nalgene) water bottles (part of the standard

school pack for children) as the second strongest aspect of the programme.

Sanitation

The lack of sanitation facilities at schools was widely reported through interviews and focus group

discussions as a challenge for students and educators alike, and was listed among the top five weakness

of the programme by both parents and educators. According to focus group participants, construction of

sanitation facilities was not prioritized in the way that classrooms were. As mentioned earlier, many of the

schools visited lacked adequate facilities for students and educators, particularly by gender.

It is common in the Philippines for a toilet to be included inside the classroom. The design is viewed as

preferable because students will not have to leave the classroom and the latrines can be better

maintained. Due to this, classroom toilets serve both genders. From observation, these toilets are often in

corners of the classroom that have had boards or walls that do not reach the ceiling, compromising

student and teacher privacy by leaving the toilet semi-open to the classroom. Both these points run

counter to UNICEF CFS standards and gender-positive indicators. DepEd officials reported that had

UNICEF insisted on gender-segregated toilet facilities in its assistance, DepEd would have modified its

designs to accommodate this priority as it did with school construction assisted by the Australian


Government‘s Overseas Aid Programme (AusAid) and Japanese International Cooperation Agency

(JICA).31

Fewer than half of the schools had functioning gender-segregated toilet facilities. It was observed that

many schools and school grounds had gender-segregated toilet facilities on their properties, but that

these were in disrepair. Among UNICEF-assisted classrooms, only the LAPUS-design schools had

separate facilities for girls and boys; and only 4 of 12 schools had separate toilets for girls and boys

anywhere on school grounds. Similarly, only 2 of 12 schools (17 per cent) had separate facilities for

educators; one of these was gender-segregated. Only three schools (30 per cent) were observed to have

locks on all toilet doors, though all UNICEF-constructed toilets had locks.

Of the 11 schools where ratios were obtainable, six (55 per cent) had an appropriate toilet-to-student ratio

for girls (30 girls per toilet) and eight (73 per cent) an appropriate ratio for boys (60 boys per toilet).

However, given the large size of schools, it was not possible to verify that all toilets were functional and

observation would indicate not all were operational. At one school, need for sanitation facilities was so

severe that the principal had taken it on as a special project, seeking assistance and doubling the number

of toilets in two years, from 8 to 16.32

These facilities are shared by the school‘s 3,936 students and 127

educators. While an extreme case, this situation highlights the need and imbalance in the WASH sector.

3.2.4 Focus group discussions

To assess the effect of the programme on school experience, focus group discussions addressing

questions in the evaluation framework (see Annex I) were conducted at 10 schools that received

construction assistance with 15 groups of students (7 all girls; 8 all boys), 8 groups of educators and 3

groups of parents. Participants reported the programme to be an appropriate and appreciated emergency

response in the aftermath of Typhoon Reming, one that has greatly contributed to improving the school

experience of students, educators and parents alike. The 161 students (80 girls and 81 boys) who

participated in the discussions reported that their feelings towards school, their participation and

attendance levels, their sense of safety and security and ability to protect themselves were now ‗better‘ or

‗much better‘ than before (girls‘ responses ranged from 4.4 to 5; boys‘ from 4.5 to 5).33

Similarly, parents

(21 total) felt that their involvement in school emergency planning (average 4.0), the quality of education

at the schools (average 4.3) and their overall feeling towards school (average 5.0) were now ‗better‘ or

‗much better‘ since receiving construction assistance.

Educators, 60 women and 16 men, reported that their feelings towards school, their ability to teach and

the quality of education were ‗better‘ since the construction assistance (average scores ranged from 4 to

4.4). Teachers also noted that provision of supplies and materials was ‗better‘ (average 4.0) since the

programme began. If their students had received school supplies teachers rated their ability to teach as

‗better‘ (average 4.4), while those who had received teaching materials rated their ability to teach as

‗much better‘ (average 5.0). Educators did not necessarily feel that the buildings had affected retention of

students, noting retention of boys remained the same (average 3.1) and that boys were more likely to

drop out than girls, whose retention, in their opinions, had improved slightly (average 3.7). Overall, scores

from these focus groups are indicative of the programme having a positive effect on the school

experience of all members of the school community.

31 Key informant interview, Manila. 32 Principal interview, Bicol. 33 Focus groups scored on a scale of 1 to 5, with 1 meaning ‘much worse’, 5 meaning ‘much better’ and 3 signifying ’same or no change’.


3.2.5 BSLE strengths and weaknesses

To gain perspectives from the school community on the strengths and weaknesses of the BLSE

programme, 27 groups (16 groups of students, 8 of educators and 3 of parents) at 10 schools engaged in

participatory ranking exercises.34

Collectively, they identified and ranked 132 strengths and 118

weaknesses of the programme. The top five strengths and weaknesses identified by all groups are listed

in the table below.

Table 1: Top five strengths and weaknesses identified by students, educators and parents

Strengths (of 132 responses) Frequency Mean rank

Strong, well-constructed building 31 2.4

Improved/attractive physical appearance 20 4

Safety/security/protection 14 3.7

Classroom furnishings 11 3.8

School supplies 6 3.3

Weaknesses (of 118 responses) Frequency Mean rank

Poor quality building materials and construction 20 2.6

Poor quality windows 16 2.3

Maintenance issues: health and appearances 13 2

Poor quality doors: security 11 2.5

Easily broken furniture 9 3.7

Strengths

Students, educators and parents alike most frequently identified a strong, well-constructed building as the

top strength of the programme. Classrooms were described as ‗sturdy‘ or as having a good foundation

and roof. Students, who account for two-thirds of the response frequency, particularly identified with the

importance of their new or repaired classrooms. As one group of girls explained, ―Strong built wall is first

because room is part of our home, and it is very important‖.35

The physical appearance and attractiveness of the classrooms constructed also proved an important

feature to beneficiaries, again particularly for students, who commented on the physical appearance and

34 See section 2.3 Data collection and analysis for a description of the PRM methodology, or the Methodology section of the PREV [progress evaluation] Inception Report (p. 22) for a detailed description of the method and its implementation. 35 Girl participants in PRM focus group, Bicol.


attractiveness of their classrooms second most often. Students repeatedly described the buildings as

‗beautiful‘, with colourful classroom walls and painted roofs. ―Wall paint is next [2nd

] because we get

compliments from our classmates that our room is beautiful.‖36

Conversely, messy and dirty appearances

were frequently cited as weaknesses, seen as a source of embarrassment or threatening to the health of

students.

The appearance of the buildings as attractive was a source of pride not only for students but for

educators and parents as well. However, these groups were more likely to refer to the sense of safety,

security and protection provided by the new structures than to their appearance, and to rank these

attributes higher than attractiveness. Safety and security ranked second for educators and third for

parents, while appearance was ranked fifth. A strong roof seemed to particularly mark a well-constructed

building that would provide security. In addition to providing shelter from the elements and reducing

illness from getting wet during rains, participants perceived that a solid roof would not blow off during

strong winds, which occurred at most schools during Typhoon Reming.

Taken together, these strengths contributed to the perception of the classrooms as ‗conducive‘, a term

repeatedly used to refer to new and repaired classrooms. A conducive classroom was described as

attractive in appearance, spacious and well-ventilated, with an environment that allowed students to feel

relaxed and comfortable and where they would be attentive to lessons.

Weaknesses

The primary weaknesses mentioned by all the groups revolved around the quality of materials and

furnishings used in construction. Poor quality of materials was most often mentioned, especially those

used in constructing walls, roofs and floors. This weakness was cited regardless of the type of

construction assistance received, though more frequently by schools receiving repairs or rehabilitation to

existing classrooms. This might be attributable to the re-use of some existing materials, a practice

permitted by DepEd to maximize resources, but that is not well communicated or explained to school

communities. Groups at two schools noted that they received a roof without a ceiling. Four schools

reported cracks in the floors and walls from earthquakes, although three had received the higher quality,

newly constructed typhoon-resistant buildings. While some cracks might be normal and not reflective of

structural or technical problems with the construction, school communities attributed the cracks to quality

control issues.

Communication with school communities on normal conditions and wear over time on the classrooms

would facilitate a better understanding of what is normal and expected versus what is a structural cause

for concern. The contractors and quality of construction work were often described as causes of the listed

weaknesses. Educators and parents at five schools specifically identified the contractors as the source of

the poor quality construction.37

Of the various construction areas, the doors and windows were particularly identified as being of poor

quality. These were highlighted as security issues, as the locks and doorknobs on doors were easily

broken, as were windows. At all 10 of the schools where discussions took place, groups mentioned the

windows as a weakness, and groups at 9 schools identified problems with the doors. The glass window

panels, called jalousies in the Philippines, were reported to be of poor quality and loose fitting and hence

36 Girl participants in PRM focus group, Bicol. 37 Educator and parent PRM focus groups and principal interviews, Bicol.


could easily fall and break, causing harm to students. Evaluators saw jalousie panels missing in many

classrooms. The lack of grills covering windows was also identified as a security threat.38

3.2.6 Supplies and training

Supplies

UNICEF Philippines creates its own student, teacher and early childhood school packs in-country in lieu

of using the UNICEF global kits. According to key informant interviews, kits are designed, procured and

prepared locally in Manila, where at any given point in time 10,000 kits are stockpiled in a warehouse in

preparation for future need. Partner and community feedback is sought and considered in determining

pack contents and assessing quality, which can be considered a positive initiative.

For BSLE supply provision, in addition to the teacher and student packs, selected schools received other

supplies, including carpentry tools, gardening tools, art supplies, library packs and playground materials.

Of the 10 schools reporting on school supplies, 6 reported receiving school supplies from UNICEF, either

for students or teachers. School furnishings and supplies were considered major strengths of the

programme, ranked fourth and fifth respectively, and motivators for school attendance.39

Training

One school of six reported receiving training from UNICEF related to maintenance. One DRR school also

mentioned that they consulted a manual that was provided to them for repairs and maintenance.

3.2.7 Building Safe Learning Environment: Emergency Support for Day-Care Centres

Project

The BSLE day-care component funded by EEPCT assisted with the provision of supplies and furniture to

55 day-care centres (construction funded by the Swedish International Development Agency) and the

construction and furnishing of another 30. At the time of the evaluation, only 6 of these 30 centres had

been constructed.40

One was selected at random and visited. At the day-care centre, focus groups were

conducted with a group of workers, a group of mothers and a group of fathers. Parents reported as ‗much

better‘ their involvement in day-care emergency planning, their ability to address safety and security at

the centre, their sense of ownership for the construction and the quality of education (average scores

ranging from 4.5 to 5) since construction of the day-care centre. Community participation in the process

was required throughout: from design, securing funding and choosing materials to quality control on

construction.

These same groups identified the strong, well-constructed building (4 times) and the gender-segregated

toilets (2) as the main strengths of the building. Community members emphasized the typhoon-resistance

of the building and the feeling that they and their children would be safe and secure in the event of a

typhoon. Weaknesses mentioned were similar to those in the school focus groups: poor ventilation (2;

mean rank 1.5) and poor quality windows including jalousies that easily loosen and could harm children

38 UNICEF reported this issue was fixed after receiving feedback following the completion of the first tranche of schools, However, the evaluation team’s fieldwork found that this problem remained in a majority of tranche two schools visited. 39 Student and parent PRM focus groups and educator focus group discussions, Bicol. 40 The Philippines CO reported this was completed in November 2010.


(2; mean rank 3.5). Many of the toys present in the day-care centre at the time of the visit were made or

provided by parents and the community.

3.3 Goal Two: Increased resilience of education sector services delivery in

chronic crises, arrested development and deteriorating contexts

EEPCT has made a significant contribution to the resiliency of the Philippines education sector through

supporting the establishment and development of the humanitarian cluster for education and emphasizing

the importance of education in emergencies (EiE) as a whole. The humanitarian cluster system was

introduced in the Philippines in 2007 as part of the emergency response to Typhoon Reming. Through

interviews and focus groups, government, NGOs and the UN staff all described the situation after

establishment of the cluster system as having a suitable mechanism in place, which promoted

coordination, communication and organization in increasing resilience of education sector services

delivery in emergency situations. Pre-2007 this response was inefficient and inequitable, with the lack of

coordination between organizations and the Government leading to a duplication of services and delays

in assistance. Communication flow between the NGOs, UN and Government was fractured and

segmented.

Members of the Education Cluster – government, NGO and UN alike – report that formation of the cluster

helped unify the different members of the EiE sector, improving relationships among NGOs, UN and

Government. Communication has reportedly improved, with the cluster serving as a venue for discussion

with partners. It has helped formalize coordination between different stakeholders, and reduced overlap in

response.41

Processes have become more coherent and efficient via initiatives such as the introduction of

a system of segmented tasks, with organizations taking responsibility for specific roles and responsibilities

in a planned and coordinated manner.42

Further, cluster members have sought to standardize

approaches, such as having standardized kits to distribute during emergencies and coordinated

distribution. The cluster has reportedly also reduced competition between organizations, with members

currently working on joint funding proposals.43

Most importantly, the cluster reportedly has increased and strengthened the coordination role of DepEd.

Participants emphasized how much the situation had changed, noting that even ―the mere fact that we

are conducting the session here at DepEd‖ was a significant difference.44

Coordination and coherence

were seen to be ‗better‘ than before the cluster was established, particularly in terms of support to DepEd

and its coordination role from UNICEF and cluster members. Capacity-building activities conducted by the

cluster for its members, such as INEE training, were also seen as integral to improving cluster functioning

and coordination – though it should be noted that the cluster and INEE minimum standards were largely

unknown beyond the capital region. Cluster members also noted that there were still gaps, particularly

around maintaining relationships within the cluster and engaging the Government, especially through

times of staff turnover. There were still some overlaps in the emergency response, but the situation on the

whole had vastly improved.

Further, when the cluster system was first introduced, the Education Cluster was not immediately

established and adopted by the Government, which instead focused on clusters that served immediate

41 EE-DAC focus groups and key informant interviews, Manila. 42 Key informant interviews, Manila. 43 Key informant interview, Manila. 44 EE-DAC focus group, Manila.


needs: food, health, water and shelter.45

Education was seen as belonging in the recovery stage and

‗returning to normalcy‘ and not part of the immediate response. Strong advocacy and awareness activities

were needed and are still ongoing on the part of UNICEF and the Education Cluster to bring EiE to the

forefront of DepEd and the emergency response agenda. As one participant said, ―there is a continuous

support of the UNICEF Education Cluster to the DepEd in mainstreaming and having ownership of

education in emergency‖.46

These efforts, led in part by UNICEF, are largely considered to be working,

with EiE taking a more prominent role recently within DepEd, including the development of an EiE

framework, something heavily advocated for by the cluster.47

Strengthening of the Education Cluster at the national and the sub-national levels was supported by the

EEPCT programme. The cluster is co-led by UNICEF and Save the Children on behalf of the international

humanitarian agencies together with the Department of Education as the lead government agency. It

brings together related and relevant government agencies, local and international NGOs and donor

partners. Cluster members include the Department of Social Welfare Development, the Council for the

Welfare of Children, the Office of Civil Defense-National Coordinating Committee, the Philippine Institute

of Volcanology and Seismology, the Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services

Administration, the Philippine National Red Cross, Plan International-Philippines, Children International,

Childfund Philippines, World Vision, Care Philippines, ABS-CBN Foundation Inc., Family Health

International, Center for Disaster Preparedness, and Citizens‘ Disaster Response Center. The support to

the cluster included technical assistance, capacity building and logistics for coordinative meetings.

The interviews with key informants and focus group discussions revealed the collaborative efforts of the

cluster members in avoiding duplication of efforts and reaching wider coverage. Inter-sectoral cluster

collaboration, particularly with protection and WASH clusters, has resulted in integrated services to some

extent for affected children. In Mindanao, the EEPCT programme supported a series of consultations with

local stakeholders, thus providing the Education Cluster members with the information, knowledge and

skills on responding to complex emergencies. In this context 43 Education Cluster members – mostly

local Mindanao stakeholders, Local Government Unit (LGU) representatives, local DepEd officials and

local NGOs as well as Save the Children and the United States Agency for International Development

(USAID) – underwent capacity-building sessions to acquire knowledge and skills in providing education in

complex emergency settings. UNICEF in partnership with Save the Children and other NGOs initiated

interventions to help restore educational services to the affected. The interventions included the building

of temporary learning centres where the joint education and child protection teams conducted learning

sessions combined with psychosocial care and support.48

Advocacy on concerns related to children and school community is strengthened and continued through

cluster activities. When it comes to children and their perspective, the resumption of education itself

contributes in bringing back normalcy and creates an opportunity for psychosocial healing. The Education

Cluster in its activities has sustained its advocacy and mobilization to some extent. The problems

associated with schools being used as evacuation centres drew the attention of the cluster members and

promoted the enforcement of the guidelines limiting the use of schools as evacuation centres and

identification of alternative sites. The Education Cluster initiated dialogue with the protection cluster due

45 Key informant interviews, Manila. 46 EE-DAC focus group, Manila. 47 Key informant interviews, Manila. 48

United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘Progress Evaluation of Education in Emergencies and Post-Transition (EEPCT) programme in the

Philippines: A self-assessment report’, UNICEF, Manila, 23 June 2010.


to the challenge in fulfilling the human rights of both host families / children and displaced school children.

