checkmyschool r · school issues and problems became the primary driver ... children), to budget...

1

CHECKMYSCHOOL REPORT

© ANSA-EAP Foundation

337 Katipunan Avenue

Loyola Heights, Quezon City

September 2017

http://graphemica.com/%C2%A9

i

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

1. CheckMySchool (CMS) is a participatory monitoring initiative that started in 2010. From being an

open data platform, it evolved into an innovative transparency and social accountability

initiative. It is spearheaded by a secretariat based in Quezon City, NCR and operates a network

of local volunteers.

2. This report reviews the design of the CMS operations, analyzes its results, and presents

contributions to the agenda of transparency, accountability and citizen participation in the

education sector. Policy recommendations on stakeholder participation in school governance

and operations are also presented for DepEd’s consideration. The report focuses on the sixth

iteration of the CMS project, which covered the period of August 2016 to June 2017.

3. CMS currently adopts an issue-based, demand-driven and problem-oriented approach to

engaging schools. By design, it has a six-step process of operation, namely (a) issue identification,

(b) stakeholder engagement, (c) data access, (d) feedback, (e) issue resolution, and (f)

storytelling. There were 22 coordinators who actively implemented the CMS process in their

respective areas.

4. CMS6 officially enlisted 893 public schools in the sixth cycle. They are located in 12 provinces, 48

municipalities and 10 cities in Luzon, Visayas and Mindanao.

CMS6 coverage is 2% of all public schools nationwide. According to a World Bank/AusAid study

in 2016, it has a 15-20% awareness among principals. It needs improved communication strategy

to expand. The proximity of schools to CMS volunteers and their ability to visit them were the

most influential factor in the selection of the schools that CMS covered.

5. The volunteers collected 2,794 issues from the covered schools, 79% of which are related to

school buildings, 7% instructional materials, 5% equipment, and the rest on reporting, teachers

and personnel. The high concentration of issues on the condition of classrooms cuts across

economic classes of cities and municipalities.

6. In stakeholder engagement, 60% of the government offices tapped by volunteers were LGUs

while about one-third were DepEd units. From the non-government sector, almost half were

Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA) and around one-fourth were community-based organizations.

Student groups were mostly not engaged.

ii

There is expectation that LGUs can and must address education service improvement. It invites

questions on the appropriate role of LGUs and the volunteers’ knowledge of DepEd mandates.

7. In the data access stage, actual monitoring was conducted in 551 schools. It validated 1,611

school issues, 87% of which were about school buildings. The issues have existed from a span of

a year to as long as 21 years; average of 3.7 years for 921 issues with available information. They

were a mix of major and minor issues. CMS data-updating tool is the most frequently used tool

for data access.

The data access exercise indicates schools’ openness to transparency and social accountability.

The use of data-updating tool is due to the volunteers’ familiarity with it and school’s or LGU’s

request. The CMS data supplement government’s official M&E data.

8. Feedback sessions have been held in five areas, covering 287 schools and 739 issues. They were

attended by both government and non-government representatives. Cooperation and the

manner of approach were the key facilitating factors in the conduct of the feedback process.

9. 558 issues in 191 schools from three provinces, namely Aklan, Guimaras and Misamis Oriental,

reached resolution. 89% (493) of these issues are about school building. The accumulated

resolutions have a total estimated amount of PHP 554,217,638: Aklan, PHP 84,167,000; CDO, PHP

1,895,000; and Guimaras, PHP 468,155,638. The LGU is the potential source of approximately

one-third of the resources for Guimaras issues.

Based on the reports, the CMS rate of resolution is 20%, and there is 75% chance for an issue to

reach resolution if there is proper feedback. Claims about issue resolutions, however, could be

tricky. The framework for interpreting resolution according to three levels, namely

acknowledgment, commitment, result, needs further scrutiny.

10. CheckMySchool published 40 stories of change on its website from August 2016 to June 2017. 10

of the stories are personal, 10 community, 6 institutional, and 14 are actual school

improvements. The reported school improvements amounted to PHP 277 million. Most of these

came from the previous cycles, which indicate continuing work for CheckMySchool even after

the end of a cycle.

More volunteers need to be encouraged to share stories that will captivate the interest of the

public, especially the stories of empowerment, which demonstrate the joint efforts of

government and community to improve school conditions. These stories should be more

popularized and mainstreamed.

iii

11. Key contributions of CheckMySchool to the agenda of transparency, accountability and

participation in the education sector include: (a) increasing awareness on school information, (b)

convening various stakeholders to promote citizen engagement in education issues, (c) serving

as intermediary to facilitate monitoring of school issues, (d) clarifying mandates and

accountabilities in the delivery of education services, (e) testing the adaptability of a participatory

initiative in DepEd, (e) empowerment of stakeholders, (f) expansion of CMS support.

12. Based on the CheckMySchool experience, the policy recommendations for DepEd are to: (a)

strengthen participatory monitoring in school effectiveness framework and standards, (b)

implement DepEd Order on FOI Manual through citizen groups, (c) use participatory monitoring

in the Education Program Delivery Unit (EPDU), (d) increase bureaucratic efficiency in addressing

school issues by identifying accountabilities that are better delegated to School Heads; (e)

strengthen coordination with DPWH on stakeholder involvement in monitoring the School

Building Program; (f) clarify mandates and official accountabilities in memorandum orders, and

(g) integrate citizen monitoring initiatives in the DepEd strategy to contribute to NEDA AmBisyon

Natin 2040, Open Government Partnership (OGP) commitments, and United Nations Sustainable

Development Goals (SDGs) 4 and 16.

iv

CONTENTS EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ............................................................................................................................. i

BACKGROUND ......................................................................................................................................... 1

THE REPORT ............................................................................................................................................ 2

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 3

HOW CHECKMYSCHOOL WORKS ............................................................................................................ 4

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS ....................................................................................................................... 9

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS .................................................................................................................. 28

CONTRIBUTIONS ................................................................................................................................... 38

CONCLUSION ......................................................................................................................................... 42

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS ............................................................................................................... 43

ANNEXES ................................................................................................................................................. a

CHECKMYSCHOOL REPORT

1

BACKGROUND

CheckMySchool (CMS) is a participatory monitoring initiative for the education sector in the

Philippines. It started in 2010 as an experimental project of the ANSA-EAP (Affiliated Network

for Social Accountability in East Asia and the Pacific) Foundation along the advocacy for access

to information and social accountability. CheckMySchool is run by a secretariat based in

Quezon City. It has a management consisting of a manager with component units handling

networking, research-knowledge-learning, communications, and sustainability. Its local

network has area coordinators who mobilize volunteers and directly interact with school

stakeholders. Its funding support comes from the Open Society Foundation through the

World Bank’s Global Partnership for Social Accountability (GPSA).

In 2010 and 2012, ANSA-EAP signed a Memorandum of Agreement with the Department of

Education (DepEd) which provided CMS with institutional support from the department. The

opportunity for the CMS type of initiative emerged in the context of heightened interest in

open government and open data. It was a test-case for the use of online mapping platform

and other digital technologies for transparency and citizen participation.

As a social accountability initiative, CMS aims to continuously improve the quality of

education services by bringing the participation of citizens and communities into the

governance of public schools in the country. It addresses three issues in the education sector:

inaccessibility of school information, weak community involvement in education governance,

and poor coordination between community and government over the resolution of school

issues.

In its initial run, CMS made an effort to validate DepEd’s BEIS data and post the information

online through the CMS website and in school premises. CMS volunteers gathered basic

school information such as enrollment, number of classrooms, textbooks, toilet, and desks

and chairs, number of teaching and non-teaching personnel, budget, etc., as part of the

2

monitoring process. The gathered data were made publicly available and used for evidence-

based discussion with stakeholders, especially DepEd and local government officials.

When DepEd eventually enhanced its BEIS system, CMS evolved from being a complementary

data-gathering platform to being a citizen engagement platform. On its sixth cycle of

implementation, CMS recalibrated its operations and prioritized issue-based, problem-

oriented and demand-driven actions. School issues and problems became the primary driver

of the engagement. The issues were surfaced and resolve through through data access,

feedback, and advocacy efforts.

Complementing this shift is the introduction of the use of the “most significant change”

framework for capturing and documenting experiences and results. It collected and published

stories about changes reported directly by the stakeholders themselves. These include stories

of empowerment at the personal and community levels, and actual improvements in school

conditions.

THE REPORT

This report details the implementation and accomplishments of the sixth run of the

CheckMySchool (CMS 6) initiative. It is intended for the appreciation and use of Department

of Education, government agencies involved in education governance, and the public at large.

The report reviews the design of the initiative, analyzes its performance, and presents

contributions to the agenda of transparency, accountability and citizen participation in the

education sector. “Design” refers to the prescribed process of implementing the

CheckMySchool initiative. “Performance” refers to actual accomplishments based on

collected data and corresponding analysis or interpretation of the data. “Contributions” are

the effects of the application of the initiative in public schools, particularly the added value of

the advocacy for transparency, accountability and citizen participation in the education

sector.

3

Design Performance Contributions

The methods employed to come up with the report include document review, process review,

data analysis, and effect analysis.

SCOPE AND LIMITATIONS

The information in this report contains data covering the sixth cycle of CheckMySchool which

ran for a period of 10 months between August 2016 and March 2017. The data used for this

report was generated through an online reporting system. These were encoded, processed,

and consolidated into a data-set via Microsoft Excel spreadsheets.

The period for transmitting the data varied between areas. Guimaras started transmitting

data as early as August 2016 while the bulk of data from other areas were transmitted

between December 2016 and January 2017. Some areas were not able to transmit their

complete reports due to a number of issues ranging from intermittent internet connection,

peace and order issues, and time constraints in implementing the monitoring activities. Only

data received by June 9, 2017 were included in the data-set.

The nature of the data used is highly qualitative, with the secretariat providing the

appropriate interpretation and analysis. Among the key information included in this report

are key school issues, stakeholder involvement, and information on the different levels of issue

resolution reached per school.

Finally, this report does not make any comparison with previous runs of CheckMySchool. The

shifts in strategy, additional features introduced in monitoring tools, and other changes in

context for CMS 6 makes comparison with the previous cycles impossible.

4

HOW CHECKMYSCHOOL WORKS

By design, CheckMySchool follows this process of implementation:

Issue Identification

⇨ Stakeholder Engagement

⇨ Data

Access ⇨ Feedback ⇨

Issue Resolution

⇨ Storytelling


CMS volunteers surface issues, concerns or problems present in schools by getting talking to

and getting feedback from school stakeholders, such as students, parents, teachers and other

community members. These issues may range from infrastructural problems (e.g., lack of

classrooms), and other provisions (e.g. textbooks), to student welfare (e.g., malnourished

children), to budget and funding (e.g. release or utilization of MOOE), and performance (e.g.

