A recurring theme drawn from the research findings was the collective view of respondents that schools were established because of the initiative of the community acting collectively to address the need to provide quality basic education services to the barangay. This primarily explains external stakeholders’ overarching view of shared responsibility and predisposition to support the school in the delivery of basic
educational services in the community (see Chapter 5). Furthermore, there was general agreement among respondents of the critical role of the school in the community. More than its ability to provide and deliver quality basic education services, it was perceived to be a unifying mechanism where different community values are introduced. These arguments are manifest in external stakeholders’ view of the dual role of the school –as a ‘government entity’ with reporting accountabilities across the education governance structure and as a ‘community institution’ that is expected to take a purposive and active role in shaping and developing the community. This enhanced understanding of the school’s role impacts on several aspects of the Department’s decentralisation efforts in the country.
8.1.1. Impact on education decentralisation efforts
Several decentralisation proponents (Shaeffer 1994; Conyers 1986; Osei-Kufluor and Adeolu 2013; Litvack and Seddon 1999; Kemmerer 1994; Cook 2007) argue that the effectiveness of decentralisation initiatives requires a nuanced understanding and appreciation of the context in which it is introduced. While education decentralisation efforts in the Philippines were predominantly aimed at distributing administrative responsibilities across the education bureaucracy it does not accurately represent the accountabilities of schools owing to this duality of their roles. Unlike the other levels of education governance, schools need to fulfil their sectoral responsibilities and organisational accountabilities of delivering basic education, and meet societal and community expectations partly because of their historical links to the community. As community institutions, they are expected to be
Figure 8.1. Multiple Accountabilities of Philippine School
proactive and productive contributors to the community. Apart from their upward relationships and accountabilities, schools, therefore, have lateral and downward relationships and accountabilities as well (see Figure 8.1) consistent with Hooge, et. al’s (2012) suggestion of the schools’ multiple accountabilities.
Moreover, an additional consideration is that decentralisation, in the Philippine context, while anchored on building shared responsibility, accountability and engagement of education stakeholders, is a Department-sponsored, externally-induced process that is distant and removed from the community’s experience. This is consistent with Mansuri and Rao’s (2012) argument that community participation in school governance can either be organic (internally-initiated) or induced (externally-initiated) while arguing for organic participation as a more sustainable approach because of its endogenous character. Furthermore, this concurs with Maley’s (2002) argument that decentralisation does not guarantee participation necessitating an intent from the school to actively induce stakeholder engagement.
These enhanced understandings impact, not only, on the mechanisms and systems that allow schools to continually and effectively perform transferred functions and responsibilities but also on the ability of these mechanism and systems to enable schools to reframe and transform an externally induced process to one that becomes inherent and organic to the community. Facilitating acceptance and ownership is critical in the light of the objectives of shared governance and democratic consultation as enshrined in RA9155. The apparent difficulties of stakeholders in US1, RS1 and RS2 (see
Chapter 6) in understanding the rationale behind the SGC and in sustaining the
8.1.2. A re-conceptualisation of school-community partnership
The findings indicate that education decentralisation in the Philippines is not merely about devolving or transferring responsibilities but is a purposive effort to build shared responsibility and accountability among education stakeholders to improve learning outcomes. Encouraging and developing shared responsibility and accountability, necessitates a re-conceptualisation of the school-community partnership as a productive and mutually benefitting participation model anchored on a broader recognition of the critical position and role of the school in the community and not solely based on its resource-deficient status. West Burnham, et. al. (2007) frames this as the social context of education – that given the objective of shared responsibility and accountability for learning outcomes - the school recognises the more significant, wide-ranging social and personal factors that affect learner performance.
Several educators (Sergiovanni, 1994; West-Burnham, et. al. 2007, Combs and Bailey 1992; Epstein 1995) have advocated for the proactive role of schools in undertaking community building efforts, arguing for a purposive effort from the school to work and contribute towards its regeneration as an integral part of school based management efforts. Benson (1996) suggested that all schools require robust communities to create an enduring partnership to improve learning outcomes that promote sustainable and inclusive community development. Shaeffer (1994) also supported this view when he encouraged schools to work with other sectors in community development efforts (see
Box 1 for the experience of RS2 in working with the community).
The Department actively advocates for communities to share in school governance and become partners in improving educational outcomes. Sharing in governance demands a departure from a tokenistic approach to participation (participation by consultation) which was evident in all school sites, towards an approach that
purposively and actively engages external stakeholders in the substantive and strategic aspects of school management. This supports the view of Burns et.al (2004) that externally-induced initiatives, more often, misconstrue participation with consultation.
However, if the Department expects communities to share in governance, the inverse - where the school participates in community governance - should also be expected. This supports the views of Combs and Bailey (1992), Benson (1996) and Shaeffer (1994) who espoused the view of schools as active participants in their community’s development.
The school, as a non-politically aligned community institution, is in a unique and pivotal position to facilitate productive social interaction and become a unifying mechanism providing avenues where social interaction happens, trust is built and community social cohesion is achieved (Claridge 2004). Taking a more proactive role in community development and governance will generate goodwill towards the school, which it could, in turn, take advantage to improve shared responsibility for learning outcomes, thus gaining the ability to fulfil both its sectoral and societal responsibilities.
Finally, research findings also reveal the need to invest in developing, harnessing and nurturing the partnership which was evident in the changes on the level of external stakeholder engagement in school based management in US2 (changing from low stakeholder engagement to high stakeholder engagement) and RS1 (changing from high stakeholder engagement to low stakeholder engagement). Thus, education partners should continually assess school participation policies and mechanisms with the view of determining their effectiveness not only to facilitate agency and voice of education stakeholders to participate within the context of decentralised education management but likewise to recognise and celebrate areas of effective practices in school-community partnertships. This substantiates Brownlea’s (1987), Bude’s (1989), and Shaeffer’s (1994) assertion of the unwarranted cost of participation and the needed investment in terms of time and resources in making the partnership work.