Policies and guidelines on the management of evacuation centres are receiving attention. As expressed

by an interviewee from the NGO sector: ―Why can‘t we influence policy makers to look at the possibility of

using other public centres such as churches in such situations?‖ They were also conscious of the fact that

this involves socio-cultural and religious considerations, but the cluster mechanism has the ability to work

as one voice in addressing such issues.

3.4 Goal Three: Increased education sector contributions to better prediction,

prevention and preparedness for emergencies due to natural disaster and conflict

Goal Three seeks to improve prediction, prevention and preparedness for emergencies. As noted above,

the Philippines is extremely vulnerable to multiple types of natural disasters, including typhoons – causing

mudslides and flooding – volcanic eruptions and earthquakes. In addition, it is the education sector, and

schools in particular, that shelter the populace during these times of emergency. In fact, at the time the

programme began, public schools were mandated to serve as evacuation shelters during ‗calamities‘;

therefore, schools were often interrupted during emergencies to serve the needs of families and

communities.49

Organizations scrambled to set up temporary learning spaces to accommodate children

while their schools were serving as shelters.

Since Typhoon Reming, DRR has been given more attention and focus in the Philippines; DepEd and the

education sector are no exception. Across all three levels (national, regional and community), focus

groups rated the effectiveness of EEPCT-funded interventions as better now than before the programme

began, specifically listing advancements in DRR as the primary reason for this improvement. Members of

the Government and NGOs alike considered the cluster as playing an integral role in pushing forward the

DRR agenda.50

On a national level, UNICEF and the Education Cluster have been advocating for wider

inclusion of DRR into the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) and raising its importance

within DepEd as an issue that needs prioritization. DepEd is currently working on integrating DRR into its

curriculum. As one informant noted: ―Before DRR was not part of school planning but after advocacy and

provision of capacity-building it was slowly integrated and as of today schools are now exerting more

effort in preparedness‖.51

DepEd officials also noted stronger coordination around DRR and increased trainings and drills as key

changes. For example, earthquake drills are now undertaken nationally, and at times simultaneously,

across participating schools, allowing students and schools the chance to practice how to react and

respond in such situations. Further, a DepEd DRR resource manual for teachers was revised and

reprinted through EEPCT support. It is now being distributed to principals at selected schools, although

an implementation plan for its use has not yet been developed.52

From an infrastructure perspective, regional officials positively noted that the use of the LAPUS design

building by UNICEF in its construction projects encouraged other donors to use the multi-purpose,

disaster-resistant design in their projects as well.53

Officials actually referred to the LAPUS design as ‗the

49 United Nations Children’s Fund and Department of Education Philippines, ‘Building Safe Learning Environments for Children Construction Work Plan and Strategy’, UNICEF, Manila, 2007. 50 Key informant interviews and focus groups, Manila. 51 Key informant interview, Manila. 52 Key informant interviews, Manila and Bicol. 53 EE-DAC focus group, Bicol.


UNICEF model‘. UNICEF‘s support for construction of this model may have helped with its visibility and

promotion as it was relatively new when the BSLE project began.

One major limitation mentioned in group discussions and interviews at all three levels was that the focus

thus far has been primarily on responding to disasters rather than increasing preparedness and focusing

on mitigation and reducing risks. As one group described it, DepEd‘s (and more broadly the

Government‘s) approach has been reactive as opposed to proactive.54

Discussions and actions to date

were also reported to be primarily hazard-focused as opposed to vulnerability-focused.

Teachers and principals corroborated observations and reports from the national and regional levels. In

the locales where the impact of disasters is greatest, communities reported that the Government was

better prepared than before and there was a sense that this attention was being supported by larger

budget allocation to DRR in the education sector.55

Educators reported that principals coordinate with the

Government now during times of calamity and that knowledge has increased through conducting drills

and knowing the early warning signs. Teachers noted that they now have alternative ways of conducting

classes during emergencies to assist students in catching up. Many schools reported the use of class

shifting to accommodate all students (evacuees and their own) and to keep classes going during

calamities.56

However, during site visits to 12 schools, only two reported having a DRR plan known by those within the

school community and neither of these had their plan visibly displayed on the school grounds. Both of

these schools participated in the DRR pilot. Many schools reported one-off activities or plans, such as

taking part in emergency drills or having a class-shifting schedule, but not a formal, established plan.

3.4.1 Enhancing School Disaster Preparedness of Selected At-Risk Schools in Albay

project

The Enhancing School Disaster Preparedness of Selected At-Risk Schools in Albay project was an

EEPCT-supported pilot project implemented by Tarabang Para sa Bicol, Inc (TABI), a local NGO

specializing in community-based development projects focused on DRR. Four elementary schools and

two high schools, as well as their surrounding communities, participated in the pilot, which brought these

two sub-communities together and held joint trainings on DRR activities and practices, including first aid,

and culminated with the creation of DRR Councils (or committees) at each school. Bringing together

schools and communities to train in DRR and create joint plans is believed to be a novel approach to

DRR in Bicol Region, with the pilot being the first time this approach was used and implemented.

UNICEF selected the schools, although the implementing partner notes that they would have selected a

wider variety of schools for the pilot: one that included schools in rural and urban locations and those at

risk for multiple hazard types. The schools involved in the pilot were predominantly urban and in typhoon

and volcano zones. Trainings were completed on a half-day basis, with separate trainings for students in

grades 1-3, students in grades 4-6 and then community and school combined. The project lasted for a

very short duration: six months from the time initial discussions were had and three months from the time

54 EE-DAC focus group, Bicol. 55 Focus group discussions, Bicol. 56 Focus group discussions and principal interviews, Bicol.


the proposal was submitted to conclusion. The budget was Php 301,600 (US$6,557), which accounts for

0.24 per cent of the CO‘s total EEPCT funds.57

All focus groups engaged in discussions to assess the effect of the pilot on school experience and

perceptions of safety and quality. Participants reported the programme was effective and appropriate as

an intervention and thought it should be scaled-up widely. Students, educators and community members

on the DRR Councils all reported that their feelings towards school were much better now than before

(averages 4.8; 5; 5 respectively). Educators and parents both felt the quality of education provided at the

school was also much better (average 5; 5), while educators also noted that the quality of the training was

much better (5) as was their ability to teach (4.5). Educators also reported feeling the school‘s ability to

respond to future emergencies was much better (5).

The pilot also seemed successful at promoting community involvement in the school, with DRR Councils

reporting they felt that community involvement in emergency planning was much better than before the

programme (4.8) and that the community‘s ability to address safety and security at the school was also

much better (5).

Similarly, students reported that they felt much better about their ability to protect themselves during an

emergency (4.8) and that their sense of security and safety while at school was much better (4.8). They

specifically referenced learning from the DRR training: feelings of being more aware and alert, knowledge

on what to do during emergencies and knowledge on hazards on their school grounds; only once was the

physical building provided by UNICEF, a LAPUS building in this case, mentioned as a reason for the

increase in safety and security at school. Both boys and girls also reported that their participation in

school was now much better than before (5).

Further, groups at the DRR pilot schools were also asked to list and rank the strengths and weaknesses

of the training. In all, 47 strengths and 41 weaknesses of the programme were provided and ranked. The

combined top five results are found in the table below.

Table 2: Top five strengths and weaknesses of the DRR pilot project identified by

students and DRR Councils

Strengths Frequency Mean rank

Increased knowledge, awareness, and preparedness on calamities and

response 14 1.7

Activities/drills during training 10 3.2

Unity, cooperation, and knowledge sharing between school and community 4 2.8

Learned how can help others during calamities 3 4

Cooperation and stakeholder support 2 1.5

57 Tarabang Para sa Bicol, Inc., ‘Enhancing School-Community Disaster Preparedness of Selected At-Risk Schools in Albay Province’, TABI,

Daranga, 2008.


Weaknesses Frequency Mean rank

Lack of materials and equipment 8 2.5

Lack of sustainability: comprehension check, follow-up, funding 7 2.1

Timing and duration inadequate 7 2.6

Poor/distracting environmental conditions for training 5 3

Too few drills: need more, cover all calamities 5 3

Strengths

Reported strengths of the training focused on the knowledge obtained, increased awareness and

preparedness in response to future calamities, with 14 of the 47 strengths listed (30 per cent) referring to

these areas. Drills and activities carried out during the training, such as the typhoon drills or activities

teaching participants how to use emergency boats (21 per cent) complemented acquired knowledge.

Participants also described the training as promoting unity and cooperation among the school and

community members, as well as other stakeholders, including UNICEF, which facilitated the training.

The training was reported to be empowering for students in particular. Students saw ‗learning how to help

others‘ as a major strength of the project, and examples were cited of students from the pilot schools

volunteering their time and energy in emergency responses to calamities that have occurred since the

training.58

The pilot also provided a mechanism that students could use to teach their fellow classmates,

as well as their parents and other adults, about hazards and how to prevent and prepare for them. At one

school, a student committee elects officers annually to participate in the DRR Council, and they work to

disseminate information to other students and raise awareness on how to be safe during calamities.

Students also become more aware of the hazards on their own school grounds and have taken action to

have these removed – such as the students who petitioned to have weekly garbage pick-up to remove

on-site waste.59

Weaknesses

The most notable critiques of the training were the lack of materials (19.5 per cent), the lack of

sustainability of the pilot (17 per cent) and the limited time of the training (17 per cent). On the last of

these, participants in all groups specifically recommended that the training be extended from one-day to a

multi-day training – outside of class hours – in order to cover more topics and information on a variety of

types of disasters: Tsunami and volcanic-eruptions, which happened in December 2009, were specifically

mentioned.

Sustainability was repeatedly mentioned, as once the trainings occurred there was no support or planned

follow-up to assist with implementation of plans and support of the newly created DRR Councils. As such,

continuity of pilot teachings has largely depended on the efforts of individual students and educators.

58 Student PRM focus groups and key informant interviews, Bicol. 59 Principal interview, Bicol.


Furthermore, due to students graduating and changes in principals and parent-teacher association

membership, there is difficulty with continuity of knowledge and planning. This can be seen, for example,

in the creation and implementation of DRR plans. As noted above, only two of the four (50 per cent) pilot

schools reported having a formal plan. While DRR Councils are active in some capacity, all reported

challenges in moving ahead with implementation of their plans without support and with rotating

membership.

Across focus groups and interviews, the DRR pilot was considered to be a very valuable and important

experience that should be expanded and built upon, be more comprehensive in its focus and duration,

and offered to all within the school community rather than a select few. All participants reported an

increase in awareness of disasters and knowledge of what to do before and during their occurrence.

Community members in particular stated an increased awareness of the needs of students, educators

and schools during calamities.

The lack of tools and materials – even receipt of manuals – made it difficult for schools and communities

to move forward with plans to share what they had learned. The pilot also relied heavily on the support of

volunteers, primarily social work students from the local university. While involving students is an

innovative manner to engage them in the communities, encourage ownership and spread interest in DRR,

participant groups reported a need for expert trainers with a high degree of knowledge on the subject

matter in future trainings.

3.5 Goal Four: Evidence-based policies, efficient operational strategies and fit-for-

purpose financing instruments for education in emergencies and post-crisis

situations

3.5.1 Evidence-based policies

BSLE began in response to the Typhoon Reming emergency. A baseline was not conducted for the

projects, nor have there been evaluations or assessments since it began. Further, best practices and

lessons learned have not been documented. This creates a gap in providing evidence for future policy

and implementation. For instance, the current construction of day-care centres faces several challenges

and at the time of the evaluation was past schedule without a clear timeframe for completion. The CO has

since reported, in November 2010, that day-care centre construction is complete. Documentation on the

success and challenges from the first phase of construction might have offered lessons for completing the

current phase of construction.

Similarly, the lack of documentation of the DRR pilot presents a missed opportunity to use findings from

the pilot in advocating and creating a DRR framework to mainstream within the DepEd curriculum,

something that UNICEF and the cluster have been encouraging.

3.5.2 Financial instruments

The bidding and procurement process established with BSLE, modelled after that of the World Bank, was

considered the fastest process used by the main implementing partner.60

The financing structure did not,

however, make accommodations in advance for value-added tax (VAT). VAT is paid by the implementing

partner; however, in this case the funds were not projected in advance of the budget being created.

60 Key informant interview, Manila.


Funds to pay contractors cannot be released in advance of the VAT being paid. Moreover, UNICEF‘s

financial system does not allow additional funding to be disbursed until previous funds are liquidated. The

time taken to resolve this issue, which meant the unreleased tranche two funds delayed the dispensing of

tranche three, held up implementation and necessitated repetition of work such as site selection and

validation of schools.61

VAT is a common challenge for overseas development assistance in the

Philippines and can be foreseen and mitigated against. Other donors include VAT arrangements in

memorandums of understanding to avoid experiences like these.

Further investigation into the financial mechanisms and procedures used to implement BLSE, particularly

the day-care centres project, was limited due to constraints mentioned in section 2.5 Limitations of the

methodology.

3.5.3 Flexibility of funding

Many key informant interviews with different stakeholders highlighted the fact that the ‗flexibility‘ of the

Netherlands funding was the key to the success of the EEPCT programme. This observation was made

taking into consideration the given complexity of an emergency where quick decision-making and

response to unanticipated circumstances were crucial in addressing felt needs of the community. In fact

the statement made by a key informant substantiates this finding. ―We trust UNICEF, which has a proven

track record. Once the decision to fund is made then it is the responsibility of the receiving party to live up

to the expectations and address assessed needs. This means there is no need for micro management.

Hence the flexibility associated with the funds‖.62

3.6 OECD DAC criteria

As noted above, the evaluation was informed by the OECD-DAC criteria for evaluating development assistance: relevance/ appropriateness, effectiveness, efficiency, coherence and coordination, and sustainability and connectedness.

3.6.1 Relevance/ appropriateness

UNICEF reports that the 2006 typhoon destroyed

some 7,000 public primary and secondary schools

and more than 600 day-care centres. This affected

the ability of more than 470,000 school children and

21,500 pre-schoolers to attend school/centres.63

Given the massive destruction of the education

system in this region, the construction and DRR

interventions undertaken with EEPCT funds are

relevant and appropriate. Stakeholders consulted

agreed (average score of 3.7). However, it is

important to note that DepEd has the capacity

(including designs for schools and engineers) to

undertake school construction on its own through the Educational Development Projects Implementing

Task Force (EDPITAF). As such, school construction might have been a more relevant and appropriate

61 Key informant interviews, Manila. 62 Key informant interview, Manila. 63 UNICEF Philippines Revised Logframe.

3.9 3.6 3.6

012345

Community Educators

Subnational National

Chart 1: Relevance/Appropriateness


response for DepEd with UNICEF providing technical support that included building-up monitoring and

reporting capacities.

Improved programmes and training were mentioned by groups at all three levels as reasons for

improvements in access to EiE and retention of students. To further develop these areas, expansion of

these programmes was recommended, as were support for social protection and psychosocial

programmes for teachers and students to assist with the quality of EiE responses.64

3.6.2 Effectiveness

EEPCT supported the construction of classrooms at 87

schools including the construction of 12 LAPUS

buildings and 24 two-classroom buildings, as well as

enabling 53 schools to benefit from repair/rehabilitation

to existing structures. EEPCT is also supporting the

construction of 30 day-care centres and providing

supplies to 85. However, inconsistencies in the quality

of construction of the schools (detailed in Goal One)

and delays hampering the completion of the day-care

centres limit the effectiveness of the programme.

Focus groups at all three levels rated effectiveness as

better now than before the EEPCT programme began (average score 4.1) and specifically listed

advancements in DRR as the primary reason for this improvement, notably the increased profile and use

of the LAPUS design; heightened recognition of EiE and DRR, including increased drills and training; and

reported improvements in coordination at all levels between the Government, NGOs, UN and schools and

communities. Community educators in particular reported feeling that both the Government and

communities were now better prepared for and able to respond to emergencies. Focus group reported the

DRR pilot programme as effective and appropriate as an intervention and thought it should be further

developed and scaled-up widely.