NAT scores). This provides them with an initial feel of the school’s situation.

The volunteers then consult School Heads to explain the purpose of CMS and get their

commitment to support the initiative. They request the principal to sign a Commitment Form

which also lists the most pressing school issues as identified by the school stakeholders.

Stakeholder Engagement

CMS volunteers look for school and community stakeholders who can provide support in

monitoring operations. These partners range from people coming from the communities

themselves, local CSOs interested in public education governance, and local government and

DepEd offices.

The coordinators trained by the secretariat themselves recruit and train volunteers in the use

of CMS monitoring tools. They also engage other organizations in order to Furthermore, they

also conduct resource mobilization activities and identify private and government resources

5

they might tap to aid their operations. Finally, they tap government stakeholders who can

benefit from the data CMS gathers or act upon the issues that would be identified during

operations.

Data Access

CMS volunteers visit their selected schools and conduct monitoring activities with the

permission of the School Head. In some cases, they’re assisted by school personnel

themselves. They choose the monitoring tool that best clarifies the existing issues in the

schools. For a comprehensive review of the school condition, the volunteer may use the CMS

Data Updating tool, which focuses on getting basic school information, such as the number of

chairs, tables, classrooms, and teachers present in the school. They may also utilize

Community Score Card (CSC) to get balanced views of both school officials and community

members on the identified issues, their underlying causes, and the suggestions of the

community on how to resolve them.

The monitoring must enable the volunteers to understand the underlying cause of the issues.

They primarily focus on identifying the school issues based on their own observations,

coordination and assistance of school stakeholders, and the accomplished Commitment

Form. They further inquire how long the issues have existed and if they have been properly

reported. School reports and documents, such as MOOE expenditure, SIP and AIP, may also

requested by the volunteers for review.

Once they finish gathering the data, the volunteers then present the initial findings to the

School Head to validate the gathered information.

Feedback

CMS organizes and convenes school officials, community members, and relevant government

offices in roundtable discussions to present and discuss the results of the monitoring

activities. Based on the presented results, the education stakeholders are asked to address

the underlying problems and discuss possible solutions. If the volunteers are unable to

simultaneously convene all the parties involved, they may opt to hold separate meetings to

6

present their findings and suggestions. At the end of these meetings, the CMS volunteers

document the commitments given by all stakeholders involved for later validation.

Issue Resolution

The volunteers monitor the progress of the government offices or organizations who

committed to providing resolutions to the school issues raised. They call these offices to get

updates on whether a solution for the issues is already being planned or implemented.

There are three levels of issue resolution: a) Acknowledgment - the identified government

office acknowledges receipt of the CMS report and promises to act upon its findings; b)

Commitment - the government office promised to provide solution to the issue; and c) Result

- the solution committed to by the mandated government office is either in the process of

being implemented or has already been provided.

Storytelling

Volunteers share “stories of change” based on their experience in engaging school

stakeholders through the CMS process. The change may be in different domains, such as

personal, community, institutional, and physical services improvements. Volunteers are

offered incentives, including cash and merchandise, to encourage contributions.

The secretariat receives, verifies the information, edits the write-up, and publishes selected

stories on its website. They also conduct periodic field visits in order to verify the stories

submitted by the volunteers and surface further potential leads.

Support activities

The Secretariat also engages in additional support activities in order to support and

strengthen the operations of its volunteers. These include:

7

Training

Before implementing the CMS process, the volunteers attend a training-orientation. It covers

topics such as the basics of CMS operations, ways to utilize the monitoring forms and toolkits,

identification of which government offices to engage, and strategies to harmonize their

efforts in their areas. Volunteers are trained in the use of three tools:

A. CMS Data Updating Forms. This form gathers basic school information which include:

number of chairs, number of tables, number of enrolled students, etc.

B. Community Scorecard. This is a participatory tool designed for the assessment,

planning, monitoring and evaluation of services.

C. CMS Online Process Tracking Form. This form focuses on tracking the progress of CMS

process of issue identification until issue resolution.

CheckMySchool Cycle 6 (CMS6) training held at Cebu City. August 2016.

8

Coordinators discuss among themselves during the CMS6 training. August 2016

Grant fund

The commissioned CMS 6 coordinators were provided a seed fund of PHP 1,000 per school

in order to cover their operational expenses. The seed fund is released in three tranches based

on the volunteer’s level of compliance with the CMS reports requested.

Online reporting

The volunteers transmit to the secretariat the results of their monitoring activities by

answering the Process Tracking Forms which are available both online (Google Forms) and

offline (Microsoft Excel file format). These reports are processed and used to assess CMS

operations and identify leads for CheckMySchool Stories of Change.

9

Left: Redempto Parafina, Executive Director of ANSA-EAP and Project Manager of CMS welcomes attendees to the CMS 6 Assessment held in Davao City. Right: CMS coordinators line up for an activity during the CMS 6 assessment. March 2016

Assessment

The secretariat holds an assessment at the end of each monitoring cycle to reflect and

document the experiences and best practices of volunteers. CMS volunteers are invited to

discuss the results of their operations and reflect on the factors that helped or constrained

their operations. Feedback coming from the volunteers is used to improve the CMS process

and tools.

RESULTS OF OPERATIONS

At the start of CMS 6, thirty-three (33) coordinators were trained to carry out CMS monitoring

activities and volunteer mobilization. From this group, twenty-two (22) would actively

implement the initiative in their respective areas. These coordinators were able transmit the

names of at least 81 volunteers that they mobilized (See Annex for list of names). For this

report, the cut-off for the transmittal of data was set until 9 June 2017. Local groups,

nevertheless, continue with their engagements, particularly in pursuing and monitoring issue

resolutions.

10

Based on the processed data as of 9 June 2017, the CMS 6 operational performance so far

generated the following results:

Visual representation of CheckMySchool chapters in the Philippines. CMS operated in 893 schools nationwide – from Pangasinan in Luzon all the way down to North Cotabato.

Coverage

At the onset of the sixth cycle of CheckMySchool, coordinators were tasked to submit a list of

schools intend to monitor along with the top three issues that need to be addressed in each.

The 22 coordinators who joined the sixth cycle operated in two provinces in two regions in

Luzon, four provinces in two regions in Visayas, and five provinces in three regions in

Mindanao. In these 11 provinces, a total of 58 areas composed of 48 municipalities and 10

cities were covered.

11

Province # of

areas # of

schools Province

# of areas

# of schools

1. Aklan 5 48 7. Negros Occidental 19 40

2. Cotabato 6 275 8. Pangasinan 4 117

3. Guimaras 5 112 9. Rizal 3 85

4. Iloilo 1 36 10. Zamboanga del Norte 3 34

5.Maguindanao 3 46 11. Zamboanga del Sur 2 34

6. Misamis Oriental 1 31 12. Zamboanga Sibugay 6 35

The secretariat received reports from 893 schools -- 648 elementary schools, 164 secondary

schools, 21 integrated schools, 27 primary schools and 2 SPED centers. (See Annex for

complete list of areas committed to CheckMySchool)

The economic classification of the location (city/municipality) of the covered schools are as

follows:

MUNICIPALITY (48)

First class 14

Second class 9

Third class 13

Fourth class 10

Fifth class 2

12

CLASS (10)

1st City Income Class 2

2nd City Income Class 1

3rd City Income Class 4

4th City Income Class 3


The Secretariat tabulated 2,794 issues from these areas and were classified into eight

categories:

❏ Equipment

❏ Funds

❏ Instructional Materials

❏ Reporting

❏ School Building

❏ Teachers and Personnel

❏ Others

❏ Unclear

All equipment related issues fall under the “Equipment” category. Textbooks, learning

materials, workbooks and the like are classified as “Instructional Materials”. “Reporting”

refers to data that ought to be submitted by proper authority or reporting mechanisms that

should be available to the public, such as the Transparency Board.

“School Building” deals with any infrastructure and facility-related issues, including major

repairs of a school building, construction of instructional room or lack of chairs and tables.

Any issue on teaching and non-teaching personnel of the school is categorized as “Teachers

and Personnel”. Lastly, “Others” are issues that are not under the jurisdiction of schools like

armed conflicts in an area, while “Unclear” are entries with unspecified issue.

13

Graphic representation of identified school issues. School Building related issues make up a substantial amount of report generated by

CheckMySchool.

A total of 2,196 or 79% of reported school issues are on School Building. The remaining 21%

went to Instructional Materials (201 issues or 7%); Equipment (145 issues or 5%); Students (61

issues), Others (64 issues) and Unclear (48 issues) with 2% each; and Reporting (33 issues),

Funds (23 issues), and Teachers and Personnel (23 issues) with 1% each.

With the bulk of issues being related to School Building, it is helpful to show what specifically

these issues are. The 62% or 1,372 of the School Building issues are concentrated on

infrastructures, such as repair or construction of school buildings, instructional and non-

instructional rooms, and facilities including perimeter fence and stages. The lack or repair of

chairs and tables followed next with a total of 243 issues, or 11%, of all school building issues.

Concerns regarding repair or construction of toilet facilities rank third, comprising 206 or 9%

of the issues. 168 issues, or 8%, are about lack or unavailability of water supply in their school

while 65 issues, or 3%, pertain to installation, repair or rewiring of electricity. Potable water

supply was also a recurring issue among the monitored public schools, amounting to a total

of 59 issues or 3% of all school building issues. 57 issues or 3% of the 2,196 entries are DRRM-

14

related. These include drainage problems, which lead to flooding in the school area. Lastly,

1% or 26 issues are concerned with retitling or unavailability of school’s land title.

See Annex for complete list of school building issues.


The coordinators tapped various stakeholders from different sectors of the community to

help them in accomplishing the CMS activities. From issue identification to issue resolution,

they engaged with individuals and groups from the government and non-government sectors.

From the submitted entries for engagements with government offices, more than 60% entries

identified Local Government Units (LGU) as partners. These are mostly comprised of

barangay, municipal and provincial level LGUs, particularly offices of Governors, Mayors and

Barangay Councils, and some Congressmen.

A third of the entries identified DepEd offices as partners. CMS coordinators asked help from

the Principals or school heads, officers-in-charge, and teachers, as well as the District

Supervisors and the Division Office, particularly the SDS, Engineering, Planning and Legal

offices.

15

Other national government agencies had also been involved. They were the Midsayap PNP,

Philippine Army, National Historical Commission, LWUA, DILG, DOLE, DPWH, DENR and

TESDA.

For involvement from non-government groups, almost half of the listed stakeholders were

PTAs. Almost one-fourth may be classified as community-based groups, such as KALAHI-CIDSS

volunteers, women’s association, supreme student government, and farmers/fisherfolks.

Around 10% were civil society organizations, including Rotary Clubs, a professional

association, and a faith-based group. Alumni groups, and some private individuals, out of

school youth, party-lists, and the academe were also involved.

Data Access

For the Data Access stage, 33 of the initial 58 areas made it to the cut-off date (9 June 2017)

and have transmitted reports of their efforts to validate and diagnose school issues.

Unfortunately, one area in Iloilo, two areas in Maguindanao and Negros Occidental, and one

of two areas in Zamboanga del Sur were not able to submit their data access reports within

the cut-off period.

In total, 551 schools reported actual monitoring conducted or a consummated cooperation

in 60% of schools listed in CMS. These consisted of 406 elementary schools, 106 secondary

schools, 17 integrated schools, 21 primary schools and one SPED center.

Province # of areas # of schools Province # of areas # of schools

1. Aklan 5 48 6. Pangasinan 4 109

2. Cotabato 6 153 7. Rizal 1 18

3. Guimaras 5 110 8. Zamboanga del Sur 1 17

4. Maguindanao 1 19 9. Zamboanga del Norte 3 39

5. Misamis Oriental 1 12 10. Zamboanga Sibugay 6 33

16

Various methods were employed by the volunteers to access information and validate issues

from the school but most utilized monitoring toolkits provided by the secretariat. There were

areas like Aklan that conducted Community Score Card with action planning as well as

roundtable discussions (RTD) with school stakeholders as was done by the Guimaras Chapter.

Stakeholders from the government and community helped the coordinators in monitoring

and validating data. They tapped people from barangay and municipal governments for

institutional and logistical assistance, while also ensuring that DepEd’s SDS, District

Supervisors, Principals and teachers were informed about the activities they were conducting.

The PTA officials and the parents themselves actively participated in this data gathering stage

of the operation.

Based on the monitoring activities, a total of 1,611 school issues were validated by CMS

volunteers. School Building-related issues still topped the list, but higher than the overall

share in the issue identification stage. There were 1,396 school building-related issues or 87%

of the total number of identified issues.

Instructional materials with 100 entries or 6% followed. Equipment-related issues came next

with 50 entries or 3% of all the reported issues.

17

A big chunk of these school building-related issues pertains to construction and repair of

infrastructure, same with issues that were identified in the first stage of the operation. 1,001

Infrastructure issues were reported or 72% of the total validated school building-related

issues. Lack or repair of chairs and tables is also salient, with 194 entries or 13.8%. Water

supply issue such as its unavailability came third with 63 reports or 4.5%. Unavailability of

potable water supply made up the 2.7%, or 39 entries, while DRRM issues like flooding

comprised another 2.5% with 35 entries. 2.2% of the issue is about problems on electrical

installation and rewiring, with 31 reported cases; and another 1.5% with 21 issues are toilet

facility related. Lastly, 0.8% or 12 of the 1,396 validated issues are about school land titles.

Part of the validation is inquiring about the duration and severity of the issues. Some issues

were reported to have existed for only a year, such as minor repair of classroom door in

Cagayan de Oro, Misamis Oriental or lack of chairs in Kabacan, Cotabato. The others have

been lingering for as long as 21 years, such as the case in Kalibo, Aklan, which is facing a

problem on school site titling. On the average, for 921 issues with available information, the

reported issues have existed for 3.7 years.

18

The severity of the reported issues varied even among schools within the areas monitored.

The school heads who opened their doors to CMS are usually confronted with supposedly

minor repair problems, water supply, electrical wiring and other administrative concerns.

Ultimately, shortage and poor quality of classrooms prove to be the most persistent problem.

Needless to say, students suffer the most from these issues. To give a few examples, In one

school monitored in Aleosan, Cotabato, classes are interrupted during rainy days because of

leaks coming from damaged classroom roofs. In the case of Malinao, Aklan students cannot

concentrate during classes because they study in makeshift classrooms that lack chairs and

tables. Students and faculty of one high school in Rizal are in danger of being displaced since

the land where the school is built is not owned by DepEd. These serve to highlight the impact

of the reported issues on students’ well-being and capacity to learn.

Feedback

Among the different CMS chapters, only five areas (2 in Visayas and 3 in Mindanao) submitted

reports online detailing the results of their feedback sessions. These reports covered 287

schools and involved 739 issues. All the volunteers in the report had presented the findings

of their monitoring activities to principals and teachers during the feedback sessions. Majority

of the volunteers also invited officials coming from their respective local government units

(LGUs) and agencies such as DPWH and DSWD.

The CMS partner organization in Guimaras (GPEFI) had the most varied types of stakeholders

invited to their feedback sessions. They engaged not only DepEd officials and the LGU but also

farmers, fisherfolk, resort owners, tourism based organizations, and members of parent-

teacher associations.

In Aklan, government officials from the LGUs, DepEd, DPWH and DSWD joined the feedback

sessions. Other participants include representatives from one private sector company, Aklan

Electric Cooperative Inc., and local organizations such as MAGDALO Party-list and Rotary

International - Kalibo Chapter.

19

The CMS chapter in Cagayan de Oro involved DepEd and LGU, as well as academic institutions

and students in their feedback sessions. The Local Governance Resource Center of the

Department of the Interior and Local Government (LGRC-DILG) provided assistance in the

form of the venue and snacks for the feedback sessions

The CMS Chapter in Aleosan, North Cotabato primarily engaged their barangay and municipal

government units. Being a relatively new chapter, the volunteers identified these offices as

the easiest and most responsive government agencies they can tap for the resolution of

school issues they had identified.

In analyzing what were key facilitating factors for having a successful feedback activity, the

volunteers cited the approachability of the stakeholders and their willingness to cooperate.

Having receptive stakeholders also increases the likelihood of issues being resolved. The

volunteers also cited that time and resource constraints, the suspension of classes due to

natural calamities or peace and order issues were the biggest constraining factors in the

conduct of feedback sessions.

Issue resolution

From volunteer reports, a total of 558 tabulated issues present in 191 schools received

positive action. These consist of:

❏ 493 issues on school building (89%),

❏ 37 issues on equipment (7%),

❏ 8 issues on instructional materials (1%),

❏ 6 issues on teachers and personnel (1%),

❏ 6 issues on students (1%), and

❏ 7 issues that are not under the school’s jurisdiction, such as road construction and

peace and security (1%).

20

The reported issues (as of June 9, 2017) came from the provinces of Aklan, Guimaras, and

Misamis Oriental. Based on the documentation of the volunteers’ efforts, the resolution of

the issues were handled as follows:

Level of resolution/ Office

tapped by volunteers

Mandated

office

Mandated office but

another unit Another office

Office not

indicated

Acknowledgment (141) 31 (22%) 20 (14%) 29 (21%) 61 (43%)

Commitment (290) 20 (7%) 46 (16%) 100 (34%) 124 (43%)

Result (127) 4 (3%) 51 (40%) 44 (25%) 28 (22%)

TOTAL (558) 55 (10%) 117 (21%) 173 (31%) 213 (38%)

Ten percent (10%) of the reported issues were reported by CMS volunteers to the

government offices with the primary mandate. These were mostly the School Head or the

School Division Offices. In 21% of the issues, they approached the mandated office but not

the right unit.

Furthermore, around 31% of the issues were sent to offices with no primary mandate or

accountability for them. For example, the volunteers in Guimaras approached their LGU

instead of the School Head or the DepEd Division Office. In other cases, PTAs were requested

to respond to issues without prior coordination with the School Head, the Division Office or

the contract implementer. The LGUs were notably the most responsive to the volunteers’

request for assistance to resolve the issues. However, 38% of the submissions had no

information on the office resolving the issue.

The issues that reached resolution level have a total estimated amount of PHP 554,217,638

budgeted for their resolution; Aklan with PHP 84,167,000, Misamis Oriental with PHP

1,895,000, and Guimaras with PHP 468,155,638. The LGU is the source of approximately one-

third of the resources for Guimaras issues.

21

Acknowledgment

Acknowledgment, as defined in this report, is the first level of issue resolution. It pertains to

the acknowledgement of the CMS report by the identified government offices. The

government office should had given a confirmation that they are in the process of looking for

solutions for the issues reported to them.

Various stakeholders responded to issues coming from 80 schools -- 52 from Guimaras and

28 from Cagayan De Oro, Misamis Oriental. 141 of issues in Guimaras and CDO schools are at

the level of acknowledgment. The bulk of these are school building related with 116 entries.

This is followed by equipment issues with 15 reported cases. The rest are related to

instructional materials, student issues, teachers and personnel, and others that are not within

the jurisdiction of the school head or DepEd.

Guimaras CDO

School Building 67 49

Equipment 8 7

Student welfare - 2

Instructional materials 2 1

Teacher and personnel 1 1

Not in DepEd jurisdiction - 3

These issues came from 52 schools in Guimaras and 28 schools in CDO. The government

agencies that acknowledged the issues were DepEd Division Office, DepEd Engineering Office,

PLGU, MLGU, BLGU, Office of the Mayor, Cong. Nava, Gov. Gumarin, Commission on Heritage,

Principal, Barangay Council, City School Division, MASSA, SDS, Property Custodian, PTA, GPTA,

SGC, LSB, Punong Barangay, Executive Secretary of the Congressman - Mila Z. Abesamis.

22

# of

issues

# of

schools Govt offices that acknowledged issues

Guimaras 63 28

DepEd Division Office, DepEd Engineering Office,

PLGU, MLGU, BLGU, Office of the Mayor, Cong.

Nava, Gov. Gumarin, National Historical

Commission

CDO 78 52

Principal, Barangay Council, City School Division,

MASSA, SDS, Property Custodian, GPTA, SGC,

Barangay Council, LSB, Punong Barangay,

Executive Secretary of the Congressman - Mila Z.

Abesamis

Commitment

Commitment is the second level of resolution. It entails the identified government office

committing to a plan or project that will remedy the school issue. This may include the

allocation of resources from an existing project or a new proposal specifically addressing the

issues raised. A total of 297 issues in Aklan, Guimaras and CDO, have reached the level of

commitment. The bulk of school issues with commitment range from minor repair of

classroom fixtures and lack of chairs and tables to insufficient toilets and construction of

perimeter fence to rehabilitation or construction of school buildings.