Recommendations from participants to improve effectiveness focused on implementation and

operationalization of existing laws in prevention and recovery; expanding early warning systems;

continuing to improve coordination; and better integration of DRR and EiE into budgets, curriculum and

school plans. It was noted that in order for the Government‘s response to be more effective, a proactive

approach to preparation, risk reduction and mitigation is needed, as opposed to the current focus on

response.

3.6.3 Efficiency

Overall, stakeholders at the national and regional levels reported that the programme has improved

efficiency. Stakeholders at the community level reported efficiency had stayed the same. Of note, five of

nine groups opted to not compare EEPCT to other similar programming, either for lack of a comparable

programme to judge efficiency (DRR pilot) or on principle, as the programme is intended to promote

coordination and cooperation, not competition.

64 EE-DAC focus groups, Manila.

4 4.3 4

012345

Community Educators


Chart 2: Effectiveness


4 4

012345


Chart 5: Coherence and Coordination

Suggestions to improve efficiency of programming

included greater involvement in and awareness of the

programme among communities and the documentation

of good practices and lessons learned. It was also

suggested that introducing DRR and EiE into teacher

training would improve programming and response in

these areas at school levels.

3.6.4 Coherence and coordination

As noted in the discussion under Goal Two, a

significant accomplishment of the EEPCT programme

was the establishment of the humanitarian cluster for

education. Since the establishment of this body,

communication and coordination have improved and

programmatic overlap has been reduced. Cluster

members have worked together to standardize

emergency response approaches. This has also

increased the coordination role of DepEd. Stakeholders at both the national and regional level reported

that coherence and coordination were ‗better‘. That said, greater communication on the cluster, its role

and the INEE minimum standards are needed in order to generate more awareness on their existence

(five groups were not familiar with these) and increase implementation.

3.6.5 Sustainability and connectedness

Sustainability of construction projects was facilitated

through a maintenance programme, though the

evaluation found that the ‗right‘ people –that is, those

actually involved in maintaining the classrooms – were

not always targeted for training and not all schools were

aware of maintenance processes. The DRR pilot was a

stand-alone project that was not meant to be

sustainable. More details can be found under section

3.7 Cross-cutting issues.

Groups across all levels mentioned a need for increased

monitoring and evaluation to improve sustainability,

particularly in a more systematic manner, and the need for typhoon-resistant core shelters to serve as

evacuation centres as an alternative to schools. A proactive, instead of reactive, approach to disaster

response on the part of the Government was again mentioned as important for sustainability.

Lastly, an observation across all levels of data collection is the generally positive nature of participant

responses, particularly those involving scales. Although explanations and recommendations on questions

were often critical of performance to date and suggested areas for improvement, scored answers were

mostly positive – even if this did not align with the explanations for the response. One possible reason is

that in some instances it was mentioned that the before and after comparison involved comparing not

3

4.84.2

012345

Community Educators


Chart 4: Efficiency

3.56254.3 3.7727

012345

Community Educators


Chart 6: Sustainability and Connectedness


having anything in that area before with a programme being developed; thus, things are considered better

even if there are shortcomings to be improved upon.

Whatever shortcomings or weaknesses emerge from the findings should be placed in the context of the

challenges of an emergency situation and the complexity of operational implications. This is especially so

in the case of the Philippines, given its geographical spread and vulnerability to frequent natural disasters

in the context of limited education sector staff at the CO and the absence of sub-offices in the regions. It

poses a challenge for systematic monitoring and reporting on project interventions. However, the close

collaboration with DepEd as a strategic partner in the process of implementation, complemented by the

cluster members, appears to have contributed to a great extent to the achievements to date. This

collaboration could be further strengthened for systematic monitoring and reporting with regard to the

indicators identified in the Revised Results Framework.

3.7 Cross-cutting issues

The evaluation in the Philippines examined five cross-cutting issues: gender, rights-based programming,

DRR, sensitivity to conflict and fragility, and accountability, monitoring, evaluation and learning. Cross-

cutting issues were considered throughout research, via the tools and methods, with areas more relevant

to the Philippines programming given more consideration.

3.7.1 Gender

In the Philippines, as reported by all participants, gender imbalances in education leave boys

disadvantaged as compared to girls.65

Net enrolment rates are similar at the elementary school level,

estimated at 91 per cent for boys and 93 per cent for girls between 2003–2008; yet these change

significantly by secondary schools, estimated at 55 per cent for boys and 66 per cent for girls within the

same time period.66

Drop-out rates for boys are also higher than those for girls: 8.62 per cent and 6 per

cent respectively in 2006.67

This is reported to be mostly economically driven, with boys being taken out

(or dropping out) of school more often than girls to work and assist with family finances.68

The evaluation

team thus modified all gender-related questions to inquire about girls and boys separately with the aim of

capturing any differences (see Annex V).

Many of the focus groups reported that boys had a higher drop-out rate.69

All said that retention rates

were better since the programme began, except for educators who reported that while rates for girls had

improved, they had remained the same for boys.70

However, these changes were not directly attributable

to the EEPCT-funded programmes.

The Education Section at UNICEF Philippines is considered one of the more gender-sensitive units at the

CO, earning a ‗B‘ score on internal reviews for its gender programming, including the EEPCT-supported

programmes, equating with a gender-sensitive description (an ‗A‘ score signifying gender-responsive).71

Their gender-disaggregated data is considered to be a major strength. Outside of this, the evaluation

65 Key informant interviews, EE-DAC focus groups and educator and parent focus group discussions and principal interviews, Manila and Bicol. 66 United Nations Children’s Fund, ‘At a Glance: Philippines’, <www.unicef.org/infobycountry/philippines_statistics.html#67>. 67 United Nations Development Programme, ‘Philippines Midterm Progress Report on the Millennium Development Goals’, UNDP, 2007. 68 Key informant interviews, EE-DAC focus groups, educator focus group discussions and principal interviews, Manila and Bicol. 69 EE-DAC focus groups, educator focus group discussions, Manila and Bicol. 70 Key informant interviews , EE-DAC focus groups, educator focus group discussions and principal interviews, Manila and Bicol. 71 United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘GAD Monitoring Report – Classification of ODA Projects by Gender-Responsiveness’, UNICEF, Manila, 2007.


found a mixed response in terms of gender in programme implementation. At the national level, UNICEF

organized gender-sensitivity training for the Education Cluster. However, separate toilets for girls and

boys – a core gender indicator – was not widely or consistently implemented at community level. The

LAPUS buildings and the day-care centres had gender-split toilet facilities constructed, but other schools

receiving construction and repairs did not (see Goal One findings for more detail). Gender-split toilets

were reportedly not advocated for, nor considered a priority.72

3.7.2 Rights-based approach

A rights-based approach to programming was considered from the level of community involvement in the

construction process.

The BSLE: The Safe Schools Project was implemented using DepEd‘s ‗principal-led approach‘ whereby

principals and a committee of parents and teachers help oversee the construction process. This includes

bidding on materials and monitoring the construction itself. Several schools (four of nine) reported not

being involved in the construction process.73

Those that were involved reported their involvement to have

been primarily in monitoring. Most of these were schools that received a LAPUS building. These

educators also reported being called into a meeting before the start of construction and having the

process and their involvement explained. Schools receiving other types of assistance did not report a

similar experience. Educators and parents attributed many of the weaknesses in construction to their lack

of participation.

The Emergency Support for Day-Care Centres Project followed a vastly different model than the Safe

Schools Project. Each day-care centre site was allotted a specific amount of funding, and communities

were responsible for leveraging the remainder needed to construct the centre. At the one day-care centre

visited, the community had formed a procurement committee responsible for deciding what materials to

purchase and from which buyer, preparing and placing purchase orders and monitoring construction. At

this particular centre, the community had even requested changes in the design prior to construction –

such as having a flattop roof, which is more durable than iron sheeting, and relocating the toilets – which

were then accommodated into the final design.74

3.7.3 Disaster risk reduction

Disaster risk reduction (DRR) is a cross-cutting issue in all EEPCT-funded implementation in the

Philippines. It is integrated into the construction projects, the training pilot and the policy support and

advocacy undertaken with the Government. Findings under Goal Three address in detail the extent to

which DRR not only cross-cuts EEPCT programming in the country but takes on a central role.

3.7.4 Sensitivity to conflict and fragility

The BSLE programme has helped promote the construction of hazard-resistant structures in one of the

most vulnerable regions in the Philippines. It has also strengthened and increased the focus on DRR

within government nationally and regionally, and within schools.

72 Key informant interviews, Manila. 73 Focus groups discussions and principal interviews, Bicol. 74 Key informant interviews, Bicol.


UNICEF Philippines will turn its focus to EiE during conflict in 2010 as EEPCT-supported programming

begins in Mindanao.

3.7.5 Accountability, monitoring, evaluation and learning

Tracking of construction and supply provision at UNICEF was inadequate and incomplete; there was no

centralized and updated database for efficient monitoring. A particular issue noted by the evaluation team

was the lack of an accurate list of schools supported available at the time of the evaluation, which led to

repeated re-sampling of schools and time delays. There is better tracking of the day-care centre project,

with more information available for each site, although work on the centres has been prolonged without a

set timeframe for completion.

Given the above context, the arrangement made by UNICEF in appointing an engineering consultant for

monitoring BSLE at the partner level is considered a noteworthy effort towards quality control. DepEd

reported particular appreciation and support for having the engineer consultant counterpart to help

monitor construction as other donors are said to simply provide the grant and ask for feedback later.75

Having a partner reportedly assisted with the checks and balances during implementation.

Documentation on best practices leaves much to be desired. Staff reported this was unfortunate as there

was much anecdotal evidence for parent-community participation related to the construction, but the

inadequate documentation of these activities leaves a void in knowing how and what contributed to these

seeming good practices. For example, during construction of earlier day-care centres funded by the

Swedish International Development Cooperation Agency (Sida), UNICEF provided funding to

communities who were expected to contribute some of their own resources to construct the centres.

Communities reportedly did so in different ways worthy of documenting and sharing for future

construction. A consolidated lessons-learned process or documentation is helpful not only for planning

future project interventions but also to avoid missed learning opportunities. A key informant from the

communication unit noted that future efforts may include joint field visits to capture specific experiences in

the different sectors, including project interventions by EEPCT.76

This can be considered a step in the

right direction.

A documentalist / journalist have recently been engaged for the purpose of documenting project

experiences / best practices. This has led to the production of two videos on the EiE response in

Southern Luzon featuring the impact of the disasters on children and communities, the rehabilitation

efforts made in selected schools and DRR initiatives being supported at the school level.77

The CO

collaborated in the process.

According to the focus groups there was hardly any monitoring or follow-up on the DRR pilot, nor was an

evaluation planned upon completion.78

This has led to a missed opportunity to document best practices

and lessons learned on an innovative and unique programme.79

Inadequate documentation, of both best practices and lessons learned, creates a gap in future

programme learning. UNICEF – as well as their cluster partners – hopes to use the experiences in Bicol

75 Key informant interviews, Manila. 76 Key Informant Interviews, CO, Manila 77 United Nations Children’s Fund, Philippines, ‘Progress Evaluation of Education in Emergencies and Post-Transition (EEPCT) programme in the Philippines: A self-assessment report’, UNICEF, Manila, 23 June 2010 78 Key informant interviews, focus groups discussions, Manila and Bicol. 79 Since the evaluation, as of November 2010, UNICEF is now reporting follow-up discussions on possible scale-up of the pilot.


as a basis for application of learning towards the Mindanao interventions. Thus, the process is currently at

the ‗development stage‘, seeking to engage consultants to synthesize feedback from cluster partners and

inputs into a framework that can then be disseminated and operationalized.

3.8 Operational issues and management

3.8.1 Evidence base and learning

No baselines or evaluations of the programme and its projects have been conducted. The lack of these,

as well as documented best practices and lessons learned, poses a challenge to evidence-based learning

and feedback loops into policy and advocacy.

Based on key informant interviews, the procurement of supplies and decision-making on the contents of

school kits involves a community feedback loop whereby community members and recipients provide

feedback on the content of the kits and their quality, which are then reviewed and modified as needed.80

Further, UNICEF reportedly gathers its implementing partners twice a year to review work plans and

share lessons learned, but this is done at the higher level and does not involve communities.

3.8.2 Sustainability and exit strategy

BSLE does not include an exit strategy. For the Safe Schools Project, maintenance training was

conducted targeting principals and physical facilities coordinators, though consultations show that the

teachers and students using the buildings maintain them. These trainings were regarded by UNICEF as

an informal handover. Interviews also revealed that not all schools, including principals, were aware of the

maintenance and repair processes associated with the buildings. Further, repairs to LAPUS buildings that

incur damage from hosting evacuees are the responsibility of the schools. Many schools were observed

with damaged or dysfunctional facilities (e.g., sinks) in buildings that had not been reported or there were

no plans to repair.

The DRR pilot resulted in a stand-alone programme with no follow-up activities, and no plan to grow the

programme and reach a self-sustaining level. Results have varied greatly and are heavily dependent on

commitment from school administration, educators, students and community members – all positions with

high turnover.

3.8.3 Monitoring and reporting: Country Office‟s response to EEPCT‟s revised logframe

As part of this global evaluation, the Chiefs of UNICEF Education Section and Evaluation Office

requested all EEPCT-funded countries and territories to use a revised logframe to report on the results of

their respective country education programmes.81

The Education Section provided guidance notes to

assist COs with this request.

80 Key informant interviews, Manila. 81 The EEPCT Programme Review and Evaluability Study (2010) noted shortcomings in the EEPCT’s monitoring and reporting and developed a

logframe and set of indicators, which was modified by UNICEF Education Section based on the original proposal and used as a component of

this evaluation. The evaluation’s Terms of Reference stipulated that this revised logframe be used as a component of this independent

evaluation


Overall, the CO was able to report figures related to its accomplished activities, including supplies

provided, classrooms receiving assistance and trainings held. Through these activities, the CO reported

the number of students benefiting from the assistance provided through EEPCT, and an estimated

percentage coverage of assistance compared to the total need. The CO was also able to report on

changes in school completion rates. However, the CO was not able to report the percentage changes in

access to learning during emergencies or in numbers of students out of school. As for the logframe

indicators, only the per cent assisted were included. None of the reported results were disaggregated by

gender.

Further, the CO was able to report on increases in their own education budget, as well as that of

DepEd‘s, but could not give a detailed breakdown – for instance, to report on the change in percentage of

financing allotted specifically to learning materials. The CO was able to report in more detail on outputs

relating to policy, advocacy and development of the cluster, demonstrating chronological development of

certain projects.

In all, the comprehensiveness required to address the indicators in the logframe was not possible on most

points. It is important to recall that the CO had not previously received this version of the logframe and

was thus working to address indicators not identified at the start of the project.

3.9 Partnerships

BSLE has two primary implementing partners: DepEd for the Safe Schools Project and the Department of

Social Welfare and Development for the Emergency Support for Day-Care Centres Project. While both

departments had previously been UNICEF partners, BSLE has reportedly helped strengthen these

partnerships and has grown and fostered a stronger, more productive relationship between UNICEF and

the Government, including UNICEF support of DepEd‘s coordination role in the cluster, which is tri-

chaired between UNICEF, Save the Children and DepEd. UNICEF and Habitat for Humanity Philippines

also partnered on providing assistance to six schools as part of the Safe Schools Project.

The cluster has reportedly facilitated a better relationship between UNICEF and NGOs, providing a

platform for coordination and discussion. Although Save the Children and UNICEF co-chair the cluster

and work in partnership in EiE response, they do not yet have a formalized relationship via a

memorandum of understanding, though this process is underway.

The partnership with TABI to implement the DRR pilot in Bicol is the main ‗new‘ partnership that

developed from the EEPCT funds. This partnership concentrated most of its focus on the pilot and less on

capacity building and creating linkages. TABI – an organization that does community and not education

work – was reportedly not provided with any support or direction for the pilot, including no provisions or

financial support for staffing or technical capacity, nor were they connected with other UNICEF partners

or the Education Cluster – a lost opportunity to build on the innovation of the project itself by linking new

sectors towards a common goal.


4.0 THE WAY FORWARD

4.1 Lessons learned and conclusions

EEPCT supported the construction or rehabilitation of classrooms at 87 schools: 72 elementary schools

and 15 high schools. School communities reported that the new or newly repaired classrooms were

improvements to previously available structures. EEPCT is also supporting the construction of 30 day-

care centres and providing supplies to 85. Based on a visit to one community that received a centre, it

was found that beneficiaries were very pleased with the quality and construction of the building, and any

weaknesses identified centred on the size of the structure and the need for added structural items, such

as a fence or stage.

UNICEF‘s programming is considered effective and appropriate by stakeholders. Specifically, it has

improved access to and the quality of EiE, although it has not had a direct effect on enrolment figures.