Aklan Guimaras CDO

School Building 137 126 7

Equipment 4 5 3

Student welfare - - 1

Instructional materials - 3 1

Teacher and personnel - 1 1

Not in DepEd jurisdiction - - 1

23

These issues came from 47 schools in Aklan, 10 schools in CDO and 71 schools in Guimaras.

The government agencies that committed to address the issues were DepEd Division Offices,

school PTAs and alumni, LGUs, other government agencies such as DPWH, and private

individuals committed to address 273 issues on school building.

# of issues # of

schools Govt offices that committed to solve issues

Aklan 141 47

Provincial Government, LGU Kalibo, LGU Madalag Engineering

Office, Office of the Mayor, DepEd Division Office, DepEd

Division Office Planning Officer, Bakhaw Norte Barangay

Council, Cabayugan Barangay Council, Rosario Barangay

Council, Venturanza Barangay Council, Sugnod Barangay

Council, Navitas Barangay Council, Polocate Barangay Council,

San Isidro Barangay, San Roque Barangay Council, Sibalew

Barangay Council

CDO,

Misamis

Oriental

14 10 City School Division, SDS, Barangay Council, LSB, Office of the

Principal, Principal and Teacher

Guimaras 135 71

DepEd Division Office, DepEd Engineering Office, DPWH,

Office of Cong. Nava, Office of the Governor, Office of the

Mayor, Provincial Engineering Office, Sangguniang

Panlalawigan, Barangay Council, MLGU, BLGU, Gov. Gumarin,

Office of Mayor Galila and Mayor Gajo

Result

Result or the solution implemented by government offices is the highest level of resolution.

This implies that the proposed solutions to the school issues are in the process of being

implemented or already completed.

A total of 120 issues are reported to have found the needed action or solution. The tabulated

results include 105 school building-related issues, 8 equipment related issues, 3 student

24

related issues, 1 instructional materials and 1 teacher and personnel issue, and 2 that are

issues that are not stated clearly.

Aklan Guimaras CDO

School Building 4 101 2

Equipment - 9 2

Student welfare - 3 0

Instructional materials - 1 0

Teacher and personnel - 1 1

Not in DepEd jurisdiction - 2 1

These issues came from 65 schools in Guimaras and 2 schools in Aklan. The government

agencies that implemented the issues were DepEd Division Office and its Engineering Office,

Barangay councils and officials, LGUs from Municipal to Barangay,PTA, a private company,

Rotary Club.

# of issues # of schools Govt offices that will implement improvements

Aklan 4 2 Bakhaw Norte Barangay Council

Guimaras 117 66

DepEd Division Office, DepEd Engineer Office, PLGU,

MLGU, Provincial Engineering Office, Sanggunian

Panlalawigan, Office of the Governor, Office of the

Mayor, Cong. Nava, Gov. Gumarin, Mayor Gajo, Mayor

Galila and Brgy. Capt. Melchor Villarm

CDO 6 6 MASSA Foundation, Inc.; City School Division - SDS;

Principal; TLE Teacher

25

To better illustrate the kinds of resolutions accomplished, below are some examples:

In Guimaras, which had the most detailed report of resolutions, the municipal government

already included the school issues in the Municipal Annual Investment Plan. The municipal

government also appealed to barangay officials to help the schools with other concerns even

on the small repairs or fencing, canopy and even repainting of classrooms. According to the

Mayor of Nueva Valencia, Mayor Emmanuel Galila, most of the funds came from the

Municipal Development Plan or what they refer to as the 20% Development Plan. There are

also issues, mostly on infrastructure, that they included in their Municipal Annual

Improvement Plan wherein he, together with the Governor and Congresswoman of Guimaras,

coordinated in resolving the school issues.

All facilities that were not covered by the DepEd budget for repair and construction will be

shouldered by the LGU (provincial, municipal, barangay). Governor Gumarin promised to

assign an engineer who will help the DepEd engineer in identifying those facilities that need

to be repaired. He plans to address all these issues raised within 2017.

With the commitment from the Governor, the water system in Nueva Valencia was targeted

to be installed by the first quarter of 2017. It should be functional in all schools before the

school year ends. For Jordan, the installation of the water system is on-going. Governor

Gumarin will ask the water district to expand up to the last school in the area.

Storytelling

There were 40 stories of change published in the CMS website from 1 August 2016 to 9 June

2017. These were submitted by volunteers from Cagayan de Oro City, Guimaras, Midsayap,

Bacolod City and Aklan. Out of these stories, 14 were written by the Secretariat who

conducted fieldwork and 27 were submitted by coordinators/volunteers from various areas.

From the stories published, 10 are based on experiences during the sixth cycle while the rest

are from previous cycles.

26

Recent screenshot of the CheckMySchool website featuring the different published stories of Change. August 2017.

The published stories of change focused on different domains. Specifically, there are 14

stories on physical service improvements, 10 stories on the changes in the community, 10

stories on personal change and 6 stories on institutional changes. The total amount of

improvements from the stories totaled to as much as PHP 277.3 million pesos ($5.6 million).

Below are some of the notable stories featured in the website:

P21M priority budget for school repairs in Guimaras

In Guimaras, 25 schools have found allocation for repairs amounting to P21.1 million pesos.

Generally, the schools faced difficulties due to congested classes and dilapidated classrooms.

This was made possible by the lobbying work exerted by CMS in communicating with the local

government. Through this, the schools were assured to be placed on the priority list for

receiving the Basic Educational Facilities Fund (BEFF).

CMS Gives Hope, Brings Change to Island Barangay High School

A whole community in Cardona, Rizal was suffering due to the poor condition of their school’s

facilities particularly during the rainy season. The students and teachers faced the danger

brought about by flood, landslides and even snakes. They were under the notion that the

http://www.checkmyschool.org/p21m-priority-budget-for-school-repairs-in-guimaras/

http://www.checkmyschool.org/cms-gives-hope-brings-change-to-island-barangay-high-school/

27

situation was hopeless since the local officials had informed them that they were not a

priority. Through the intervention of CMS Area Coordinators, they were able to reach out to

the DepEd Central Office, which granted them an allocation worth P1.25 million for the

repairs of classrooms.

Catalino Salazar National High School puts up a welcome sign for CheckMySchool volunteers during a coordinated visit.

Volunteer Mom Shares CMS Impact on Personal Life

Personal changes are given significance as well. In Cagayan de Oro, Mary Ann Villanueva, a

volunteer, credits CMS for becoming her avenue to bring about positive changes to the

community. Her experience strengthened the belief that issues can be resolved through

constructively engaging the concerned stakeholders. She also shifted her major to Community

Development to enrich her work as a volunteer. As a mother, student and volunteer, she finds

great fulfillment and pride in being part of CMS.

http://www.checkmyschool.org/volunteer-mom-shares-cms-impact-on-personal-life/

28

DISCUSSION AND ANALYSIS

The results of the CheckMySchool operations offer the following insights.

Coverage

CheckMySchool’s coverage of 893 schools accounts for only 2% of all public schools in the

country. In terms of awareness, a World Bank and AusAid study (2016: 79) found that “15%

of the elementary school principals and 20% of high school principals were aware of CMS.”

While CMS is known in areas beyond where volunteers have operated, its reach is still low

and needs more effective communication to expand.

CMS operated according to the expressed interest of volunteers. The volunteers heavily

influence the selection of the schools through their location, organization, established

network, among other factors.

Furthermore, CMS6 operations were concentrated in Visayas and Mindanao; only 2 out of 12

provinces are in Luzon, i.e., Pangasinan and Rizal. Most of the CMS areas belong to low-

income municipalities: 25 out of 48 municipal areas belong to third class municipalities and

below while 7 out of 10 city areas belong to third and fourth city income class. CMS was mostly

brought in far-flung areas especially in Visayas and Mindanao where public service delivery is

a challenge. The secretariat thus hypothesizes that these schools who are in dire need of

assistance are thus more welcome to initiatives like CMS that aid resolving school issues. It

would be interesting to probe why schools, organizations and private citizens from Visayas

and Mindanao were more inclined to either request or volunteer for the CMS initiative than

in Luzon.

Issue identification

The high concentration of identified issues in school buildings at 79% may be indicative of the

generally poor condition of school infrastructures and facilities in the country. School building

related issues were pervasive across the board from first class cities or municipalities and

29

those in the lower income brackets. Regardless of income class, school stakeholders are

mostly concerned with school building-related issues.

For additional context on the SBP issue, it is worth mentioning some additional information

that CMS gathered through its participation in the Right to Know Right Now! (R2KRN!)

Coalition’s Freedom of Information (FOI) Practice. In this initiative, CMS researchers targeted

to test public access to school building program (SBP) information from both DepEd and

DPWH offices as joint implementing agencies.

DepEd has a budget of P114 billion for school facility construction and repairs in 2017 and

PHP2 billion from the 2014-2016 program fund. It is interesting to check how many of the

school building issues reported to CMS are being addressed or could be addressed through

these DepEd budget allocations. In the future, CMS-identified issues can potentially be used

as a basis for the allocation and use of available budget for facilities.

The CMS finding on the school building program may also be symptomatic of the

implementation bottlenecks at the central level. As a solution, data from CMS field monitors

may be utilized in identifying bottlenecks and help speed up service delivery.

CMS data also suggests that there may also be issues present in the service delivery of learning

materials, equipment and teaching personnel. School stakeholders themselves were the one

to point out deficiencies in their service delivery.


Based on online reports, complemented by interviews and assessments with the volunteers,

the CMS engagement with education stakeholders was primarily influenced by four factors:

awareness, accessibility, social networks, and prior experience. The volunteers chose the

stakeholders they already knew and had a relationship with especially in the case of

government officials. In one example, a volunteer utilized her filial ties to get assistance from

government in carrying out CMS operations. Volunteers relied on these established social

networks because it provides them a degree of reliability and predictability when it comes to

tapping stakeholders; be it for volunteer mobilization or in pursuing the resolution of issues.

30

People in this network include acquaintances, friends or relatives of the volunteers who are

in government or in organizations that can assist in carrying out operations.

It was also noted that while volunteers engaged a variety of government stakeholders, they

seem to be more comfortable approaching the LGUs than the DepEd offices. Many of the

volunteers chose to engage their LGUs first because they were more accessible in their area.

Some preferred to engage their LGUs because of existing personal connections. There were

also cases where the distance to DepEd and other government offices precluded their ability

to easily coordinate with these other offices.

For others, engaging their LGUs was an automatic step because of previous work or because

of a previously granted financial and logistical assistance from them. Contributing to this

decision is the frustration that some volunteers previously experienced in dealing with

uncooperative DepEd offices. The LGUs therefore present the most convenient recourse.

This track implies an expectation that the LGUs are either able to or should be the one address

school issues. Note that DepEd has the responsibility for the bulk of reported issues, which

are about the condition of school buildings. This invites questions on whether many of the

volunteers were unaware of the mandate of DepEd offices or they just deliberately chose

convenience or what they thought is more likely to generate results.

In any case, the CMS data validate the importance of LGUs among the education stakeholders

and their kind of response to the CMS issues could indicate how reliable they are as a partner

in improving the quality of education services.

Although the volunteers were able to receive LGUs’ assistance in addressing public school

issues, forwarding the issues to the rightfully mandated government offices, particularly

DepEd, must still be pursued. There must be efforts to enhance the volunteers’ knowledge of

the mandate of various DepEd offices. This will provide the volunteers the ability to give

information and insight on the capability of government offices in addressing issues

mandated to them.

For non-government stakeholders, Parent-Teacher Associations (PTA) had been actively

tapped to take part in the CMS activities. Various civil society and community-based groups

also proved to be interested stakeholders. However, tapping these was not a universal effort

31

on the part of volunteers. In some cases, volunteers did not tap these groups simply because

they were unaware of their existence or the means to reach out and communicate. Many

cited this as the primary reason for not tapping student leaders or councils in their area.

Unfortunately, some volunteers have expressed their distrust of some of these organizations,

citing bad experiences to affirm their decision. For example, there were volunteers who

claimed that the PTA in their area served merely as a rubber stamp for their principals and

were generally uncooperative. This highlights the need to both train volunteers on how to tap

into the locally available networks in their areas, and to communicate to schools and PTAs the

value of coordinating with their community in public school governance and management.

More importantly, school-based organizations like PTAs and student councils ought to be

included in the monitoring and feedback platforms being implemented as they are the most

affected stakeholders and may provide key insights in the discussions on ways to address the

issues.

Data Access

The cooperation of 551 schools in the data-gathering activities of CheckMySchool is an

important achievement. While these only comprise 60% of listed schools with issues under

CMS, and just a tiny part of the whole public-school system, they could still represent public

schools’ receptiveness or openness to the advocacy for transparency and accountability. They

have welcomed various stakeholders to look into their records and allowed community

members to ask about the school’s situation. There are many lessons to be drawn from

volunteer’s experiences. One is on monitoring tools utilized and another is on the

participation of stakeholders themselves.

From the different options provided to the volunteers, they notably selected data-updating

as their preferred tool for data access. This data updating tool focuses on getting quantitative

data from schools such as number of chairs, tables, students, and teachers. Long-time

volunteers may have resorted to this tool as they have grown familiar with its use. Other

volunteers utilized the older toolkit as it provides a more comprehensive view of the school's

situation especially if school data is incomplete or not accessible. There were also cases that

their partners at DepEd or LGU were the ones who requested for the data generated by this

32

tool. They utilized the data gathered by the volunteers to corroborate their own monitoring

and evaluation (M&E) data including that which came from DepEd’s E-BEIS. It appears that

some local DepEd offices and LGUs look for alternative or third-party sources of information

to validate their own records.

In the 551 schools visited for data access, 1,611 issues were validated. The concerns about

school buildings even increased to 87%. One explanation is that issues related to physical

structures are among the most noticeable. In some cases, these school building related issues

are severe enough to have a significant negative impact on the classes being conducted.

However, it may be possible that volunteers could’ve unearthed other types of issues if they

conducted more visits and probed deeper.

Even if we attribute 20-30% of issue reporting to haste, school building will still command

high attention. The CMS data validation appears to show that most public schools still

encounter this issue and have implications on the condition of their school buildings and

facilities.

Data on the qualitative characteristics of the issues, such as duration and severity, were also

brought up in this stage. Issues were discussed with key informants who were predominantly

parents, teachers and school heads. Students were generally not involved to avoid disruption

of classes. It is important to note that these observations and insights would not be generated

if only the data-updating tool is used.

Facilitating all these information-gathering activities are conditions of openness, such as

availability and accessibility of government data, receptiveness of school officials to third-

party monitoring initiatives, and policy mechanisms that support school-community

engagement. It is also worth looking into why an issue would remain unresolved in a school

for 21 years. Likewise, it poses a clear challenge to the capability of CMS to go beyond raising

the same issue across multiple implementation cycles and be able to finally to address the

problem.

The data access exercise also validated issues that do not require complex bureaucratic

processes to address. For example, electrical rewiring and repair of chairs and tables are

33

issues that are still reported to CMS as priority problems despite the fact that resources

should already be available to the school for their resolution. It is worth exploring if factors

like resource constraint, bureaucratic burden, or weak managerial skills of school heads are

the ones which contribute to the issue.

Information is key to unlocking these problems. Providing a venue for school stakeholders to

bring out these issues is helpful and enlightening for all concerned.

Feedback

Bringing the CMS findings to the attention of the government requires preparation and

proper coordination. The coordinators’ established connections and the history of

engagement were common take-off points for invitation to the feedback activities. In most

cases, government offices with prior knowledge and cooperation with the CMS coordinators

or volunteers are more likely to respond and participate in the feedback activities. There were

also other stakeholders whose mandate are not strictly focused on education like DSWD, who

cooperated with the CMS coordinators. In some cases, there were stakeholders who asked to

set individual meetings with the coordinators due to conflict in the schedules.

Note that institutional channels are more credible and more sustainable than personal

channels in facilitating feedback. The latter may border on patronage, which negates the

purpose of social accountability.

There was no single formula for the activities and venues to facilitate the feedback process.

The CMS volunteers relied on a variety of approaches, utilizing meetings and presentations,

roundtable discussions, exit conferences, or open fora. Most of these were organized jointly

by CMS and selected government offices.

Based on the report, the following must be considered in the conduct of feedback activities:

❏ Identification of stakeholders to participate. They should be able to provide inputs and

insights on the issues.

❏ Support from stakeholders in organizing event. Technical and logistical support (e.g.

venue, snacks) indicates high interest in the education issues. Joint hosting also

34

provides further legitimacy to the CMS program, and assistance in the design and

conduct of the event itself.

❏ Communication. It is important to send proper invitation with explanation of the

event, the issues to be discussed, and the expectation from the invited participants.

❏ Copy of report’s findings. The report of findings must be ready for any request from

both the government and non-government partners.

❏ Social accountability framework. Clarify the framework of the feedback process, which

is to seek improvement through constructive engagement and sharing of monitoring

information.

It is, moreover, important for the coordinators to pay attention to the documentation of the

feedback activities to ensure traceability of agreements or commitments.

Issue Resolution

Upfront, the CheckMySchool’s reported resolution of 557 issues out of the originally collected

2,794 issues implies a 20% success rate. The volunteers have effectively applied pressure to

ascertain the status of government action on these school issues. In addition, 75% of the

issues presented during feedback activities reached resolution stage. Following this trend, we

can say that there is approximately 75% chance that an issue will reach resolution if there is

proper feedback about it.

i. Understanding Resolution

As mentioned above, CMS classifies the resolution into three types: acknowledgment,

commitment and results. Claims of accomplishment based on this framework may be

scrutinized further to clarify the attribution. Some claims could be tricky, even misleading.

As observed in CMS operations, resolutions at the level of acknowledgment and commitment

are usually given “verbally” during the feedback sessions. There is no clear documentation of

agreements, which often causes difficulty in tracking accountability.

35

Perhaps due to overreliance on trust among the stakeholders or due to familiarity and

personal connection, verbal commitments from stakeholders were considered sufficient.

While this could be cultural, it would be good to introduce a documentation requirement for

better monitoring of agreement and enforcement of accountability.

Another tricky outcome can occur particularly in classifying the level of resolution given to an

issue is coincidence; an existing government project that covers the issue identified by CMS

may already be in the pipeline for implementation. In this case, volunteers only find out about

the solution being implemented during the course of data-gathering. When reporting the

issue, a government representative may then say that they are already addressing it. This

implies that a solution could have materialized even without CMS volunteers conducting

monitoring activities. At best, CMS could just be credited for “discovering” or “uncovering” it.

But it is also possible that the government agency has felt more pressure to really proceed

with the project or at least speed up the process because the CMS raised the awareness and

people’s expectations. In another scenario, government officials may say that they are already

addressing the issue as to not appear to have succumbed to advocacy pressure or pretend

not to have been affected by it. In both cases, the public will never know the real score.

Because of the difficulty of delineating these cases, reporting of the resolution of issues here

is not so much about cause-and-effect attribution, although it could be clear and indisputable

in other cases. Whether a solution was just uncovered or really formed and pushed through

advocacy, CMS counts it as achievement because it has put closure on an issue.

This standpoint obviously assumes good faith on the part of the volunteers. After all, it is

through their information-gathering and engagements that they thrive and get results. These

should be kept in mind as the CheckMySchool develops further its framework for assessing

accomplishments.

ii. Identifying Mandate.

The key to effective and lasting resolution is the correct identification of government offices

with the primary mandate to address the issues. The multiple recorded cases of volunteers

36

failing to talk to the right mandated government offices highlights the needs to raise

awareness. The identification of the correct mandate or appropriate accountability is

important to promote efficient engagement (i.e., less wasted time dealing with the office that

cannot address the issues), and a culture of institutional dealing with government (i.e., based

on their expected service to the public).

iii. Role of LGU.

The issue resolution data brought to fore the role of LGUs in the delivery of educational

services. Most CMS volunteers went to their respective LGUs to address the school issues and

got positive responses. While generally favorable, it posed questions on accountability and

mandate in the management of education services:

What kind of solutions can LGUs provide? What resources do they use? Can they always be

expected to provide these solutions? If not, where should people go?

Which agency or office has the primary mandate to address the issues? What public resources

are available to exercise such mandate? What’s the scope and limit of such mandate? How

can people understand and account for the proper application of this mandate?

The CMS results indicate the volunteers’ limited knowledge of mandates and bureaucratic

functions in the basic education sector. LGUs being near and accessible is a convenient excuse

for not exhaustively engaging DepEd. In the last analysis, the resources to address the issues

of adequate and quality services, particularly on school buildings, are still with DepEd. It

remains accountable for their provision and maintenance.

CMS’s 20% resolution rate could ahave been arguably higher if the volunteers aggressively

pursued the duly mandated DepEd units and if these units were more proactive in fulfilling

their mandates. The CMS area for strengthening, therefore, lies in retooling the volunteers to

sharpen their ability to understand and analyze the mandated agencies.