The Education Cluster in particular has improved coherence and coordination within the sector. The

ability and response capacity of both the Government and the education sector to support and respond to

education in emergencies programming is considered better than before EEPCT-supported interventions

were implemented.

Furthermore, EEPCT has been instrumental in establishing, developing and supporting the Education

Cluster in the Philippines. Through support and guidance from UNICEF, a greater understanding of the

importance of as well as emphasis on EiE has developed within the DepEd, which now chairs the cluster

with UNICEF and Save the Children. The cluster has facilitated communication between stakeholders

and improved coordination and efficiency in emergency response. However, these can continue to be

improved, as can awareness of and clarity on the cluster‘s existence and role among stakeholders at all

levels. There is currently little awareness of the INEE minimum standards. There is a need to implement

and integrate these into existing standards in the Philippines.

Lastly, EEPCT has helped support the growth and focus on DRR within DepEd, particularly in response

to the many natural disasters experienced annually. A DRR resource manual for teachers has been

revised and printed, and there are ongoing efforts to integrate DRR into the DepEd curriculum. Focus to

date, however, reportedly remains primarily on response and has yet to fully transition to advance

preparedness and prevention. The DRR pilot was well-received by all who took part. Participants reported

increased knowledge and awareness about potential threats to their communities and how to respond.

The EEPCT programme also played a substantial role in giving the EiE sector a voice in the Philippines.

UNICEF has played a pivotal role in increasing attention to EiE in the country and making it a priority.

UNICEF‘s brand value contributed strongly to this improvement. Its credibility across levels – nationally

with the Government, among civil society and in communities – facilitated the growth of the sector and

helped move its agenda forward. UNICEF‘s focus on EiE placed weight and importance on the sector and

its initiatives as well as facilitating the work of NGO partners. Through the cluster, a unified voice to

advocate for and promote EiE and DRR in education came into being and the sector gained critical

momentum that can be difficult to build in the Philippines. These advances have resulted in better

response in the sector as a whole through improved coordination and communication.

These actions were possible through the substantial financial support and flexibility EEPCT provided to

UNICEF Philippines. EEPCT increased UNICEF‘s stature and position within the education sector,

making it a key player and giving it a crucial ‗seat at the table‘ from which to advocate and support policy.


Thus, while the lasting impact of EEPCT remains to be seen, as of this evaluation it has clearly changed

the way EiE is viewed and the way in which response is approached.

However, the cluster is reportedly still highly dependent on UNICEF funding and support, including the

partial assignment of a staff member to manage cluster needs. For the cluster to carry on beyond

UNICEF support and EEPCT funding, a plan for sustainability is needed and steps taken in advance to

transition well to that state.

Through BSLE and the Safe Schools Project, UNICEF supported construction of schools through DepEd,

which has an entire section dedicated to classroom construction. UNICEF support enabled faster and

better construction of buildings than might otherwise have occurred. The Safe Schools Project also

helped scale-up construction of the typhoon-resistant LAPUS school building. DepEd is now

recommending allocating funds in budgets for these models in typhoon-prone areas. Further, it

appreciated UNICEF‘s active involvement, predominantly through an engineer hired as a contractor for

the construction process, rather than contributing funds and asking for end results. This approach to the

partnership was considered a good experience. It is important to note, however, that DepEd has its own

designs, engineers and capacity for such projects – albeit of varying paces and qualities – and thus to

consider where UNICEF‘s unique talents and efforts are best positioned, such as the provision of

technical support and strengthening of DepEd monitoring and reporting systems.

There were several quality control concerns reported by schools and communities regarding both quality

of materials and the construction work done by the hired contractors. School communities reported

feeling disengaged from the process and not consulted, despite plans to follow the principal-led approach

promoted by DepEd. A broader effort to include communities in these projects, from the earliest stages in

determining the type of assistance and repairs needed, would help address this gap and assist with

quality control issues. Transparency in the process of selecting schools and determining the level of

assistance to be received would also promote a better understanding of the intentions of the project, what

is being delivered and how, and promote greater inclusiveness.

Inadequacies in monitoring and tracking of project implementation were found to be a matter of concern

during the course of the evaluation, even though at the later stages steps have been taken to address

such issues. However, it was noted that no baselines or assessments were conducted prior to or

evaluations since project implementation. A lack of a centralized database to track school construction

and repairs contributed to inaccurate lists of activities and results. Such factors contributed to additional

limitations and challenges to the evaluation.

The DRR pilot represented new innovations in bringing schools and community members together for

joint DRR training, resulting in the creation of DRR Councils that bring together the different school and

community stakeholders to plan and prepare for future emergencies together. This prompted a greater

awareness of each other‘s needs – an issue of importance as schools are taken over as evacuation

centres during calamities. However, positive advances made during the short trainings were stunted due

to a lack of follow-up and support. Consideration for scale-up and sustainability would have greatly

benefited the pilot. The pilot also lacked documentation and available pre- and post-data. Future

programming, particularly new and innovative ideas such as this pilot, would greatly benefit from

documentation by which results can be evaluated and shared.


4.2 Recommendations The strengths and challenges faced in implementing the first three years of EEPCT in the Philippines

have yielded positive results, as well as lessons to learn from and carry forward in the final years of the

programme, particularly as UNICEF and the Education Cluster shift focus to the complex emergency in

Mindanao. The following recommendations, specified for UNICEF or its government partner – primarily

DepEd – build on the findings and suggestions from interviews and focus groups. They suggest ways to

continue to grow and develop the EiE sector and activities within it, as well as to continue to improve

coordination and an appropriate, effective, efficient and sustainable response within it.

4.2.1 Government – Department of Education RECOMMENDATION: Support and construct typhoon-resistant buildings, such as core shelters,

community centres or churches, to serve as evacuation centres instead of schools.

The use of schools as primary evacuation centres is highly disruptive to students and educators alike and

poses threats to the quality and effectiveness of the education received by pupils who reside in high-risk

areas that experience multiple disruptions within a year. Building typhoon-resistant school buildings, such

as the LAPUS design – even if they are only intended to serve as ‗transit centres‘ – encourages further

use of schools as evacuation sites unless there are other, equivalent alternatives. Evidence shows the

damage to schools from hosting evacuees on multiple occasions, even since the start of EEPCT.

Although programmes and plans to accommodate extra ‗evacuee‘ students and rotate schedules to share

facilities with the school and community were witnessed, the use of schools as evacuation sites is not

recommended and runs contrary to the child-friendly schools concept.

RECOMMENDATION: Take a proactive approach to DRR and prioritize prevention and preparedness, using a vulnerability model rather than one that is hazards-based. Credible and impressive strides have been made in the DRR realm by the Government recently, and

particularly within the education sector. DepEd‘s simultaneous, national drills prove a good example of

this commitment. To date, however, many of these efforts have focused more on response as opposed to

prevention, preparedness and actually reducing risks. Stakeholders repeatedly referred to this approach

as ‗reactive‘.

RECOMMENDATION: Prioritize the inclusion of EiE and DRR in the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda and disseminate curriculum down to the school level. Steps already initiated towards developing an EiE framework, which includes DRR, to be included within

the Basic Education Sector Reform Agenda (BESRA) should be prioritized and strengthened. This will

help signal the prioritization of the education of children during emergencies and demonstrate leadership

in DRR within education, encouraging schools to incorporate DRR plans in their school improvement

plans. Planning for emergency conditions is of particular importance given the frequent natural disasters

and the conflict situations in various regions of the country.

RECOMMENDATION: Include details on VAT payments and process in Memoranda of Understanding with partners in advance of beginning implementation to avoid delays and confusion.


The issue of value-added tax (VAT) is not specific to this programme, nor to the partners involved. Yet,

given the delays caused by time taken to resolve VAT-related challenges and the ability to anticipate the

need to pay VAT annually on assistance received, a proactive approach to avoiding these challenges can

enhance the efficiency and smoothness of programme implementation.

4.2.2 UNICEF Country Office

The strength of UNICEF‘s emergency response work via EEPCT is evidenced through the positive

impressions and feedback from community members and partners. With minimal staff, the CO Education

Section has implemented a large programme from which thousands of students benefited. Moving

forward, to continue to grow and improve the programme in the Philippines, there are critical gaps that

can be addressed through implementing the following recommendations in order to strengthen both the

EEPCT-supported work and education initiatives more broadly.

RECOMMENDATION: Improve tracking, documentation and monitoring and evaluation

While monitoring and reporting, particularly at the partner level, is taking place within BSLE, there is a

need for a systematic approach to tracking support provided and improve transparency in the process,

particularly surrounding where and how funds are being utilized. With the value that the CO places on

translating learning from one location and emergency to another, institutionalizing evaluation plans from

start to finish, including strong monitoring and tracking of assistance in the interim, and prioritization of

documentation of lessons learned and best practices, possibly at annual work plan reviews, could serve

as an invaluable tool to strengthen EiE response in the Philippines and UNICEF‘s leadership role in the

sector. Due to the size of this project, it would potentially require engaging a specific person as a

monitoring and evaluation focal point within the Education Section, and working closely with the CO

monitoring and evaluation specialist.

RECOMMENDATION: Prioritize gender in all aspects of implementation – both structural and non-structural – and translate this prioritization into programming that caters to the needs of each gender, by age group, particularly in the EiE sector. A stronger prioritization on gender, and differences as applicable within the education field, is necessary

to meet UNICEF‘s gender policies for equity and equality. Structurally, this particularly means advocating

for and prioritizing gender in the WASH sector. Non-structurally, there is great awareness of the gender

imbalances in education and calls were repeatedly heard for more action in this area. Through EEPCT,

UNICEF is well positioned to help address this gap.

RECOMMENDATION: Prioritize community involvement in all programming from the very start to improve ownership, build local capacities and increase transparency and understanding of assistance. Greater involvement of communities in implementing the Safe Schools Project was a noted gap. On the

other hand, it would be useful to consider whether lessons and good practices could be documented from

the Day-Care Centre Project model. Looking forward, UNICEF should work to strengthen mechanisms for

community participation in the planning, implementation and evaluation processes and work with partners

to build and strengthen similar structures within their organizational plans. This will also facilitate better

understanding of programmes, more community ownership and greater transparency of the objectives

and process of the assistance.


RECOMMENDATION: Use UNICEF‟s position of leadership to build inter-sectoral linkages within its different sections and then beyond to improve the quality and capacity of emergency response. To date, UNICEF‘s approach to EiE has been very compartmentalized. Integration with other sectors,

particularly those that closely relate or overlap, is needed to enhance EiE response. Initial steps in this

direction have begun with the Education and Protection Sections. UNICEF needs to demonstrate better

inter-sectoral linkages within the agency to credibly push for this approach externally among clusters and

partners. Accomplishing this is critical to improving the emergency response, as communities at present

are being approached individually by many sectors within the same organization to provide different

pieces of assistance. As one interviewee aptly stated, from the community‘s perspective it‘s one child not

one sector multiple times over.

RECOMMENDATION: Continue to promote and advocate around the Education Cluster to enhance understanding of its role and around the INEE minimum standards. Much progress has been made in establishing and growing the Education Cluster. Via the cluster, the

INEE minimum standards were introduced at the national DepEd level for the first time in the Philippines.

Greater knowledge and awareness about the cluster and the minimum standards is needed across all

levels and stakeholders to truly benefit from these two mechanisms. Further advocacy is needed to

increase understanding of the role of the Education Cluster and EiE in general. In addition, promotion of

the INEE minimum standards is needed to improve understanding of their applicability and integration into

DepEd standards, particularly as they relate to DRR.


REFERENCES

Bignell, P., ‗Typhoon Durian Leaves 1,000 Dead in Philippines Chaos‘, The Independent, 4 December

2006, <www.independent.co.uk/news/world/asia/typhoon-durian-leaves-1000-dead-in-philippines-chaos-

426933.html>, accessed 4 November 2010.

Center for Disaster Preparedness, Mainstreaming Disaster Risk Reduction in the Education Sector in the

Philippines, CDP, Manila, 2008.

Commission on Audit Philippines, Audit Report on UNICEF-Supported Projects: Implemented by the

Department of Education, OSEC and EDPITAF, 2009, Quezon City, 2009.

Department of Education Philippines, Department of Education: Facts and figures, Department of

Education, 22 September 2009,

<www.deped.gov.ph/cpanel/uploads/issuanceImg/Factsheet2009%20Sept%2022.pdf>, accessed 30

September 2009.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee - Education Cluster, Rapid Needs Assessment Form, no date.

Educational Development Projects Implementing Task Force, Building Safe Learning Environment for

Students - Safe Schools Project Phase II Project Completion Report, Philippines Department of

Education, Manila, 2009.

Educational Development Projects Implementing Task Force, Building Safe Learning Environment for

Students - Safe Schools Project Phase III Project Completion Report, Philippines Department of

Education, Manila, 2010.

Esteban, P., and Fabian, D., Briefing on The Philippine Disaster Management System, 2004,

<www.pctc.gov.ph/updates/tpdms.htm>, accessed 1 November 2010.

Global Campaign for Education, Back to School: Worst places in the world, Global Campaign for

Education, Saxonwold, South Africa, 2010.

Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Women, Girls, Boys, Men: Different Needs-Equal Opportunities:

Gender Handbook in Humanitarian Action, Inter-Agency Standing Committee, Geneva, 2006.

Internal Displacement Monitoring Centre and the Norwegian Refugee Council, Cycle of Conflict and

Neglect: Mindanao’s displacement and protection crisis, October 2009,

<www.reliefweb.int/rw/RWFiles2009.nsf/FilesByRWDocUnidFilename/VVOS-7WNLMS-

full_report.pdf/$File/full_report.pdf>, accessed 4 November 2010.

Moselina, L. M., Ramos-Llana, M., and Wilson, A. C., Strategic Moment of Reflection Meeting of the

UNICEF Philippines Country Office, United Nations Children‘s Fund, Manila, 2010.

National Statistics Office, ‗Final Results - 2007 Census of Population‘, Population and Annual Growth

Rates for Region, Provinces and Highly Urbanized Cities Based on Censuses 1995, 2000 and 2007,

<www.census.gov.ph/data/census2007/index.html>, accessed 30 September 2010.


National Statistics Office and ORC Macro, ‗National Demographic and Health Survey [NDHS] 2003‘,

National Statistics Office, Manila and ORC Macro, Calverton, MD, October, 2004.

Oxfam GB, and United Nations Children‘s Fund, Learning Workshop on Disaster Management: Picking

lessons from the Leyte experience. UNICEF, Oxfam, Manila, 2006.

Polastro, Riccardo, Roa, Bernado, and Steen, Nicolai, Inter-Agency Real Time Evaluation (IA-RTE) of the

Humanitarian Response to Typhoons Ketsana and Parma in the Philippines, Dara International, April

2010.

Tarabang Para sa Bicol, Inc., Enhancing Disaster Preparedness of Selected Schools in Albay Province

Narrative Report, TABI, Daranga, 2009.

Tarabang Para sa Bicol, Inc., Enhancing School-Community Disaster Preparedness of Selected At-Risk

Schools in Albay Province – Project proposal, TABI, Daranga, 2008.

The Technical Working Group on Disaster Preparedness of the Department of Education, Disaster Risk

Reduction Resource Manual, Department of Education, Manila, 2008.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, UNICEF Gender Audit – Recommendations, UNICEF, New York, 2010.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, UNICEF Strategic Priority Action Plan for Gender Equality: 2010-2012.

UNICEF, New York, 2010.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Working for an Equal Future: UNICEF policy on gender equality and the

empowerment of girls and women, UNICEF, New York, 2010.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Child-Friendly Schools Evaluation: Country report for the Philippines,

UNICEF Evaluation Office, New York, 2009.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Report on the Programme Performance Assessment of UNICEF in the

Philippines, UNICEF Evaluation Office, New York, 2009.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Global Study on Child Poverty and Disparities: National Report

Philippines, UNICEF, 2009.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Mission to the Philippines: Brief notes from 5-day mission, UNICEF,

2009.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, Classification of ODA Projects according to Gender-

Responsiveness, UNICEF, Manila, 2009.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, Education in Emergencies and Post-Crisis Transition

Programme: Building Safe Learning Environment - Safe Schools Project, UNICEF, Manila, 2007.


Programme: Building Safe Learning Environment – Safe Schools Project, UNICEF, Manila, 2008.


Programme: Building Safe Learning Environment - Safe Schools Project, UNICEF, Manila, 2009.