37

Storytelling

Since issue resolution is a significant part of CMS operations, the need to capture the resolved

issues as stories of change from the volunteers’ perspective is integral. However, majority of

the reported issues that reached the resolution phase are yet to be translated into stories. As

the last and newest step to be introduced in the CheckMySchool’s operations, storytelling is

not yet fully recognized by the volunteers as essential. Hence, stories are submitted on an

irregular basis. Only a few areas have written their stories and these were also the same areas

who submitted from time to time.

Turning the resolved issues into powerful and captivating stories is key in echoing

CheckMySchool’s work to the public. Through these narratives, which are posted on the

website and are marketed through social media platforms, the initiative hopes to spread

awareness on the situation of public education, reach out to schools in need of help and find

people who are willing to extend support for the project’s sustainability.

Although majority of the stories were on physical improvements, it is also worth noting that

the initiative had significant impacts on the volunteers’ personal growth. Empowerment and

self-appreciation was the emerging theme in most of the personal stories written. The CMS

experience made them more aware of their skills and their interests. Engaging stakeholders,

for example, made them more confident in interacting with people, especially with DepEd or

school officials, who are all public servants. It also gave them an opportunity to widen their

networks.

For the school principals themselves, the CMS experience was likewise empowering in many

ways. For instance, a principal in Cagayan de Oro claims her application of CMS concepts of

social accountability and stakeholder engagement made her improve her public service work.

As shared by the volunteers, many principals turned from uncooperative to friendly and open

once they understand the purpose. In the process, the school heads become empowering as

well for their stakeholders and the public.

These stories provided real-life demonstrations of the principles of school-based

management (SBM) and the envisioned stakeholder participation in RA 9155. They serve to

38

recognize what the schools have accomplished and impart examples for others to follow.

There should, however, be more efforts to widen dissemination, increase popularization, and

perhaps mainstreaming in mass media.

CONTRIBUTIONS

The implementation of CheckMySchool has contributed to the agenda of transparency,

accountability and citizen participation in school governance and operations as follows:

CMS increased awareness on school information

CheckMySchool volunteers increased community awareness on school information in their

areas, which also encouraged access and use of the information. Because the volunteers

checked the availability and content of school financial documents by extension they have

also validated if school officials have properly documented and reported their expenditures

to the public. A concrete illustration of this is how CMS volunteers had been encouraging

schools to keep their transparency boards up-to-date. They also directed the involved

stakeholders to public documents, such as the School Improvement Plan and the School

Report Card, which provide important take-off points in understanding school issues.

CMS convened stakeholders

CheckMySchool played an important role in intensifying as well as systematizing citizen

engagement in school governance. As part of the CMS process, the volunteers engaged

various education stakeholders coming from government, schools, and communities. The

volunteers helped bridge the gap between these groups and facilitated meetings wherein the

issues and concerns of each are discussed. Through these meetings, the various stakeholders

were given a better appreciation of each other’s position and challenges. This also provided

the opportunity for the community and other non-government stakeholders to contribute to

the resolution of the school issues by proposing ideas and action plans.

39

CMS served as an intermediary

CheckMySchool has facilitated communication and discussions between the schools with

unresolved issues and government offices with the capability to render assistance. The

volunteers have checked if the schools already reported their school issues and provided

assistance in following up the progress of their resolution. They have provided relevant

information to the identified government offices who could address the school issues. They

also acted as pressure groups to these government offices and monitored their efforts until

the school issues are resolved. In this regard, CMS volunteers ensured that stakeholders are

updated on the status of the issues and the progress of their resolution.

CMS effort to clarify mandates

The CMS focus on issue resolution led to the realization that the question of mandate and

accountability for addressing education issues is complex and must be understood better.

Volunteers approaching a variety of government offices or talking to those that are not

mandated to resolve an issue could be construed as an unnecessary disturbance or waste of

time.

To address the matter, CheckMySchool started a research on the development of a Mandate

Analysis Tool. It seeks to provide an easy and convenient way to identify which government

office to report a school issue. This tool will be integrated in a mobile phone app that can be

easily disseminated to public users. The users input the category of the school issue and the

app will identify the government office responsible for its resolution along with the policy

basis and other pertinent information.

CMS has tested adaptability in DepEd

Partner DepEd offices have recognized the adaptability of the CMS model of participatory

monitoring. The CMS toolkit and process has been considered for replication in Region XII.

Specifically, in Midsayap, North Cotabato the School District Supervisor has utilized the data

gathered by CheckMySchool to complement the results of their own M&E. The local CMS

40

group was offered an office within DepEd for its operations. And the regional office has invited

the CheckMySchool coordinator to present the initiative and explore ways to scale up the

program.

In Guimaras, the CMS group is also frequently consulted by their LGU for planning and

budgeting of funds to be allocated for education. In CDO, the SDS herself endorsed the

initiative to all school heads and cites CMS data in management committee meetings.

CMS empowered volunteers

The CMS initiative provided an avenue for citizens to volunteer and perform a more active

role in school governance. These citizen volunteers got a better appreciation of how school

processes and services play out. They also got to access school data and talk to various school

officials. Interestingly, these kinds of interaction provided personal empowerment to many

volunteers. Participating in CMS increased their confidence and self-worth. They felt pride in

helping ensure that school issues were resolved. The example they set also served as

inspiration for their families, peers and neighbors. More importantly, this proved to be

spreadable as several school officials who interacted with the volunteers became more

inclusive with their communities when it comes to planning for their school projects. They

became empowering to school community members and empowered themselves in the

process because trust is gained and cooperation strengthened.

Expansion of CheckMySchool support

By establishing a reputation of being an effective implementer of community-based

monitoring of school services, CheckMySchool has been tapped by other organizations to

design and implement tools and systems for their own initiatives. During its sixth cycle,

CheckMySchool partnered with the United Nations Development Programme, and the

Jollibee Group Foundation to implement two monitoring initiatives: Pocomon Go! and

Community Monitoring for DepEd’s School Based Feeding Program.

41

• POCOMON GO!

ANSA-EAP, through its CheckMySchool initiative, launched the People Powered for

Computer Monitoring for Good Governance (Pocomon Go!) project in partnership

with the United Nations Development Program (UNDP). The project monitored the

delivery and installation of the procured computers of DepEd for 66 public senior high

schools belonging to Batch 38-Lot 2.

The Pocomon Go! team gathered and analyzed data on the prescribed facilities and

the conditions of 66 public senior high schools in the National Capital Region (NCR).

Likewise, the capability of the selected schools to receive and maintain the procured

items was consolidated and studied to provide an illustration of the situation of the

selected public senior high schools

• COMMUNITY MONITORING OF DEPED’S SCHOOL BASED FEEDING PROGRAM

In 2016, ANSA-EAP went into a partnership with the Jollibee Group Foundation (JGF)

and HEALTHDEV Institute to develop a community-based monitoring program for the

Department of Education’s recently launched School Based Feeding Program (SBFP).

This project was designed to monitor the performance of schools in terms of adhering

to the DepEd’s SBFP and Food Safety guidelines, as well as their performance in

delivering the food services involved in the program.

The initial run of the program was piloted in the town of Gerona, Tarlac where JGF

already had previous engagements through their Busog, Lusog, Talino (BLT) program.

This operation covered 20 public schools that participated in the the SBFP program for

the school year 2016-2017.

42

CONCLUSION

The CheckMySchool design as a participatory monitoring platform generally worked in favor

of the schools and their community stakeholders. It has brought out issues from the ground

and from the school community’s point of view. Its processes conditioned the stakeholders

on the importance of access to information, multi-stakeholder dialogue, and problem solving.

As these were experienced at the school level, the effect is immediate and community-

empowering.

As implemented, CMS has generated a number of desired results for the volunteers,

education stakeholders involved, and the schools themselves. It has demonstrated openness

and transparency in the participating schools. Stakeholders were convened and mobilized

towards shared educational service improvement goals. Finally, the CMS operational

effectiveness was arguably fair at 20% resolution rate, though admittedly still far from

optimal.

There are still many areas for improvement. Issue collection can be expanded to more schools

and more school-based stakeholders, namely parents, teachers and, most especially,

students. Stakeholder engagement can be strengthened by sharpening people’s interest in

the issue and their motive or reason to engage, i.e. more sensitivity to the way particular

issues affect them. Information access needs to exhaust valuable information in schools for

a better diagnosis of the issue. Starting with the conduct of feedback reporting, volunteers

must already be able to identify and eventually engage the primary mandated office. And

most importantly, issue resolution efforts must strictly follow the framework, minimize

uncertainty in attribution, and be properly documented.

A more strategically targeted networking of stakeholders and introduction of mobile app-

based tool to analyze mandates and pursue solutions can hopefully address many, if not all,

of these challenges. These ways forward must remain inclusive and not lose sight of the goal

to improve school services, especially those in the margins and in great need of government

attention.

43

POLICY RECOMMENDATIONS

Based on the foregoing, the following policy considerations are recommended to the

Department of Education:

• Strengthen the integration of participatory monitoring and social accountability in

school effectiveness framework and standards.

The DepEd’s organizational restructuring introduced the School Effectiveness Division

(SED) to provide framework and standards for effective school operations. As the CMS

experience affirmed the value of participatory monitoring to better manage schools, it

can provide vital inputs to SED’s review and formulation of its results framework and

specific guidance on school based management (SBM), school governing council (SGC),

school report card (SRC) and other efforts. A clear articulation of DepEd’s recognition of

stakeholders’ right to check, monitor and give feedback on school issues will pave the

way for the School Heads’ easy acceptance of this process. This should also entail

appropriate capacity building for School Heads to fully appreciate and harness the

benefits of community participation and partnership building, especially in the SGC’s

advisory and monitoring functions.

• Intensify the implementation of DepEd Order 72, s. 2016, on FOI Manual from central

down to school level through citizen groups and citizen-led initiatives, such as

CheckMySchool.

DepEd’s FOI Manual has set a clear policy on transparency. This can be put in action

better through partnership with interested citizen groups and utilization of existing

participatory initiatives, such as CMS. The CMS experience points to citizen demand for

school information and this is not necessarily motivated by any suspicion of wrongdoing,

but the need to help improve school management. The existing network of volunteers

can be tapped for this. DepEd’s institutional support for this intensified advocacy would

help frame the message of public transparency and accountability and reduce resistance

from the bureaucracy.

44

• Study use of participatory monitoring in the newly created Education Programs

Delivery Unit under DepEd Order 71, s. 2016.