United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, Emergency Preparedness and Response Plan 2008,

UNICEF, Manila, 2008.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, GAD Monitoring Report: Classification of ODA projects by

gender-responsiveness, UNICEF, Manila, 2007.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, GAD Monitoring Report: Classification of ODA projects by

gender-responsiveness, UNICEF, Manila, 2006.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, Good Practices - Education and School Safety, UNICEF,

Manila, no date.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, Lessons Learned Exercise: Typhoon emergency 2009,

UNICEF, Manila, 2010.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, MTSP Baseline Philippines, UNICEF, Manila, 2006.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, Progress Evaluation of Education in Emergencies and Post-

Transition Programme in the Philippines: A self-assessment report, UNICEF, Manila, 2010.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, UNICEF Philippines Annual Country Report, UNICEF,

Manila, 2009.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, UNICEF Philippines Country Annual Report, UNICEF,

Manila, 2008.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, UNICEF Philippines Country Annual Report, UNICEF,

Manila, 2007.

United Nations Children‘s Fund, Philippines, UNICEF Philippines Country Office Annual Report, UNICEF,

Manila, 2006.

United Nations Children‘s Fund and Department of Education Philippines, ‗Building Safe Learning

Environments for Children Construction Work Plan and Strategy‘, Manila, 2007.

United Nations Development Programme, Philippines Midterm Progress Report on the Millennium

Development Goals, UNDP, 2007.

United Nations Evaluation Group, Code of Conduct for Evaluation in the UN System, UNEG, 2007.

Universalia, UNICEF Philippines Country Program Evaluation - Volume II appendices (Preliminary Draft),

Universalia, 2010.

Universalia, UNICEF Philippines Country Program Evaluation (Preliminary Draft). Universalia, 2010.

Wright, Sharon, Lessons Learned Study: Education in Emergency Response in Vietnam, Indonesia,

Samoa and the Philippines, A report on the lessons learned during October 2009 to sudden onset

emergencies. Asia-Pacific Shared Services Centre, UNICEF, Bangkok, 2010.


ANNEXES

ANNEX I: Progress evaluation framework

Evaluation Framework

Goal 1:Improved quality of education response in emergencies and post-transition countries.

Specific Questions and Issues to be Addressed

Indicators to be Used to Address these Questions and Issues

Methods to be Used to Obtain Relevant Data

Level to Be Examined

Relevance/Appropriateness:

‗whether project is in line with

local needs and priorities (as

well as donor policies).

Appropriateness is the

tailoring of humanitarian

activities to local needs,

increasing ownership,

accountability and cost-

effectiveness accordingly.‘

To what extent has

EEPCT funds contributed

to relevant and

appropriate rapid

emergency response?

To what degree do

interventions keep pace

with changing needs and

priorities of communities

and stakeholders?

% of relevant objective one

indicators met in EEPCT

funded countries affected by

emergencies

% of sampled educators

ranking (1-5) of the

appropriateness of delivered

emergency materials over

time

Results Framework Survey, Key Informant Interviews Focus groups in Case Study Countries

Country Global

Was the programme

adapted to address

gender issues at the

onset?

% of countries that conducted situational assessments and included gender-related indicators in their motoring plan. %of sampled participants ranking (1-5) of girls‘ enrolment in schools since the EEPCT programme began.

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey and EE-DAC Score Card in Case Study Countries.

Country Global Regional


How relevant are EEPCT

interventions to the

changing needs of

educators in emergency

and transition contexts?

Do the Programme

interventions remain

relevant to the

professional needs of

teachers (full-time/part-

time, voluntary/paid,

trained/untrained), school

management structures

as well as the ministerial

and line ministry levels?

% of sampled teachers, volunteers and principals ranking (1-5) of the relevance of emergency or transition education materials and training

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Focus Groups in Case Study Countries

Country Global

Effectiveness: „the extent to which an activity achieves its purpose or whether this can be expected to happen on the basis of outcomes. Implicit within the criterion is timeliness.‘

Are teachers routinely

trained to ensure quality

learning?

% of countries in which teacher training in impact areas occurs on a quarterly basis

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.


Efficiency- ‗the outcomes- qualitative and quantitative – as a result of the inputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving an output, to see whether the most efficient approach has been used.‘

Could equivalent results

have been achieved

different?

How cost-efficient is the

EEPCT programme

compared to other similar

programmes?

% of sampled participants

ranking (1-5) of the cost-

efficiency of the programme

compared to other similar

programmes.

EE-DAC Score Card Secondary Document Review Key Informant Interviews

Country Global


Is INEE providing relevant

technical support?

# of hits to the INEE website

disaggregated per 4

technical areas.

INEE Web site data Country Global Regional

Has EEPCT support

reached an appropriate

number of beneficiaries,

given programme costs?

% of coverage—children in

programmes compared to

children in need of

programmes.

Secondary Document Analysis, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

Coherence and Coordination

How has EEPCT contributed to global coordination in emergencies and transitions? What roles has INEE played?

% of countries reporting

improved coordination in

emergencies and transitions

% of UNICEF partner

agreements that reference

INEE Minimum Standards.


ranking (1-5) of change in

implementation of INEE

Minimum Standards since

the Programme began.

Global Questionnaire Key Informant Interviews, UNICEF-Self Assessments, Secondary Document Analysis, Adequacy Survey and EE-DAC Score Card in Case Study Countries.

Country Regional Global

Has EEPCT carved-out a

value-added niche and

filled traditional

programme gaps?

How well has EEPCT

been coordinated?

% of UNICEF partner

agency staff who note a

strategic and technical

difference in UNICEF‘s

education approach in global

and country contexts.

Global Questionnaire, Key Informant Interviews.



Indicative Impact-Outcome and Road to Sustainability ―the degree to which sustainable progress towards basic education is progressing‖

Have emergency

response capacities within

schools or programmes

been strengthened?



ability to teach.

Secondary Document Analysis, Focus groups and Participative Ranking Exercise in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

Has Government

response to emergency

and transition education

been strengthened?



government response to

emergency or transition

education

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Focus Group Discussions in Case Study Countries

Country Global


Goal 2: Increase resilience of education sector service delivery in chronic crises, arrested development and deteriorating contexts.




Levels to Be Examined











How relevant/appropriate

are EEPCT Programme

interventions given the

wide range of educational

needs of local

communities and

programmes offered by

other actors?

How relevant/appropriate

is the EEPCT Programme

to the range of contexts –

conflict, disaster, conflict

and disaster, chronic

emergency, fragility, early

recovery and post-crisis

recovery – which are

found in the recipient

countries?

% of sampled children-youth participant ranking (1-5) of access to education in emergencies. % of sampled child-youth participant ranking (1-5) of quality of education in emergencies. % of sampled educators ranking (1-5) of change in quality of education. % of sampled parents/community leaders ranking (1-5) of change in confidence in the quality of education.

Results Framework Survey UNICEF Self Assessments Key Informant Interviews EE-DAC Score Card, Focus Group and Participatory Ranking Exercise in Case Study Countries

Country Global

Has EEPCT improved

government information

collection and analysis?

% of sampled implementing partners who note an improvement in government data collection.

Secondary Document Review, Key Informant Interviews in Case Study Countries.

Country

Effectiveness: „the extent to which an activity achieves its purpose or whether this can be expected to happen on the

To what extent has

EEPCT increased the

resilience of the education

% of objective 2 indicators

met disaggregated per

emergency, crisis affected

Results Framework Survey UNICEF Self-Assessments

Country Global


basis of outcomes. Implicit within the criterion is timeliness.‘

sector during

emergencies, chronic

crises, and fragile state

contexts?

Do educators receive

timely training?

and fragile state countries


ranking (1-5) of timeliness of

training received.

Focus Group in Case Study Countries.

Coherence and Coordination.

Are EEPCT programmes

integrated within UNICEF

financial and programme

documents?

% of offices that delineate

participation in EEPCT in

their financial or programme

documents.



Has the Education Cluster supported the Ministry of Education to coordinate an emergency response?

% of government ministry personnel ranking (1-5) of change of support of Education Cluster since the programme began.

Secondary Data Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, EE-DAC Score Card in Country Case Studies.

Country Global

Are common or best practices used in the development of programmes?

% of government officials familiar with UNESCO Guidebook for planning education in emergencies and reconstruction % of government officials familiar with INEE Minimum Standards

Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

Indicative Impact-Outcome

and Road to Sustainability

―the degree to which

sustainable progress towards

basic education is

progressing‖

Is the community empowered to engage in education as a fundamental child‘s right?

% of parent-community

leader participants ranking

(1-5) of change in

involvement in school

construction.


leader ranking of change in

involvement in school or

Key Informant

Interviews, Focus Group

and Participatory

Ranking Exercise in

Case Study Countries

Country

Global


programme curriculum


leader participant ranking (1-

5) of change in involvement

in school safety.


Goal 3: Increased education sector contribution to better prediction and preparedness for emergencies due to natural disasters and conflict.















To what extent has

EEPCT contributed to

better predication,

prevention and

preparedness for conflict,

disaster and fragility?

Are reconstructed

schools physically safe

and secure?

% of relevant objective 3 indicators disaggregated by type of crisis % of sampled schools that meet key safety standards

Results Framework Survey, UNICEF - Self-Assessments, Secondary Document Analysis and Adequacy Survey Checklist

Country Global

Did beneficiaries

participate in

development of

emergency education

response plans?


leaders ranking (1-5) of

involvement in emergency

education response

planning.

Key Informant Interviews, Participative Ranking Exercise

Country Global

Has EEPCT improved

relations within

communities in impact

areas?

Has EEPCT improved

relations between

communities in impact

areas?

% sampled youth

participants ranking (1-5) of

change in relations within

their communities

% sampled youth

participants ranking (105 of

change in relations with

other communities

Secondary Document Analysis, Participatory Ranking Exercise

Country Global

Effectiveness: „the extent to which an activity achieves its purpose or whether this can

Has government

preparedness and early

warning knowledge been

% of participants ranking (1-

5) of change in government

preparedness and early

Key Informant Interviews, EE-DAC Score Card in Case Study Countries

Country Global


be expected to happen on the basis of outcomes. Implicit within the criterion is timeliness.‘

strengthened? warning knowledge.

Have the skills and

capacities of educators

to predict or prevent

emergencies been

strengthened?



ability to prevent or predict

emergencies.

Key Informant Interviews, Participative Ranking Exercise in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

Efficiency- ‗the outcomes- qualitative and quantitative – as a result of the inputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving an output, to see whether the most efficient approach has been used.‘

Are children safer

because of EEPCT?

% of sampled child

participant ranking (1-5) of

sense of security.

% of sampled youth

participant ranking (1-5) the

level of violence in their

community.

% of sampled parent-

community leader

participants ranking (1-5) of

child safety in schools.

Focus Groups and Participative Ranking Exercise in Case Study Countries.

Country


How do EEPCT

initiatives fit into national

local and national

planning?


ranking (1-5) of coherence

and coordination at national

and sub national levels.

EE-DAC Score Card and Key Informant Interviews in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

Have UNICEF Regional

Offices supported

Prediction and

Preparedness?

# inputs on Prediction and

Preparedness by Regional

Offices.

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews.



Indicative Impact-Outcome and Road to Sustainability

―the degree to which sustainable progress towards basic education is progressing‖

Have EEPCT

programmes contributed

to peace?


ranking (1-5) of peace.

Secondary Document Analysis, EE-DAC Score Card.

Country Global

Have governments

adopted the Education

Cluster approach to

emergency

preparedness?

% of government

preparedness plans that

incorporate Education

Cluster methods and

approaches

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews Adequacy Survey



Goal 4: Evidence-based policies, efficient operational strategies and fit-for-purpose financing instruments for education in emergencies and post-crises.





Relevance/Appropriateness–




Appropriateness is the tailoring

of humanitarian activities to

local needs, increasing

ownership, accountability and

cost-effectiveness

accordingly.‘

Are programme countries

contributing to EFA and

MDG reporting systems?

Has the relevance of

EEPCT been maintained,

updated and revised

throughout its

implementation process?

% of countries that demonstrate a contribution to EFA/MDG indicators.

Results Framework Survey UNICEF Self Assessments Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.


Effectiveness- ‗extent to which programme outputs have been achieved—and an appropriate number of beneficiaries reached and in a timely manner.‘

To what extent has

EEPCT contributed to

evidence based policies,

effective strategies and fit

for all financing in

emergencies and

transition contexts?

% of objective 4 indicators

met disaggregated per

emergency and transition

contexts

Results Framework Survey UNICEF Self-Assessments

Country Global

Are donor funds

disbursed to the field in a

timely manner? (Dutch

report pg. 8)

% of donations transferred

to field offices per project-

UNICEF established time

frames.

UNICEF HQ Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

What difference has the

Early Warning and

Preparedness training via

% of sampled UNICEF staff

highlighting effectiveness of

intra-net training.

Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global


the intra-net made for

UNICEF staff?

Efficiency- ‗the outputs- qualitative and quantitative – as a result of outputs. This generally requires comparing alternative approaches to achieving an output, to see whether the most efficient approach has been used.‘

Do country programmes

seek to improve the

quality and coverage of

EEPCT programmes?

% of countries that have

conducted assessments,

evaluations and other

learning activities.

Secondary Document Analysis, Key informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

How well are the

programmes implemented

financially?

% of 2009 spending per

countries – allocation v.

expenditures.

Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries

Country Global


To what extent has

communication about

EEPCT within UNICEF

been sufficient to

generate a common

understanding regarding

goals, objectives and

strategic intent at global,

regional and country

levels?

Are EEPCT goals and

objectives understood by

partners at national, sub-

national and community

levels?

% of sampled UNICEF

global, regional and country

level staff who know

EEPCT‘s basic goals and

objectives

% of sampled UNICEF

partners at global, national,

sub-national and community

levels who know EEPCT‘s

basic goals and objectives.

Global Questionnaire Key Informant Interviews Adequacy Survey

Country Regional Global

Is the EEPCT programme # of good practice UNICEF Self Country


promoting programme

learning?

reports/trainings issued to

partners at the country and

regional levels.

Assessments Secondary Document Analysis, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Global Regional

Does pooled funding support greater coherence amongst education partners?

% of government officials and UNICEF staff at country level perceptions of change in coherence-coordination pre and post pooled funding programmes

Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey

Country Global

Is UNICEF HQ technical support integrated into EEPCT country programmes?

% of countries in which programmes have addressed at least one SWOT recommendation.

Secondary Document Review, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.


Indicative Impact-Outcome and Road to Sustainability: ‗the degree to which sustainable progress towards basic education has been achieved.‘

What have been the results of EEPCT earliest programmes? Are they reaching marginalized populations? Are they being scaled up? Is the EEPCT Initiative influencing/leveraging funding for education programming?

% of 2008 programmes that have expanded coverage and increased access to education for marginalized populations % increase in donor pooled money. #of donor or government initiatives that reference EEPCT

UNICEF Self Assessments Secondary Document Analysis, Key Informant Interviews, Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global

Are governments assuming responsibility for EEPCT programmes?

% countries that show an increase in governmental financial support for EEPCT programmes.


Country Global

Is an evidence base for effective programmes being established—and fed back into EEPCT programmes?

% of sampled participants ranking (1-5) of change in monitoring and evaluation of the education system since the EEPCT programme began. # of assessments, evaluations and other

UNICEF Self Assessments EE-DAC Score Card and Adequacy Survey in Case Study Countries.

Country Global


programme learning activities identified in case study countries.

Did EEPCT contribute to the countries having access to the FTI-Catalytic Fund?

% of sampled representatives or countries self-assessment reports reporting contributions.

UNICEF Self Assessments Key Informant Interviews

Country Global


Annex II: Philippines participants in the evaluation

Level Group Number

National UN 16

Government & Donors 25

NGO 7

Regional Government 29

NGO 8

Community/Barangay/Schools Students 231

Girls 116

Boys 115

Educators 114

Parents & Community Members 70

Government 4

GRAND TOTAL 504


Annex III: Sampling

Construction

A systematic random sample was taken of the school and day-care centre construction. As BSLE funding

heavily concentrates on the Safe Schools Project, 89% of total funds, the number of schools versus day-

care centres was selected proportional to the amount of invested funding. The resulting sample

comprised 1 day care and 10 schools. Within the schools, selection was representative by level

(elementary; high school) and by construction type (LAPUS; new construction; repair/rehabilitation). For

time and security reasons, the sampling pool was restricted to schools within a 3-hour drive of the

Legazpi, the largest city in the region where the research team was based. Schools participating in the

DRR Pilot were also not included in the construction sample. This reduced the number of schools from 81

to 64. One school was used as a field-testing site, reducing the sampling pool to 63 schools.

Once the sample was chosen, two selected schools had to be replaced with two new randomly-drawn

selections from within the same strata: one school had not been assisted by UNICEF, and one school

was on the outer limit of the sampling region and could not be paired with any of the other selected

schools. As the team planned two school visits a day in order to meet its target, and no other sampled

school could be paired with this location, the school was re-sampled.

DRR Pilot

Six schools (four elementary schools and two high schools) participated in the DRR pilot programme. The

original sampling plan included a systematic random sample of half of these (two elementary schools and

one high school). After discussions with the implementing partner, TABI, it was decided to add one more

elementary school to the sample in order to include both the perceived ‗best‘ school and the school that

was struggling the most in carrying out the programme, to see if any differences were revealed in through

the evaluation. This resulted in a four school sample where seven groups of students and four DRR

Councils, including two teacher groups within them, were engaged in discussions about the pilot project.

Selection of participants

Focus Groups on Construction

Students: 10 boys and 10 girls were systematically chosen from amongst the students using the UNICEF-

constructed/repaired classrooms. Students were drawn from grades 5 or 6, with the exception of one

group of students in grade 2.

Upon arrival at each school the number of girls and boys in the UNICEF classrooms was obtained and

divided by ten (the desired focus group size) to obtain the sampling interval, disaggregated by gender. A

random number within each sampling interval was then generated as a starting point. Students were

drawn from one, two or three classrooms, depending on the school and the number of classrooms

received. The starting classroom (referred to as a ―section‖) was also randomly generated as students are

assigned to sections based on their testing performance, creating differences between the student bodies

in each section. In most classrooms, students sat in alphabetical order. The researchers determined


where child ‗A‘ sat, counted to their ‗starting‘ student from child A, and began sampling – proceeding

through the class rows in an S-shaped formation.

If the researchers counted through an entire class without sampling ten students each, they proceeded to

the next class and continued the process until ten students of each gender were selected. All random

numbers were generated using Excel.

Educators: Educators were selected upon availability; however, efforts were made to ensure that those

using the UNICEF classrooms participated. If sufficient numbers were present, these teachers alone

comprised the group. Principals were interviewed individually when they were available and there was a

researcher free to conduct the interview. This occurred at 10 of 14 schools.

Parents/Community Members: When parents and community members were present and available,

researchers held discussions with them.

DRR

Selection of Participants

Students: Students in grades five or six (depending on availability and numbers) who participated in the

training were sought out. If there were more than ten girls and ten boys, the students were randomly

sampled in the same manner as the students in the construction group. This process was followed at all

DRR pilot schools except MORMS where the student leaders, who had participated in the training and

now formed a student DRR committee at the school, were already gathered. Five boys and five girls were

randomly chosen from amongst these students and data were collected from this mixed-gender group.

The decision to carry-out a mixed group resulted from time limitations, as well as the fact that the students

work together on this committee.

DRR Council - Parents/Community Members/Teachers: Members of the DRR Council were asked to

attend the focus group discussions. Those available at the time of the visit participated in the discussions.

In two instances, teachers who were a part of the council were also engaged separately the focus group

discussion questions for teachers.

The tools used in community-based data collection were field-tested prior to use at two elementary

schools and one high school, to assess whether questions and concepts were appropriate and clearly

understood. Based on these pilots, as well as input from interviews and focus groups conducted at the

national level, certain questions were modified, added or removed, in order for data to be more reflective

of the Philippines and the context in which the programme was implemented.


Annex IV: School visit schedule

Name of School Province Assistance/Programme

Pawa Elementary School Albay Repair

Bogtong Elementary School Albay Repair

Irosin Central School Sorsogon 2 new classrooms

Ogod Day Care Sorsogon

Mabalodbalod High School Camarines Sur Repair

Catagbacan Elementary School Camarines Sur Repair

Malilipot National High School Albay LAPUS

San Francisco Elementary School Albay Repair

Tabaco National High School Albay 2 new classrooms

Baligang Elementary School Albay LAPUS

Itaran Elementary School Albay Repair

Busay Elementary School Albay LAPUS; DRR

MORMS Memorial High School Albay 2 new classrooms; DRR

Binitayan Elementary School Albay Repair; DRR

San Jose Elementary School Albay LAPUS; DRR


Annex V: Tools

EE-DAC Score Card

Questions

Score

Reasons for the Score

( + Positive / - Negative)

Key Recommendations /

Strategic Focus (based on gaps

identified)

1

Much

Worse

2

Worse

3

Same

4

Better

5

Much

Better

8

Don‟t

Know

9

No

Resp

Relevance/Appropriateness

1. Has access to education in emergencies or post crisis transition changed since the programme began?

-

2. Has the quality of education in emergencies or post crisis transition changed since the Programme began?

-

3. a) Has girls‘ enrolment in schools changed since the Programme began?

-

b) Has boys‘ enrolment in

schools changed since the

Programme began? **


Effectiveness

4. Has the education system‘s ability to recover from emergencies changed since the Programme began?

-

5. Has government preparedness and early warning knowledge changed since the Programme began?

-

Efficiency

6. How well does the Programme perform activities compared to other similar programmes?

-

7. Has child safety in schools changed since the Programme began?

-

Coherence and Coordination

8. Has implementation of INEE minimum standards changed since the Programme began?

-

9. Has Education Cluster support of the Department of Education coordination role changed since the Programme began?

-


Sustainability/Connectedness

10. Has education sector‘s ability to prepare for and respond to emergencies changed since the Programme began?

-

11. Has government capacity to support education in emergencies and-or post crisis transitions changed since the Programme began?

-

12. Has monitoring and evaluation of the education system changed since the Programme began

-

13. Has monitoring and evaluation in the education in emergencies sector changed since the Programme began? **

** denotes Philippines-specific modifications/additions


ADEQUACY SURVEY CHECKLIST

Programme Design

1. Before the programme began, was there a situational assessment? 2. Was there a baseline assessment? 3. Was gender considered when planning and implementing programmes? How so? 4. Are gender-related indicators included in the monitoring plan? 5. Were programme indicators and evaluations structured to look only at outputs or also impact? 6. Does the programme have a plan for discontinuation, phase-out or handover?

Programme Implementation

1. Did replenishment kits arrive within programme established time frames? 2. Did educators receive a minimum of quarterly training? 3. Can youth enrolled in ALP programmes pass a basic literacy and numeracy test? 4. Can children/schools/educational institutions demonstrate knowledge of an emergency response plan

for their school or educational institutions? 5. Does the country have radio programming and/or other remote educational programmes? 6. Does the country demonstrate a direct contribution to the EFA/MDG indicators? 7. Has technical support has been provided?

a. What? b. By whom? - HQ: - RO: - Other:

Programme Learning

1. Has the government adopted the CFS model as a government programme? 2. Were good practice reports/trainings issued to partners at the country level? 3. For each programme implemented in this country, have evaluations been done? List dates of

evaluations for each programme. 4. Were the results of the evaluation shared? How? With whom? 5. Have the results and recommendations of the evaluations been integrated into programming? How

so? 6. How is programme progress and learning from the field level shared with regional and country level?

Is this sharing useful and productive? 7. Do donor or government initiatives reference EEPCT?

Financial

1. Is the EEPCT programme delineated in financial and/or programme documents? 2. Has there been an increase in government financial support for EEPCT programmes? 3. Are donor funds transferred to the field office as per project-established time frames? 4. Are CAF funds transferred to field offices per project-established time frames? 5. How much of the 2009 allocation of funds was spent (allocation v. expenditures)? 6. Has EEPCT support reached an appropriate number of beneficiaries, given programme costs (needs

vs. coverage)?


Best Practices/Standards

1. Do partner agreements reference INEE minimum standards? 2. Do peace education programmes use UNHCR/INEE/UNESCO programme materials? 3. Has the country achieved compliance with the Minimum Operating Security Standards? 4. Do government preparedness plans incorporate UNICEF methods and approaches? 5. Was a SWOT analysis done in country?

a. If so, did the programme address at least one SWOT recommendation?


FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (CHILDREN, YOUTH)

Question: What are the strengths of the programme?

Date: Group: Children / Youth

Community: Gender: Girls / Boys

Moderator: Number of Children in Group:

Note taker: Age Range:

Key Strengths Identified:

Free list: Rank Order:

1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

COMMENTS:

(Write down what the children say using their exact words.)


FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (CHILDREN, YOUTH)

Question: What are the weaknesses of the programme?

Date: Group: Children / Youth




Key Weaknesses Identified:


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

COMMENTS:



FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (PARENTS, EDUCATORS)

Question: What are the strengths of the programme?

Date: Group: Parents / Educators

Community: Gender: Men / Women / Mixed

Moderator: Number of Participants:

Note taker:

Key Strengths Identified:


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

COMMENTS:

(Write down what the participants say using their exact words.)



Question: What are the weaknesses of the programme?




Note taker:

Key Weaknesses Identified:


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

COMMENTS:




Question: What makes an education system resilient?




Note taker:

Key Qualities Identified:


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

COMMENTS:



FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (YOUTH)

Question: What makes an education system resilient?

Date: Group: Youth




Key Qualities Identified:


1.

2.

3.

4.

5.

6.

7.

8.

9.

10.

COMMENTS:

(Write down what the youth say using their exact words.)


FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (CHILDREN)

Date: Group: Children




Note establish a common time reference for both programme and control groups which could be “since the emergency” or another

commonly shared event.

Much

worse

Worse No

change

Better Much

Better

Don‘t

know

N/A-

NR

For Children 1 2 3 4 5 8 9

How much have your feelings about school changed since

the programme began, if at all?

How much has your attendance changed, if at all?

How much has girls‘ participation changed, if at all?

How much has boys‘ participation changed, if at all? **

How much has your sense of safety and security changed,

if at all?

How much has your ability to protect yourself if there is

another emergency changed, if at all?


How much have the amount students help each other

changed, if at all?

How much has students‘ involvement in problem solving at

school changed, if at all?

How much has the use of fighting to resolve interpersonal

differences changed, if at all?

COMMENTS:



FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (YOUTH)

Date: Group: Youth


Moderator: Number of Youth in Group:




Much

worse

Worse No

change

Better Much

Better

Don‘t

know

N/A-

NR

Youth 1 2 3 4 5 8 9



How much has your attendance changed, if at all?

How much has girls‘ participation changed, if at all?

How much has boys‘ participation changed, if at all?

How much has your sense of safety and security changed, if

at all?

How much has your ability to protect yourself if there is


another emergency changed, if at all?


changed, if at all?







COMMENTS:

(Write down what the youth say using their exact words.)


FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM (EDUCATORS)

Date: Group: Educators



Note taker:



Much

worse

Worse No

change

Better Much

better

Don‘t

know

N/A-

NR

Educators 1 2 3 4 5 8 9

How much has your ability to teach changed, if at all?

How has the provision of teaching and learning materials

changed, if at all?

How has the quality of the training changed, if at all?

How have reporting and monitoring procedures changed, if at

all?

How has the quality of education at the school changed, if at

all?

How has the retention rate for girls changed, if at all?


How has the retention rate for boys changed, if at all? **

How has your ability to teach since the children received the

school packs changed, if at all? **

How has your ability to teach since receiving the school packs

changed, if at all? **

How has your ability to teach since receiving the early

childhood packs changed, if at all? **

How has the school‘s ability to respond to future emergencies

changed, if at all?


changed, if at all?





How much have your feelings about school changed since the

programme began, if at all?

COMMENTS:



FOCUS GROUP DATA COLLECTION FORM

(PARENTS/SCHOOL MANAGEMENT COMMITTEES/ PARENT TEACHERS ASSOCIATIONS)

Date: Group:

School Management Committees/Parent Teacher

Associations


Moderator: Number of Participants in Group:

Note taker:



Much

worse

Worse No

change

Better Much

Better

Don‘t

know

N/A-

NR

Parents/ School Management Committees/Parent

Teachers Associations

1 2 3 4 5 8 9

How has community involvement in school emergency

planning changed, if at all?

How has the community‘s ability to address safety and

abuse in the school changed, if at all?

How your confidence in the quality of education at the


How has community ownership over school construction


changed, if at all?


changed, if at all?







COMMENTS:



OBSERVATIONAL CHECKLIST: CHILD-FRIENDLY SCHOOLS

To be completed at each school visited by the research team that was constructed through EEPCT. Observations should take place for at least 60

minutes.

Physical Structure UNICEF REST

# Question YES(1)

NO(0)

YES(1)

NO(0)

1. Does the school appear to be child-friendly?

See definition at bottom of checklist

2. Is the school easily exited in case of emergency?

(2 doors per classroom)

3. Do ALL classrooms have windows?

a) Can ALL the windows be opened without a key?


4. Does the school contain a separate space for teachers/administrative staff

that enable the staff to work separately from students?

5. Is the teachers/administrative staff space in close proximity to the classrooms allowing for monitoring of

students‘ activities?

6. Is there water available on school grounds?

Type

a) Type: Plumbing (3)

Borehole/Well (4)

Other (5): ______________________________________

7. Are there separate latrines for boys and girls?


8. Do ALL the latrines have locks on the doors?

GIRLS BOYS

9. Is the latrine per pupil ratio appropriate?

(1 latrine:30 girl students; 1 laterine:60 boy students)

a) Number of students?

b) Number of latrines?

10. Are there separate latrines for teachers?


a) Separate facilities for men and women?

11. Is there a separate space with water and soap or other cleaning agent for children to wash their hands?

12. Is there a disaster risk reduction plan?

(you may need to ask administrator)

a) Is it visible/ displayed on the school grounds?


Educators

# Question YES(1)

NO(0)

1. Do educators have a structured lessons plan?

(if not visible, you may have to ask)

2. Do students spend little time (less than 20%) copying lessons from textbook or chalkboards?

3. Do educators listen to students and treat them with respect?

4. Do educators call on girls and boys equally?


5. Do educators help each other in and out of the classroom?

Students – Girls

# Question YES(1)

NO(0)

1. Do students ask the teacher questions?

2. Do students share their ideas and opinions in the classroom?


3. Do students treat each other with respect?

Students – Boys

# Question YES(1)

NO(0)

1. Do students ask the teacher questions?

2. Do students share their ideas and opinions in the classroom?

3. Do students treat each other with respect?


Annex VI: Child-friendly schools checklist table

SUMMARY OF OBSERVATION CHECKLIST YES NO

# Question UNICEF non-UNICEF UNICEF non-UNICEF

1 Does the school appear to be child-friendly? (11) 6 0 5 11

2 Is the school easily exited in case of emergency? (14) 8 1 6 13

3 Do ALL classrooms have windows? (14) 14 14 0 0

a) Can ALL the windows be opened without a key? (14) 14 14 0 0

4 Does the school contain a separate space for teachers/administrative staff that enable the staff to work separately from students? (13) 4 9

5 Is the teachers/administrative staff space in close proximity to the classrooms allowing for monitoring of students‘ activities? (4) 3 1

6 Is there water available on school grounds? (13) 12 1

a) Type: Plumbing (3) 9*

Borehole/Well (4) 4*

Other (5): 0

7 Are there separate latrines for boys and girls? (14 / 12) 6 3 8 9

8 Do ALL the latrines have locks on the doors? (10 / 9) 5 3 5 6

(1 latrine:30 girl students; 1 laterine:60 boy students) GIRLS BOYS GIRLS BOYS

9 Is the latrine per pupil ratio appropriate? (11) 6 8 5 3

10 Are there separate latrines for teachers? (12) 2 10

a) Separate facilities for men and women? (2) 1 1

11 Is there a separate space with water and soap or other cleaning agent for children to wash their hands? (13 / 10) 1 0 12 10

12 Is there a disaster risk reduction plan? (12) 2 10

a) Is it visible/ displayed on the school grounds? (2) 0 2

* one school had both sources


Annex VII: November List of EEPCT/BSLE Assisted Schools

November List of EEPCT/BSLE Assisted Schools

Type

of work

Location (City/Municipality/

Province) Name of School

Dropout SY 2006 to 2007

Dropout SY 2007 to 2008

Increase/ Decrease Dropout

SY 2008 to 2009 Increase/ Decrease

Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female Total Male Female

2nd

rep 1

Bacacay, Albay Bacacay East CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3rd

rep 2

San Jose, Camarines Sur

Bagacay ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

Lap 3

Bargamanoc South, Catanduanes

Bagamanoc CES 0.19 0.36 0.00 0.57 0.69 0.42 0.38 0.33 0.42 0.18 0.33 0.00 (0.39) (0.36) (0.42)

2nd

rep 4

Libmanan North, Camarines Sur

Bahay ES 10.00 16.99 13.79 2.54 3.25 1.77 (7.46) (13.74) (12.02) 3.06 3.17 2.91 0.52 (0.08) 1.14