The current administration’s decisive action to ensure full utilization of its budget and

efficient delivery of education programs is laudable. It would directly address the World

Bank/AusAid fInding on 20-25% inefficiencies in downloading budgets and programs to

the schools. Participatory monitoring will be helpful for this as it draws out issues from

the schools themselves and the CMS experience of directly collecting issues from

stakeholders had been instrumental in identifying the action. This kind of information

can be used by the EPDU in assessing the situation, identifying bottlenecks, and spotting

schools where resources are needed.

• Increase bureaucratic efficiency in addressing school issues by identifying

accountabilities that are better delegated to School Heads.

Addressing common school issues, such as repairs and other procurements, may be

better managed if put under the direct authority of the School Head. This will cut down

bureaucratic processes of request to and approval from higher offices. It is

recommended that DepEd identify all possible items that can already be delegated to the

School Head with the corresponding direct access to the needed budget. In particular,

the School Head may be given full responsibility and budget for repairs. This should go

together with the appropriate accountability mechanism to check and monitor the

School Head’s performance.

• Strengthen coordination with DPWH on stakeholder involvement in monitoring the

School Building Program.

As per the GAA 2017, the Department of Public Works and highways (DPWH) is

responsible for around 90% of the PHP 109,313,555,000 budget for the School Building

Program of FY 2017. To ensure proper utilization and delivery, DepEd must strengthen

coordination with the agency. Citizen monitoring may also be used (or revived) to

increase pressure on implementers and contractors to expedite projects and ensure

quality. DepEd will have to coordinate this kind of mechanism with DPWH.

45

• Clarify mandates and official accountabilities in memorandum orders.

The CMS team has been scanning the DepEd database of memorandum orders for its

mandate analysis research. One of its key observations is that not all these policy

instruments clearly and explicitly state the office or unit that should be responsible for

certain functions. In some cases, only the processes are described, but the mandate is

not clear or not specified. This leads to confusion on roles and difficulty in solving issues.

It is suggested that these orders be reviewed and the accountabilities and mandates be

mapped for specific school issues. It would also be helpful to distinguish between policy

owners and policy implementers, and specify the unit responsible for the

implementation.

• Integrate education monitoring initiatives by citizen groups in DepEd’s strategy to

contribute to NEDA AmBisyon Natin 2040, Open Government Partnership (OGP)

commitments, and United Nations Sustainable Development Goals (SDGs) 4 and 16.

DepEd is known for being the go-to agency in the pilot and modelling of participatory

governance and citizen monitoring. Initiatives, such as Textbook Count, Bayanihang

Eskwela, CheckMySchool, Budget Partnership Agreement, Procurement Observers and

even Integrity Development Review, are some of the examples. It can optimize the use

of these initiatives if they will be integrated in the department’s strategy to contribute

to:

❏ NEDA’s AmBisyon 2040, particularly in the aspects of “ensuring people-centered, clean,

and efficient governance” and “accelerating human capital development”.

❏ Open Government Partnership (OGP) commitments in transparency, accountability and

citizen participation. ANSA has submitted CheckMySchool as a candidate commitment to

the Philippine OGP’s National Action Plan. OGP requires government and civil society

partnership in all commitments and DepEd’s concurrence is highly recommended.

❏ UN SDGs #4 and #16 by supporting them and giving them institutional recognition. SDG 4

pertains to quality education and SDG 16 to strong institutions, particularly ensuring

responsive, inclusive, participatory and representative decision-making at all levels.

a

ANNEXES

ANNEXES

b

TABLE 1: CHECKMYSCHOOL 6 AREA PROFILE

Region Province Area Class # of

schools

# of

Issues

Region VI Aklan Banga 3rd Class Municipality 11 36

Region VI Aklan Kalibo 1st Class Municipality 10 31

Region VI Aklan Madalag 4th Class Municipality 4 12

Region VI Aklan Malinao 4th Class Municipality 16 50

Region VI Aklan Numancia 4th Class Municipality 7 21

Region XII Cotabato Aleosan 3rd Class Municipality 32 96

Region XII Cotabato Carmen 1st Class Municipality 47 141

Region XII Cotabato Kabacan 1st Class Municipality 31 97

Region XII Cotabato Kidapawan City 3rd City Income Class 62 200

Region XII Cotabato Libungan 2nd Class Municipality 37 111

Region XII Cotabato Midsayap 1st Class Municipality 66 218

Region VI Guimaras Buenavista 2nd Class Municipality 33 98

Region VI Guimaras Jordan 3rd Class Municipality 16 47

Region VI Guimaras Nueva Valencia 3rd Class Municipality 29 85

Region VI Guimaras San Lorenzo 5th Class Municipality 15 47

Region VI Guimaras Sibunag 5th Class Municipality 19 57

Region VI Iloilo Calinog 2nd Class Municipality 36 99

ARMM Maguindanao Cotabato City 3rd City Income Class 19 57

ARMM Maguindanao Datu Paglas 4th Class Municipality 22 66

ARMM Maguindanao Shariff Aguak 3rd Class Municipality 5 15

Region X Misamis Oriental Cagayan de Oro City 1st City Income Class 31 93

NIR Negros Occidental Bacolod City

1st City Income Class 2 6

NIR Negros Occidental Binalbagan 1st Class Municipality 1 6

NIR Negros Occidental Calatrava 1st Class Municipality 3 9

c

NIR Negros Occidental Candoni 4th Class Municipality 2 11

NIR Negros Occidental Cauayan 1st Class Municipality 2 7

NIR Negros Occidental Himamaylan City 3rd City Income Class 4 18

NIR Negros Occidental Hinigaran 1st Class Municipality 3 9

NIR Negros Occidental Hinobaan 1st Class Municipality 1 4

NIR Negros Occidental Ilog 2nd Class Municipality 3 14

NIR Negros Occidental Isabela 2nd Class Municipality 2 9

NIR Negros Occidental Manapla 2nd Class Municipality 3 9

NIR Negros Occidental Moises Padilla 3rd Class Municipality 2 9

NIR Negros Occidental Pontevedra 3rd Class Municipality 2 6

NIR Negros Occidental Sagay City 3rd City Income Class 1 3

NIR Negros Occidental Salvador Benedicto 4th Class Municipality 3 12

NIR Negros Occidental Sipalay 4th City Income Class 2 6

NIR Negros Occidental Talisay City 4th City Income Class 1 3

NIR Negros Occidental Toboso 3rd Class Municipality 1 6

NIR Negros Occidental Victorias City 4th City Income Class 2 6

Region I Pangasinan Mangaldan 1st Class Municipality 12 43

Region I Pangasinan Mapandan 3rd Class Municipality 13 39

Region I Pangasinan Rosales 1st Class Municipality 28 88

Region I Pangasinan Urdaneta City 2nd City Income Class 64 223

Region IV-A Rizal Baras 4th Class Municipality 12 36

Region IV-A Rizal Pililia 1st Class Municipality 18 50

Region IV-A Rizal Tanay 1st Class Municipality 55 182

Region IX Zamboanga del

Norte

Kalawit 3rd Class Municipality 10 30


Norte

Liloy 4th Class Municipality 13 39

d


Norte

Tampilisan 4th Class Municipality 11 35

Region IX Zamboanga del Sur Tukuran 3rd Class Municipality 18 44

Region IX Zamboanga del Sur Labangan 4th Class Municipality 16 46

Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Ipil 1st Class Municipality 11 33

Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Kabasalan 2nd Class Municipality 2 6

Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Naga 3rd Class Municipality 1 3

Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Roseller Lim 3rd Class Municipality 8 27

Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Titay 2nd Class Municipality 12 37

Region IX Zamboanga Sibugay Tungawan 2nd Class Municipality 1 3

TABLE 2: SCHOOL BUILDING ISSUES

School Building Related Issues # %

Construction of Instructional Room 273 12%

Construction of Perimeter Fence 265 12%

Construction of School Building 235 11%

Lack of of Chairs and Tables 217 10%

Construction of Toilets 189 9%

Construction of Facilities 179 8%

Unavailability of Water Supply 167 8%

Repair of Instructional Room 155 7%

Repair of School Building 124 6%

Construction of Non-Instructional Room 82 4%

Unavailability of Potable water supply 58 3%

Installation of Electricity 54 2%

Repair of Facilities 38 2%

DRRM (Flood) 27 1%

e

Repair of Chairs and Tables 26 1%

Unavailability of Land Title 24 1%

DRRM (Drainage) 20 1%

Repair of Non-Instructional Room 20 1%

Repair of Toilets 17 1%

Rewiring of Electricity 10 0.45%

DRRM (Others) 9 0.40%

Unavailability of School Title 1 0.05%

Lack of of SPED Facilities 1 0.05%

DRRM (Landslide ) 1 0.05%

Repair of Electricity 1 0.05%

Repair of Potable Water Supply 1 0.05%

Construction of Water Supply 1 0.05%

Retitling of Land Title 1 0.05%

TABLE 3: STAKEHOLDER ENGAGEMENT

Government Sector Community Sector

Teacher-in-Charge DepEd Academe Academe

Teachers DepEd Alumni Alumni

Teaching Staff DepEd Kalibo Pilot ES Alumni Alumni

8 District Supervisors DepEd Malinao ES Alumni Alumni

ASDS Vilchez, District Supervisors

from 10 Districts

DepEd Pook ES Alumni Alumni

DepEd DepEd Alumni LGU-Kalibo Alumni

DepEd Division Engr. DepEd Farmers CBO

DepEd Division Office DepEd Fisherfolks President CBO

DepEd Division Office DepEd KALAHI Volunteers and 4Ps CBO

DepEd Division Office Engineering DepEd KALAHI Volunteers and 4Ps CBO

f

Officer

DepEd Division Office Planning

Officer

DepEd Local Associations CBO

DepEd headed by SDS de los Reyes DepEd Mabilo Agricultural Women Assn. CBO

DepEd Staff headed by Asst. SDS

Vilchez

DepEd Nalook Agricultural Women CBO

DepEd-SDS DepEd Nalook Women Agricultural

Association

CBO

District Supervisor DepEd Purok San Antonio Water

Association

CBO

District Supervisors of 5 districts DepEd SPG and SSG Officers CBO

District Supervisors of Nueva

Valencia North and South

DepEd Student Supreme Government

(SSG)

CBO

Guidance Counselor DepEd Students CBO

Legal Officer of DepEd DepEd Tourism Based Organization CBO

Principal DepEd Volunteers CBO

Principal/School Heads DepEd Barangay Health Worker CBO

Principals DepEd SGC CBO

Property Custodian DepEd SPG Officers CBO

School Coordinator DepEd AKELCO Cooperative

School District Supervisor DepEd Aklan Electric Cooperative

(AKELCO)