1st

lap 5

Camalig, Albay Baligang ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st

rep 6

Daraga, Albay Bañadero ES *

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 7

Ragay, Camarines Sur

Banga ES 0.42 0.85 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.42) (0.85) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st

std 1

Barcelona, Sorsogon Barcelona NCHS 7.19 11.65 2.43 5.22 8.68 1.97 (1.97) (2.97) (0.46) 2.40 3.76 1.10 (2.82) (4.92) (0.87)

2nd

rep 8

Magarao, Bombon, Camarines Sur

Bell San Francisco ES 0.49 0.60 0.36 1.64 1.76 1.48 1.15 1.16 1.12 0.60 0.85 0.31 (1.04) (0.91) (1.17)

1st

rep 9

Daraga, Albay Binitayan ES * 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3rd

rep 10

Legazpi City, Albay Bogtong ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 11


Bombon CS 1.04 1.95 0.00 0.67 0.75 0.56 (0.37) (1.20) 0.56 0.53 0.74 0.29 (0.14) (0.01) (0.27)

1st

Lap 12

Daraga, Albay Bongalon ES 4.10 5.41 3.01 5.31 7.14 3.91 1.21 1.73 0.90 7.23 6.93 7.46 1.92 (0.21) 3.55

2nd

std 13

Sorsogon City, Sorsogon

Buhatan ES 1.79 2.20 1.36 0.22 0.43 0.00 (1.57) (1.77) (1.36) 1.30 1.77 0.85 1.08 1.34 0.85

2nd

rep 14

Buhi, Camarines Sur Buhi CS 3.44 4.58 2.25 2.92 4.27 1.60 (0.52) (0.31) (0.65) 3.03 3.78 2.31 0.11 (0.49) 0.71

rep Buhi, Camarines Sur Buhi North CS 0.56 0.80 0.35 2.01 2.39 1.68 1.45 1.59 1.33 2.08 2.40 1.77 0.07 0.01 0.09


2nd 15

2nd

rep 16

Bula, Camarines Sur Bula CS 2.50 2.47 2.54 0.89 1.40 0.34 (1.61) (1.07) (2.20) 1.71 2.84 0.50 0.82 1.44 0.16

1st

std 2

Bula, Camarines Sur Bula NHS 8.12 11.18 5.67 8.08 10.86 5.65 (0.04) (0.32) (0.02) 6.14 7.15 5.28 (1.94) (3.71) (0.37)

Hab 17

Libon, Albay Bulusan ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.38 0.71 0.00 0.38 0.71 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.38) (0.71) 0.00

1st

Lap 18

Daraga, Albay Busay ES * 2.75 4.00 1.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 (2.75) (4.00) (1.22) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3rd

rep 19

Tinambac, Camarines Sur

Cagliliog ES 7.49 9.52 5.65 3.54 5.22 1.86 (3.95) (4.30) (3.79) 4.04 5.49 2.69 0.50 0.27 0.83

3rd

rep 20

San Andres, Catanduanes

Calatagan ES 1.42 2.67 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.42) (2.67) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 21

Camaligan, Camarines Sur

Camaligan CS 0.97 1.11 0.83 0.84 0.97 0.70 (0.13) (0.14) (0.13) 1.33 1.50 1.16 0.49 0.53 0.46

2nd

rep 22

Pasacao, Camarines Sur

Caranan North ES 1.36 1.03 1.73 0.26 0.47 0.00 (1.10) (0.56) (1.73) 1.48 1.74 1.14 1.22 1.27 1.14

1st

std 23

Cabusao, Camarines Sur

Castillo ES 2.60 2.45 2.74 1.79 0.63 0.95 (0.81) (1.82) (1.79) 2.37 3.34 1.31 0.58 2.71 0.36

3rd

rep 24

Lagonoy (Dahat), Camarines Sur

Dahat ES 2.72 2.31 3.19 2.91 4.04 1.67 0.19 1.73 (1.52) 1.30 0.98 1.68 (1.61) (3.06) 0.01

Hab 3

Daraga, Albay Daraga NHS 5.36 8.29 3.02 5.05 6.76 3.65 (0.31) (1.53) 0.63 3.03 4.78 1.53 (2.02) (1.98) (2.12)

2nd

lap 4

Timambac, Camarines Sur

Don Servillano Platon MHS 2.96 4.48 1.64 7.35 9.65 5.56 4.39 5.17 3.92 0.00 0.00 0.00 (7.35) (9.65) (5.56)

Hab 5

Naujan, Oriental Mindoro

Doroteo S. Mendoza Sr. MNHS

1.06 1.98 0.25 2.07 2.23 1.96 1.01 0.25 1.71 4.71 4.83 4.63 2.64 2.60 2.67

2nd

rep 25

Guinobatan, Albay Dr. Felipe Cevallos ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 26

Malinao, Albay Estancia ES 0.74 1.49 0.00 0.45 0.87 0.00 (0.29) (0.62) 0.00 0.62 0.90 0.33 0.17 0.03 0.33

2nd

rep 27

San Fernando, Camarines Sur

Gñaran ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.62 1.22 0.00 0.62 1.22 0.00 1.30 0.00 2.47 0.68 (1.22) 2.47

2nd

lap 28

Goa, Camarines Sur Goa Central ES 1.61 1.68 1.53 1.28 2.06 0.46 (0.33) 0.38 (1.07) 1.35 1.84 0.84 0.07 (0.22) 0.38

1st

lap 29

Guinobatan, Albay Guinobatan East CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.22 0.32 0.11 0.22 0.32 0.11 0.81 0.89 0.72 0.59 0.57 0.61

2nd

rep 30

Daraga, Albay Impact Learning Center 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.55 1.08 0.00 0.55 1.08 0.00

1st

std 31

Irosin, Sorsogon Irosin CS 1.93 2.52 1.31 2.58 3.59 1.55 0.65 1.07 0.24 1.69 2.61 0.74 (0.89) (0.98) (0.81)

2nd

rep 32

Polangui, Albay Itaran ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


1st

std 6


Juan F. Trivinio BHS (Pasacao School of Fisheries)

6.89 10.20 4.14 8.20 12.29 4.58 1.31 2.09 0.44 6.72 5.91 7.46 (1.48) (6.38) 2.88

Hab 7

San Jose, Camarines Sur Kinalansan NHS

7.57 8.75 6.83 6.62 7.01 6.19 (0.95) (1.74) (0.64) 4.10 5.95 2.12 (2.52) (1.06) (4.07)

2nd

rep 33

Malinao, Albay Labnig ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.20 2.22 0.00 1.20 2.22 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.20) (2.22) 0.00

3rd

rep 34

Lagonoy, Camarines Sur

Lagonoy South CS 0.80 1.15 0.44 0.76 0.90 0.63 (0.04) (0.25) 0.19 0.81 1.16 0.45 0.05 0.26 (0.18)

3rd

rep 35

Talisay, Camarines Norte

M. Cacho ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 36

Tigaon, Camarines Sur

Mabalodbalod ES 5.92 6.31 5.50 5.28 6.38 4.26 (0.64) 0.07 (1.24) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (5.28) (6.38) (4.26)

1st

std 37

Daraga, Albay Malabog ES 7.58 9.09 6.06 18.03 20.51 13.64 10.45 11.42 7.58 8.33 2.86 16.00 (9.70) (17.65) 2.36

1st

std 38

Malilipot, Albay Malilipot CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st

lap 39

Malilipot, Albay Malilipot NHS 5.27 7.21 3.07 4.03 5.36 2.52 (1.24) (1.85) (0.55) 4.29 5.54 2.90 0.26 0.18 0.38

3rd

rep 40

Libmanan, Camarines Sur

Mambulo Nuevo ES 1.16 1.09 1.25 1.87 2.86 0.75 0.71 1.77 (0.50) 0.24 0.45 0.00 (1.63) (2.41) (0.75)

2nd

rep 41

Manito, Albay Manito CS 0.32 0.21 0.43 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.32) (0.21) (0.43) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

Hab 8

Guinobatan, Albay Marcial O. Rañola MHS (MORMS) *

3.02 4.28 1.86 4.73 6.35 3.24 1.71 2.07 1.38 4.80 6.41 3.30 0.07 0.06 0.06

3rd

rep 42

Basud, Camarines Norte

Matnog ES 0.97 1.34 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.97) (1.34) (0.60) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3rd

rep 9

Daet, Camarines Norte

Moreno Integrated 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


Type

of work

Location (City/Municipality/

Province) Name of School

Total no. of Enrollment SY 2006 to 2007

Total no. of Enrollment SY 2007 to 2008

Increase/ Decrease Total no. of Enrollment

SY 2008 to 2009 Increase/ Decrease

Total Male

Female

Total Male

Female Total Male Female Total Male

Female

Total Male Female

2nd

rep 1

Bacacay, Albay Bacacay East CS 1677 834 834 1674 861 813 (3) 27 (21) 1,680 878 802

6.00 17.00 (11.00)

3rd

rep 2


Bagacay ES 31

12

19

31

14

17 0 2 (2)

28

13

15

(3.00) (1.00) (2.00)

2nd

Lap 3

Bargamanoc South, Catanduanes

Bagamanoc CES 530

289

241

554

302

252 24 13 11

533

297

236

(21.00) (5.00) (16.00)

2nd

rep 4

Libmanan North, Camarines Sur

Bahay ES 138

66

72

178

91

87 40 25 15

195

102

93

17.00 11.00 6.00

1st

lap 5

Camalig, Albay Baligang ES 276

139

137

276

149

127 0 10 (10)

306

158

148

30.00 9.00 21.00

1st

rep 6

Daraga, Albay Bañadero ES *

220

113

107

221

122

99 1 9 (8)

223

117

106

2.00 (5.00) 7.00

2nd

rep 7

Ragay, Camarines Sur

Banga ES 467

214

253

470

226

244 3 12 (9)

472

247

225

2.00 21.00 (19.00)

1st

std 1

Barcelona, Sorsogon Barcelona NCHS 1,344

634

710

1,308

610

698 (36) (24) (12)

1,279

630

649

(29.00) 20.00 (49.00)

2nd

rep 8


Bell San Francisco ES 613

341

272

672

352

320 59 11 48

667

356

311

(5.00) 4.00 (9.00)

1st

rep 9

Daraga, Albay Binitayan ES * 953

503

450

739

391

348 (214) (112) (102)

657

355

302

(82.00) (36.00) (46.00)

3rd

rep 10

Legazpi City, Albay Bogtong ES 510

259

251

485

256

229 (25) (3) (22)

504

257

247

19.00 1.00 18.00

2nd

rep 11


Bombon CS 759

401

358

741

393

348 (18) (8) (10)

729

397

332

(12.00) 4.00 (16.00)

1st

Lap 12

Daraga, Albay Bongalon ES 182

99

83

197

109

88 15 10 5

203

118

85

6.00 9.00 (3.00)

2nd

std 13

Sorsogon City, Sorsogon

Buhatan ES 433

225

208

406

197

209 (27) (28) 1

409

205

204

3.00 8.00 (5.00)

2nd

rep 14

Buhi, Camarines Sur Buhi CS 1,610

797

813

1,618

794

894 8 (3) 81

1,584

786

798

(34.00) (8.00) (96.00)

2nd

rep 15

Buhi, Camarines Sur Buhi North CS 1,142

545

597

1,125

541

564 (17) (4) (33)

1,065

495

570

(60.00) (46.00) 6.00

2nd

rep 16

Bula, Camarines Sur Bula CS 1,233

658

575

1,234

637

597 1 (21) 22

1,222

642

580

(12.00) 5.00 (17.00)

1st

std 2

Bula, Camarines Sur Bula NHS 1,253

548

705

1,239

575

664 (14) 27 (41)

1,257

565

692

18.00 (10.00) 28.00

Hab 17

Libon, Albay Bulusan ES 259

138

121

280

150

130 21 12 9

242

126

116

(38.00) (24.00) (14.00)

Lap Daraga, Albay Busay ES * 3 1 2

(2.00) (1.00) (1.00)


1st 18 183 95 88 186 96 90 184 95 89

3rd

rep 19

Tinambac, Camarines Sur

Cagliliog ES 537

268

269

570

273

297 33 5 28

587

276

311

17.00 3.00 14.00

3rd

rep 20


Calatagan ES 431

226

205

455

240

215 24 14 10

485

265

220

30.00 25.00 5.00

2nd

rep 21

Camaligan, Camarines Sur

Camaligan CS 1,191

615

576

1,205

602

603 14 (13) 27

1,247

628

619

42.00 26.00 16.00

2nd

rep 22


Caranan North ES 1,023

523

500

1,021

515

506 (2) (8) 6

1,025

522

503

4.00 7.00 (3.00)

1st

std 23

Cabusao, Camarines Sur

Castillo ES 630

315

315

634

329

305 4 14 (10)

634

344

290

0.00 15.00 (15.00)

3rd

rep 24

Lagonoy (Dahat), Camarines Sur

Dahat ES 378

198

180

384

205

179 6 7 (1)

395

199

196

11.00 (6.00) 17.00

Hab 3

Daraga, Albay Daraga NHS 4,624

2,068

2,556

4,295

1,930

2,365 (329) (138) (191)

4,427

2,025

2,402

132.00 95.00 37.00

2nd

lap 4

Timambac, Camarines Sur

Don Servillano Platon MHS 1,320

637

683

1,201

520

681 (119) (117) (2)

1,289

582

707

88.00 62.00 26.00

Hab 5

Naujan, Oriental Mindoro

Doroteo S. Mendoza Sr. MNHS

779

363

416

703

297

406 (76) (66) (10)

678

321

357

(25.00) 24.00 (49.00)

2nd

rep 25

Guinobatan, Albay Dr. Felipe Cevallos ES 184

98

86

180

92

88 (4) (6) 2

130

67

63

(50.00) (25.00) (25.00)

2nd

rep 26

Malinao, Albay Estancia ES 669

347

322

645

334

311 (24) (13) (11)

660

357

303

15.00 23.00 (8.00)

2nd

rep 27


Gñaran ES 160

81

79

154

74

80 (6) (7) 1

151

80

71

(3.00) 6.00 (9.00)

2nd

lap 28

Goa, Camarines Sur Goa Central ES 3,133

1,602

1,531

3,185

1,631

1,554 52 29 23

3,183

1,636

1,547

(2.00) 5.00 (7.00)

1st

lap 29

Guinobatan, Albay Guinobatan East CS 1,905

975

930

1,849

946

903 (56) (29) (27)

1,894

953

941

45.00 7.00 38.00

2nd

rep 30

Daraga, Albay Impact Learning Center 418

193

225

366

183

183 (52) (10) (42)

404

208

196

38.00 25.00 13.00

1st

std 31

Irosin, Sorsogon Irosin CS 2,439

1,220

1,219

2,442

1,230

1,212 3 10 (7)

2,479

1,222

1,257

37.00 (8.00) 45.00

2nd

rep 32

Polangui, Albay Itaran ES 358

189

169

355

186

169 (3) (3) 0

345

185

160

(10.00) (1.00) (9.00)

1st

std 6


Juan F. Trivinio BHS (Pasacao School of Fisheries)

827

359

468

866

407

459

39 48 (9)

818

389

429

(48.00) (18.00) (30.00)

Hab 7

San Jose, Camarines Sur Kinalansan NHS

710

370

340

683

353

330 (27) (17) (10)

676

336

340

(7.00) (17.00) 10.00

2nd

rep 33

Malinao, Albay Labnig ES 630

341

289

650

350

300 20 9 11

662

356

306

12.00 6.00 6.00

rep Lagonoy, Camarines Lagonoy South CS 41 18 23

28.00 (13.00) 41.00


3rd 34 Sur 1,309 669 640 1,350 687 663 1,378 674 704

3rd

rep 35

Talisay, Camarines Norte

M. Cacho ES 437

239

198

434

246

188 (3) 7 (10)

433

234

199

(1.00) (12.00) 11.00

2nd

rep 36


Mabalodbalod ES 587

282

305

583

266

317 (4) (16) 12

605

289

316

22.00 23.00 (1.00)

1st

std 37

Daraga, Albay Malabog ES 421

216

205

458

227

231 37 11 26

444

210

234

(14.00) (17.00) 3.00

1st

std 38

Malilipot, Albay Malilipot CS 954

520

434

992

534

458 38 14 24

911

499

412

(81.00) (35.00) (46.00)

1st

lap 39

Malilipot, Albay Malilipot NHS -

-

-

571

300

271 571 300 271

523

287

266

(48.00) (13.00) (5.00)

3rd

rep 40

Libmanan, Camarines Sur

Mambulo Nuevo ES 854

454

400

843

445

398 (11) (9) (2)