Cooperative

School Division DepEd AGMRMF CSO

School Head DepEd Foundation CSO

School Heads DepEd MASSA

Foundation

CSO

School Heads and Teachers DepEd NGO CSO

school nurse DepEd NGOs and CSOs CSO

SDS DepEd rotary CSO

TIC DepEd Rotary Club of Aleosan CSO

Tigpalas Barangay Council DepEd Rotary Int'l- Kalibo Chapter CSO

TLE teacher DepEd AGMRMFI CSO

DepEd Central Office DepEd CO Aleosan Nurses Association CSO

g

Professionals

2 Barangay Councilors LGU Religious

group

CSO/ Faith-

based

A barangay official LGU MAGDALO

Partylist

Partylist

Atty. Paul De la Cruz SB on

Education

LGU Regional

Coordinator- MAGDALO Partylist

Partylist

Bakhaw Norte Barangay Council LGU OSY Private

Bar.Council-Punong Barangay LGU local

water distributor

Private

Barangay Captain of the 22

barangays

LGU Private

Company

Private

Barangay Council LGU Private

Individuals

Private

Barangay Councils LGU private

person

Private

Barangay Secretary LGU Resort

Owners

Private

BLGU LGU GPTA PTA

Brgy. Kagawad Nestor LGU Cabayugan

ES PTA

PTA

Brgy.captain LGU Camanci Sur ES PTA PTA

Cabayugan Barangay Council LGU Ciriaco L. Icamina Sr. NHS PTA PTA

Chairman on Education Committee LGU Cogon ES PTA PTA

City Government of CDO LGU General Parents and Teachers

Association

PTA

City Hall-CLENRO LGU Dingle ES PTA PTA

Cogon Barangay Council LGU Don Edecio Venturanza Memorial

ES PTA

PTA

Dingle Barangay Council LGU Esperanza G. Mirasol-Icamina ES

PTA

PTA

Estancia Barangay Council LGU Estancia ES PTA PTA

Gov. Gumarin LGU General F. Castillo ES PTA PTA

Hon Marilyn Edang, SB on

Appropriation

LGU Kalibo Pilot ES PTA PTA

h

Hon Ramon Ortiz ABC President Ex-

Oficio Member

LGU Kinalangay Nuevo ES PTA PTA

Hon. Gano Chairman Committee on

Appropriation

LGU Lapnag PS PTA PTA

Kinalangay Nuevo Barangay Council LGU Navitas NHS PTA PTA

LGU LGU OsmanES PTA PTA

LGU Kalibo LGU Parents PTA

LGU Madalag Engineering Office LGU Parents PTA

LGU Numancia LGU Polocate ES PTA PTA

LGU Numancia SEF LGU Pook ES PTA PTA

LGU of Aleosan - Municipal

Councilor

LGU PTA PTA

LGU- Malinao LGU PTA PTA

LGU-Banga LGU PTA (Secretary), PTA Officers PTA

LSB LGU PTA Federation PTA

Mabilo Barangay Council LGU PTA Federation Representative PTA

Mayor LGU PTA Provincial Federation PTA

Mayor Emmanuel Galila LGU PTA, Volunteers PTA

Mayor Gajo LGU PTCA PTA

Mayor's office LGU Rosario ES PTA PTA

mhu/rhu LGU San Dimas ES PTA PTA

Mila Z.Abesamis-Executive

Secretary

of the Congressman

LGU San Isidro PS PTA PTA

MLGU LGU San Roque Integraded School

(Elementary) PTA

PTA

MLGU Representative LGU San Roque Integraded School (High

School) PTA

PTA

Municipal Administrator LGU Sibalew ES PTA PTA

Municipal Mayor LGU Sipac PS PTA PTA

Municipal Mayors of the 5

Municipalities

LGU Tabayon PS PTA PTA

Navitas Barangay Council LGU Tigpalas PS PTA PTA

i

office of cong. nava LGU

Office of the Congressman LGU

Office of the Congressman- Aklan LGU

Office of the Governor LGU

Office of the Mayor LGU

OIC LGU

OICs LGU

Osman Barangay Council LGU

Partners from LGRC-DILG LGU

PLGU LGU

PLGU Representative LGU

Polocate Barangay Council LGU

Provincial Government LGU

Pusiw Barangay Council LGU

Representative from Mayor's Office LGU

Representative from the office of

the Vice Mayor

LGU

Representative of Local School

Board

LGU

Rosario Barangay Council LGU

San Dimas Barangay Council LGU

San Isidro Barangay LGU

San Roque Barangay Council LGU

SB Gajo Committee Chairman on

Education

LGU

Secretary of the Mayor LGU

Selected barangay council

representatives- Committee on

Education

LGU

Sibalew Barangay Council LGU

Sipac Barangay Council LGU

Sugnod Barangay Council LGU

j

Taba-ao Barangay Council LGU

Tabayon Barangay Council LGU

Venturanza Barangay Council LGU

LWUA NGA

Commission on Heritage NGA

DENR NGA

DOLE NGA

DPWH NGA

DSWD NGA

TESDA NGA

Regional Coordinator

Specialist

Table 4: Area Coordinators with Reports

Coordinator Area

1 Arlene Ching Pangasinan

2 Emily S. Matias Rizal

3 Melisa S. Reyes, RIzal

4 Richelle Verdeprado Bacolod, Negros Occidental

5 Charrie Joy Masculino Guimaras

6 Felisa G. Demain Guimaras

7 Ana Eva Villanueva Guimaras

8 Claire Hope L. Legario Iloilo

9 Mary grace A. Dela Cruz Iloilo

10 Mohannat Cua Labangan, Zamboanga Del Sur

11 Pahad Watamama Abbas Labangan, Zamboanga Del Sur

12 Ramel A. Palapo Midsayap, Cotobato

13 Hamzar G. Abubacar Datu Paglas, ARMM

k

14 Mary Jo Astrologo Carmen and Kabacan, Cotobato

15 Roy John Bauzon Aleosan, Cotobato

16 Jazel Talha Libungan, Cotabato

17 Merry Christ Enad Kidapawan, Cotobato

18 Sittie Sarah Abubakar Cotobato City, Maguindanao

19 Jonathan Mongcal Cagayan De Oro, Misamis Oriental

20 Emelina Fernandez Kalibo, Aklan

21 Edgar Alegre Zamboanga Sibugay

22 Emerson Moniva Shariff Aguak, Maguindanao

Table 5: List of Volunteers

Volunteer Name Area:

1 Robert John Campos Pangasinan

2 Michael Rhey Orenes Pangasinan

3 Arwin James Ching Pangasinan

4 Kimberly Aguado Pangasinan

5 Jinky Tamayo Pangasinan

6 Charlene Diego Pangasinan

7 Darwin Damaso Pangasinan

8 Manuel L. Ambrosio Jr. Pangasinan

9 Christine Remot Midsayap, Cotobato

10 Adelina Dakay Midsayap, Cotobato

11 Zoila Estanda Midsayap, Cotobato

12 Rechelle Hilario Midsayap, Cotobato

13 Raymund Hilario Midsayap, Cotobato

14 Chellah Cagud Midsayap, Cotobato

l

15 Regina Castro Midsayap, Cotobato

16 Mark Cambronero Midsayap, Cotobato

17 Ruela Joy Orbesido Midsayap, Cotobato

18 Jhunrey Tison Midsayap, Cotobato

19 Rotsen Ebo Aleosan, Cotobato

20 Adinah Bauzon Aleosan, Cotobato

21 Gleir Presbitero Aleosan, Cotobato

22 Julius Dakay Aleosan, Cotobato

23 James Darantinao Aleosan, Cotobato

24 Jose Manuel Factura III Cagayan De Oro City

25 Stephanny Keith Magalaman Cagayan De Oro City

26 Mary Ann Villablanca Cagayan De Oro City

27 Rebecca Pastrano Cagayan De Oro City

28 Phoebe Joy Tabiquero Cagayan De Oro City

29 Romelyn Abarabar Cagayan De Oro City

30 Mayderlyn Eduria Cagayan De Oro City

31 Rizalyn Galbinez Cagayan De Oro City

32 Analiza La Victoria Cagayan De Oro City

33 Angeles Gabinete GUIMARAS

34 Sherry Gallo GUIMARAS

35 Kathy May Reballos GUIMARAS

36 Agustin Zaragoza GUIMARAS

37 Angela Gotera GUIMARAS

38 Benito Tagacay GUIMARAS

39 Angie Gallego GUIMARAS

40 Imelda Gomia GUIMARAS

41 Mary Grace Demonteverde GUIMARAS

m

42 Wilfredo Gallego GUIMARAS

43 Mercedes Abas GUIMARAS

44 Melchor Villarma GUIMARAS

45 Anabel Gaitan GUIMARAS

46 Felesa Demain GUIMARAS

47 Loreto Gandecela, Jr. GUIMARAS

48 Elsie Oquindo GUIMARAS

49 Phoebe Eledia GUIMARAS

50 NENA BICERA Zamboanga Sibugay

51 JANELLE CAMACHO Zamboanga Sibugay

52 JERBEN CAGAS Zamboanga Sibugay

53 STEVE DAVID BICERA Zamboanga Sibugay

54 NOEL TABOR Zamboanga Sibugay

55 IAN VINCENT BESANA Zamboanga Sibugay

56 JOMER RECTO Zamboanga Sibugay

57 JEFFREY RECTO Zamboanga Sibugay

58 RICHARD DANILA Zamboanga Sibugay

59 Daven Dee Jordan Calinog

60 Regie M. Tanate Calinog

61 Mary Lynnor C. Castillano Calinog

62 Norwin Graeco Dela Cruz Calinog

63 Dustin Ryan E. Veridiano Bacolod

64 Lourd John S. Diaz Bacolod

65 John Ivan Sosas Bacolod

66 Jade T. Miraflores Bacolod

67 Joel C. Tambuson Bacolod

68 Christine Joy Dorias Bacolod

n

69 Elmeer Meeynard Calimpos Bacolod

70 Romel Nong Lagata Bacolod

71 Aarom Kim Gil Bacolod

72 Ilya Mae Flores Bacolod

73 Charles Mangga Bacolod

74 Daniel Medicielo Bacolod

75 Johannah A. Hussein Cotobato City, Maguindanao

76 Nur Hanna D. Abubakar Cotobato City, Maguindanao

77 Amerodin C. Masukat Cotobato City, Maguindanao

78 Alinasser C. Lala Cotobato City, Maguindanao

79 Viviane Fuentes -Ursua Aklan

80 Kristine May R. Gatchallan Aklan

81 John Luther Guil E. Espinola Aklan

checkmyschool r · school issues and problems became the primary driver ... children), to budget...

Documents