861

452

409

18.00 7.00 11.00

2nd

rep 41

Manito, Albay Manito CS 946

495

451

948

486

462 2 (9) 11

998

523

475

50.00 37.00 13.00

Hab 8

Guinobatan, Albay Marcial O. Rañola MHS (MORMS) *

4,162

1,994

2,168

4,030

1,943

2,087 (132) (51) (81)

4,048

1,958

2,089

18.00 15.00 2.00

3rd

rep 42

Basud, Camarines Norte

Matnog ES 1,387

712

675

1,352

687

665 (35) (25) (10)

1,359

708

651

7.00 21.00 (14.00)

3rd

rep 9

Daet, Camarines Norte

Moreno Integrated 585

300

285

533

280

253 (52) (20) (32)

572

298

274

39.00 18.00 21.00


2nd

rep 43

Nabua East, Camarines Sur

Nabua Central (Pilot)

0.92 1.28 0.53 1.02 1.18 0.84 0.10 (0.10) 0.31 0.52 0.69 0.32 (0.50) (0.49) (0.52)

2nd

std 44

Manito, Albay Nagotgot ES 0.62 0.62 0.63 0.28 0.00 0.56 (0.34) (0.62) (0.07) 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.28) 0.00 (0.56)

2nd

rep 45

Bula, Camarines Sur

Ombao Polpog ES 4.91 3.11 6.54 5.77 6.52 5.08 0.86 3.41 (1.46) 2.92 3.39 2.50 (2.85) (3.13) (2.58)

1st

std 46


Pamukid ES 0.74 0.92 0.53 0.56 0.84 0.25 (0.18) (0.08) (0.28) 1.34 1.90 0.71 0.78 1.06 0.46

3rd

rep 47

Legazpi City, Albay

Pawa ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.25 0.45 0.00 0.25 0.45 0.00 0.25 0.00 0.62 0.00 (0.45) 0.62

2nd

rep 48


Pinamasagan ES 1.16 2.13 0.00 1.18 1.05 1.33 0.02 (1.08) 1.33 0.58 1.00 0.00 (0.60) (0.05) (1.33)

1st

rep 49

Polangui, Albay Polangui South CS 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.20 0.26 0.14 0.13 0.14 0.14 0.73 1.10 0.29 0.53 0.84 0.15

3rd

std 10

Rapu-Rapu, Albay

Rapu-Rapu NHS 2.42 3.64 1.34 7.39 8.55 5.99 4.97 4.91 4.65 5.26 7.55 3.18 (2.13) (1.00) (2.81)

2nd

lap 50

Legaspi City, Albay

Rawis ES 0.27 0.24 0.31 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.27) (0.24) (0.31) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 51

Calabanga, Camarines Sur

Sabang ES 2.28 3.26 1.15 2.61 3.69 1.44 0.33 0.43 0.29 1.85 2.23 1.42 (0.76) (1.46) (0.02)

1st

std 52


San Fernando CS 3.15 3.93 2.32 0.00 0.00 0.00 (3.15) (3.93) (2.32) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3rd

toilet 53


San Fernando CS 2.58 3.70 1.17 2.61 3.32 1.86 0.03 (0.38) 0.69 1.18 1.40 0.97 (1.43) (1.92) (0.89)

2nd

rep 54

Malilipot, Albay San Francisco Learning ES

0.71 1.32 0.00 0.67 1.29 0.00 (0.04) (0.03) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.67) (1.29) 0.00

1st

rep 11

Malilipot, Albay San Francisco NHS *

1.46 1.68 1.29 1.63 3.39 0.00 0.17 1.71 (1.29) 3.96 6.22 1.90 2.33 2.83 1.90

2nd

rep 55


San Jose CS 1.39 2.19 0.50 1.75 4.85 1.64 0.36 2.66 1.14 2.17 2.53 1.78 0.42 (2.32) 0.14

1st

lap 56

Malilipot, Albay San Jose ES * 2.30 0.00 5.00 1.75 1.85 1.64 (0.55) 1.85 (3.36) 1.11 1.72 0.00 (0.64) (0.13) (1.64)

1st

std 57

Libmanan South,Camarines Sur

San Juan ES 1.25 2.00 0.35 0.34 0.32 0.37 (0.91) (1.68) 0.02 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.34) (0.32) (0.37)

2nd

rep 58

Canaman, Camarines Sur

San Nicolas ES 2.96 2.74 3.23 9.82 10.17 9.43 6.86 7.43 6.20 0.00 0.00 0.00 (9.82) (10.17) (9.43)

3rd

rep 59

Virac, Catanduanes

San Vicente ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

std 60

Sorsogon City Sorsogon Pilot ES 0.30 0.40 0.20 0.20 0.41 0.00 (0.10) 0.01 (0.20) 0.69 0.93 0.46 0.49 0.52 0.46

2nd

rep 61

Sto. Domingo, Albay

Sta. Misericordia ES

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00


2nd

rep 62

Sto, Domingo, Albay

Sto. Domingo CS 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

std 12

Tabaco Ciity, Albay

Tabaco NCS 0.10 0.00 0.19 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.10) 0.00 (0.19) 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

std 13

Tabaco City, Albay

Tabaco NHS 1.87 2.81 1.10 2.41 3.46 1.51 0.54 0.65 0.41 3.49 5.24 1.90 1.08 1.78 0.39

2nd

std 63

Tabaco City, Albay

Tabaco Northwest CS

0.51 0.64 0.39 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.51) (0.64) (0.39) 0.18 0.34 0.00 0.18 0.34 0.00

1st

std 64

Daraga, Albay Tabon-tabon ES 0.88 1.73 0.00 0.21 0.43 0.00 (0.67) (1.30) 0.00 0.21 0.00 0.42 0.00 (0.43) 0.42

1st

std 65

Camalig, Albay Taladong ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

1st

rep 66

Malinao, Albay Tanawan ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

rep 67


Tigaon Central Pilot Sch.

2.13 2.01 2.26 2.74 3.69 1.67 0.61 1.68 (0.59) 2.07 2.18 1.95 (0.67) (1.51) 0.28

3rd

rep 68


Timbaan ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 1.43 1.79 1.02 1.43 1.79 1.02 0.47 0.83 0.00 (0.96) (0.96) (1.02)

2nd

rep 69

Calabanga, Camarines Sur

Union ES 1.04 1.86 0.19 2.47 2.06 2.94 1.43 0.20 2.75 0.96 1.59 0.21 (1.51) (0.47) (2.73)

Hab 14

Pili, Camarines Sur

Victor Bagasina MHS

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

3rd

rep 15

Vinzons, Camarines Norte

Vinzons Pilot HS 8.49 10.46 6.82 8.94 12.82 5.74 0.45 2.36 (1.08) 7.60 10.86 4.67 (1.34) (1.96) (1.07)

3rd

rep 70

Virac, Catanduanes

Virac Pilot ES 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.07 0.12 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 (0.07) (0.12) 0.00

2nd

lap 16

Camarines Sur Leon Q. Mercado HS

3.48 3.17 3.85 5.72 8.42 2.82 2.24 5.25 (1.03) 10.00 12.09 7.91 4.28 3.67 5.09

2nd

rep 71

Camarines Sur Catagbacan CS 1.82 2.49 1.01 1.30 2.47 0.00 (0.52) (0.03) (1.01) 3.37 5.74 0.50 2.07 3.28 0.50

2nd

lap modified

17

Oriental Mindoro

Facundo C. Lopez MHS

0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

std 18

Marinduque Paciano A.Sena MHS

0.00 0.00 0.00 6.09 8.33 2.33 6.09 8.33 2.33 2.36 4.00 0.00 (3.73) (4.33) (2.33)

3rd

rep 72

Camarines Norte Bulhao ES 1.13 1.12 1.14 1.12 0.54 1.74 (0.01) (0.58) 0.60 0.00 0.00 0.00 (1.12) (0.54) (1.74)

73

tent Hobo ES 1.31 1.08 1.52 1.55 2.29 0.79 0.24 1.21 (0.73) 1.34 2.06 0.56 (0.21) (0.23) (0.23)

23

43

18

92

176

90 + Hobo = 91


2nd

rep 43 1966 1015 951 1938 1010 928 (28) (5) (23) 1,902 976 926

(36.00) (34.00) (2.00)

2nd

std 44

350

173

177

339

172

167 (11) (1) (10)

352

182

170

13.00 10.00 3.00

2nd

rep 45

381

184

197

377

177

200 (4) (7) 3

389

189

200

12.00 12.00 0.00

1st

std 46

888

475

413

886

465

421 (2) (10) 8

867

461

406

(19.00) (4.00) (15.00)

3rd

rep 47

406

228

178

395

234

161 (11) 6 (17)

398

230

168

3.00 (4.00) 7.00

2nd

rep 48

170

95

75

171

100

71 1 5 (4)

185

99

86

14.00 (1.00) 15.00

1st

rep 49

1,486

788

698

1,543

832

711 57 44 13

1,634

903

731

91.00 71.00 20.00

3rd

std 10

686

318

368

764

356

408 78 38 40

785

375

410

21.00 19.00 2.00

2nd

lap 50

759

435

324

794

460

334 35 25 10

847

492

355

53.00 32.00 21.00

2nd

rep 51

727

379

348

757

404

553 30 25 205

749

402

347

(8.00) (2.00) (206.00)

1st

std 52

776

420

356

819

435

384 43 15 28

858

442

416

39.00 7.00 32.00

3rd

toilet 53

288

152

136

268

149

119 (20) (3) (17)

271

152

119

3.00 3.00 0.00

2nd

rep 54 296 153 143 315 165 150 19 12 7 344 189 155

29.00 24.00 5.00

1st

rep 11

296

153

143

315

165

150 19 12 7

344

189

155

29.00 24.00 5.00

2nd

rep 55

1,313

702

611

1,289

671

618 (24) (31) 7

1,300

666

634

11.00 (5.00) 16.00

1st

lap 56

76

50

26

98

55

43 22 5 17

128

66

62

30.00 11.00 19.00

1st

std 57

161

85

76

155

80

75 (6) (5) (1)

136

75

61

(19.00) (5.00) (14.00)

2nd

rep 58

114

60

54

122

61

61 8 1 7

105

58

47

(17.00) (3.00) (14.00)

3rd

rep 59

343

181

162

347

189

158 4 8 (4)

366

198

168

19.00 9.00 10.00

2nd

std 60

2,942

1,456

1,486

3,028

1,500

1,528 86 44 42

3,129

1,581

1,548

101.00 81.00 20.00

2nd

rep 61

380

208

172

380

215

165 0 7 (7)

390

208

182

10.00 (7.00) 17.00

2nd

rep 62

1,484

763

721

1,488

738

750 4 (25) 29

1,503

735

768

15.00 (3.00) 18.00


2nd

std 12

1,006

254

482

1,039

541

498 33 287 16

1,040

541

499

1.00 0.00 1.00

2nd

std 13

6,258

2,796

3,462

6,644

3,087

3,557 386 291 95

7,017

3,346

3,671

373.00 259.00 114.00

2nd

std 63

1,626

828

798

1,727

890

837 101 62 39

1,823

942

881

96.00 52.00 44.00

1st

std 64

185

110

75

184

108

76 (1) (2) 1

204

116

88

20.00 8.00 12.00

1st

std 65

336

168

168

344

168

176 8 0 8

343

166

177

(1.00) (2.00) 1.00

1st

rep 66

393

191

202

398

201

197 5 10 (5)

366

185

181

(32.00) (16.00) (16.00)

2nd

rep 67

1,389

731

658

1,400

735

665 11 4 7

1,441

749

692

41.00 14.00 27.00

3rd

rep 68

213

114

99

218

123

95 5 9 (4)

198

103

95

(20.00) (20.00) 0.00

2nd

rep 69

144

67

77

129

55

74 (15) (12) (3)

135

64

71

6.00 9.00 (3.00)

Hab 14

521 242 279 588 294 294 67 52 15

652 343 309 64.00 49.00 15.00

3rd

rep 15

2,678

1,198

1,480

2,655

1,167

1,488 (23) (31) 8

2,665

1,235

1,430

10.00 68.00 (58.00)

3rd

rep 70

1,543

830

713

1,535

799

736 (8) (31) 23

1,533

813

720

(2.00) 14.00 (16.00)

2nd

lap 16

342

172

170

422

210

212 80 38 42

441

217

224

19.00 7.00 12.00

2nd

rep 71

460

244

216

445

244

201 (15) 0 (15)

456

251

205

11.00 7.00 4.00

2nd

lap modified

17

-

-

-

-

-

- 0 0 0

-

-

-

0.00 0.00 0.00

2nd

std 18

114

71

43

126

74

52 12 3 9

129

71

58

3.00 (3.00) 6.00

3rd

rep 72

372

194

178

394

212

185 22 18 7

399

212

187

5.00 0.00 2.00

73

714

393

381

749

389

360 35 (4) (21)

800

440

51.00 51.00 (360.00)

23

43

18

92


Annex VIII: List of BSLE-assisted Schools, by Location, by Type of Assistance (Structural)

LIST OF BSLE-ASSISTED SCHOOLS, BY LOCATION, BY TYPE OF ASSISTANCE (STRUCTURAL)

Type of assistance/ Room

No. Name of School Level (Elementary/High

School)

LAPUS Building: 2

Classrooms, 2 Kitchens, 2x2 Toilets

New DepEd Standard 2 Classroom Building

Repair/Rehabilitation of Existing

Classrooms

1 Bagamanoc CES Elementary LAPUS

2 Bacacay East Central Elementary 2+ 3-CL Repair/Rehab

3 Baligang ES Elementary LAPUS

4 Bogtong ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

5 Bongalon ES Elementary LAPUS

6 Bulusan ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

7 Daraga NHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

8 Dr. Felipe Cevallos ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

9 Estancia ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

10 Guinobatan East CS Elementary LAPUS

11 Impact Learning Center Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

12 Itaran ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

13 Labnig ES Elementary 2+ 3-CL Repair/Rehab

14 Malabog ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

15 Malilipot CS Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

16 Malilipot NHS High School LAPUS

17 Manito CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

18 Nagotgot ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL 2-CL Repair/Rehab

19 Pawa ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

20 Polangui South CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

21 Rawis ES Elementary LAPUS

22 San Francisco ES Elementary Repair/Rehab

23 Sta. Misericordia ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

24 Sto. Domingo CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

25 Tabaco Northwest CS Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

26 Tabaco NHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

27 Tabon-tabon ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

28 Taladong ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

29 Tanawan ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

30 Rapu-Rapu NHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL (+ 1 toilet)

31 M. Cacho ES Elementary 1-CL Repair/Rehab

32 Matnog ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

33 Moreno Integrated Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab


34 Vinzons Pilot HS High School 3-CL Repair/Rehab

35 Bagacay ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

36 Bahay ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

37 Banga ES Elementary Repair/Rehab

38 Bell San Francisco ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

39 Bombon CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

40 Buhi CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

41 Buhi North Central Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

42 Bula CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

43 Bula NHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

44 Cagliliog ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab PLUS 3-CL repair AND 2-CL repair

(transfers)

45 Camaligan CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

46 Caranan North ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

47 Castillo ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

48 Catagbacan ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

49 Dahat ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab PLUS 1-CL repair

(transfer)

50 Don Servillano Platon MHS High School LAPUS

51 Gñaran ES Elementary Repair/Rehab

52 Goa Central ES Elementary LAPUS

53 Juan Trivinio BHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

54 Kinalansan HS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

55 Lagonoy SCS Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

56 Mabalodbalod ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

57 Mambulo Nuevo ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

58 Nabua Central (Pilot) Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

59 Ombao Polpog ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

60 Pamukid ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

61 Pinamasagan ES Elementary Repair/Rehab

62 Sabang ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab


63 San Fernando CS Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

64 San Jose CS Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

65 San Nicolas ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

66 Tigaon Central Pilot School Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

67 Union ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

68 Victor Bagasina MHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

69 Calatagan ES Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

70 San Vicente ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

71 Timbaan ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

72 Virac Pilot ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

73 Doroteo S. Mendoza Sr. MNHS

High School DepEd Std 2-CL

74 Barcelona NHS High School DepEd Std 2-CL

75 Buhatan ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

76 Casiguran CS Elementary LAPUS

77 Irosin ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

78 San Juan ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL

79 Banadero ES * Elementary 2-CL Repair/Rehab

80 Binitayan ES * Elementary Repair/Rehab

81 Busay ES * Elementary LAPUS

82 Marcial O. Rañola MHS (MORMS) *

High School DepEd Std 2-CL

83 San Jose ES * Elementary LAPUS

84 San Francisco NHS * High School Repair/Rehab

85 Sorsogon Pilot ES Elementary DepEd Std 2-CL


86 Bulhao ES Elementary 3-CL Repair/Rehab

87 Leon Mercado HS High School LAPUS

** DRR Pilot School