UP Centennial Lecture; November 12, 2008 (DRAFT)
by Ma. Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Allan B. I. Bernardo, and Dina Ocampo
Why Reforms Don’t Transform: Institutional Constraints
What would constrain these initiativesfrom taking root and rolling down to other parts of the country? Although policy covers for decentralization and pedagogical reforms are in now place, a number of institutional factors constrain the scaling up and implementation of reform. We will cite only three at the level of DepEd--dependence on external initiatives; the pilot project mentality that we referred to as “education reform in a petri dish” and the culture of hierarchy and obeisance in DepEd.
What is clearly discernible in DepEd’s reform activities over the last twenty years is its almost exclusive dependence on foreign-assisted programs that have pilot-project components. It seems that reform activities were undertaken only as DepEd moved from one donor-funded project to another. It is important to ask whether this indeed is a question of finance because Project Impact has shown that costs can be reduced by as much as 50%.
It seems to us too that DepEd’s manner of undertaking reform is to projectize it and the Department’s idea of projectization is to pilot test the efficacy of reformist interventions on a limited scale. Fortunately, BEAM and TEEP pushed the limits of such experiments to cover a third of all elementary schools. Their experiences give credence to the argument that reform efforts are best when large scale, coordinated, context-sensitive, and sustained over time.
Waged at the margins of DepEd operations, the projectization of externally-induced education reform seems to have prevented the Department from directing the reform process. It does not seem to have fully embraced the tasks of processing the lessons of every reform project, drawing their implications, and planning how to scale up ideas that work. Instead, DepEd seems to have simply moved from one project to the next, without really fully connecting the projects to its larger reform agenda.
There is nothing wrong with treating the conceptualization and implementation of particular reform interventions as projects. In fact, this might be the way to focus the attention of units within DepEd on ways to achieve particular performance outcomes. Projectization becomes a problem for two reasons. First, when a mission as important as scaling up or sustaining reform is not undertaken without external prodding Second, when the bearers of institutional reform in the bureaucracy no longer vigorously exert efforts to sustain reform after project targets have been met.
The governance of DepEd is not only highly centralized, it is also extremely hierarchical. For instance, no policy or practice in the lower levels of the hierarchy may change or take place unless there is an explicit DepEd Memo from the central office that allows it. An example is the rather ridiculous scenario of schools rejecting much-needed donations from credible donors because of the absence of a DepEd Memo. This cultural mindset is undermining DepEd’s moves towards decentralization. Indeed, despite the success of SBM in both BEAM and TEEP and the proven capacity of school heads to supervise classroom construction and manage funds, there still prevails a general distrust of school heads and classroom teachers in the field.
The hierarchical culture is reinforced by a culture of obeisance that characterizes many of our bureaucracies including DepEd. Teachers, for instance, hardly complain about multiple tasks away from the classroom that include cooking for visits of officials from central or regional offices. The observation visitations of the higher-ups have actually been described as “bitbitations” that are fruit-ful and fish-ful. Nor would teachers argue on substantive issues. School heads, division superintendents, and regional directors, no matter how outspoken, tend to defer to those above them even if they are more experienced or knowledgeable on an issue. Such deference can kill initiative. There are hopeful signs, however, that the culture of obeisance is changing with SBM. Some officials decry the empowerment of school heads whom they think have become stubborn and arrogant. Why? Because school heads have begun to answer back, that is, they now argue their points.
The constraints to the transformation of our education landscape go beyond institutional, administrative, and cultural factors. Education Reforms will not transform unless we go back to fundamental questions about what education is and what it is for.
by Ma. Cynthia Rose B. Bautista, Allan B. I. Bernardo, and Dina Ocampo
Why Reforms Don’t Transform: Institutional Constraints
What would constrain these initiativesfrom taking root and rolling down to other parts of the country? Although policy covers for decentralization and pedagogical reforms are in now place, a number of institutional factors constrain the scaling up and implementation of reform. We will cite only three at the level of DepEd--dependence on external initiatives; the pilot project mentality that we referred to as “education reform in a petri dish” and the culture of hierarchy and obeisance in DepEd.
What is clearly discernible in DepEd’s reform activities over the last twenty years is its almost exclusive dependence on foreign-assisted programs that have pilot-project components. It seems that reform activities were undertaken only as DepEd moved from one donor-funded project to another. It is important to ask whether this indeed is a question of finance because Project Impact has shown that costs can be reduced by as much as 50%.
It seems to us too that DepEd’s manner of undertaking reform is to projectize it and the Department’s idea of projectization is to pilot test the efficacy of reformist interventions on a limited scale. Fortunately, BEAM and TEEP pushed the limits of such experiments to cover a third of all elementary schools. Their experiences give credence to the argument that reform efforts are best when large scale, coordinated, context-sensitive, and sustained over time.
Waged at the margins of DepEd operations, the projectization of externally-induced education reform seems to have prevented the Department from directing the reform process. It does not seem to have fully embraced the tasks of processing the lessons of every reform project, drawing their implications, and planning how to scale up ideas that work. Instead, DepEd seems to have simply moved from one project to the next, without really fully connecting the projects to its larger reform agenda.
There is nothing wrong with treating the conceptualization and implementation of particular reform interventions as projects. In fact, this might be the way to focus the attention of units within DepEd on ways to achieve particular performance outcomes. Projectization becomes a problem for two reasons. First, when a mission as important as scaling up or sustaining reform is not undertaken without external prodding Second, when the bearers of institutional reform in the bureaucracy no longer vigorously exert efforts to sustain reform after project targets have been met.
The governance of DepEd is not only highly centralized, it is also extremely hierarchical. For instance, no policy or practice in the lower levels of the hierarchy may change or take place unless there is an explicit DepEd Memo from the central office that allows it. An example is the rather ridiculous scenario of schools rejecting much-needed donations from credible donors because of the absence of a DepEd Memo. This cultural mindset is undermining DepEd’s moves towards decentralization. Indeed, despite the success of SBM in both BEAM and TEEP and the proven capacity of school heads to supervise classroom construction and manage funds, there still prevails a general distrust of school heads and classroom teachers in the field.
The hierarchical culture is reinforced by a culture of obeisance that characterizes many of our bureaucracies including DepEd. Teachers, for instance, hardly complain about multiple tasks away from the classroom that include cooking for visits of officials from central or regional offices. The observation visitations of the higher-ups have actually been described as “bitbitations” that are fruit-ful and fish-ful. Nor would teachers argue on substantive issues. School heads, division superintendents, and regional directors, no matter how outspoken, tend to defer to those above them even if they are more experienced or knowledgeable on an issue. Such deference can kill initiative. There are hopeful signs, however, that the culture of obeisance is changing with SBM. Some officials decry the empowerment of school heads whom they think have become stubborn and arrogant. Why? Because school heads have begun to answer back, that is, they now argue their points.
The constraints to the transformation of our education landscape go beyond institutional, administrative, and cultural factors. Education Reforms will not transform unless we go back to fundamental questions about what education is and what it is for.
2 comments:
Hi Sir can i repost this article to deped teacher blog?
Sure. It's the pleasure of The Learning Captain to have this post reposted on the very popular deped teacher blog. Just please link The Learning Captain. Please also allow The Learning Captain to repost whatever articles from deped teacher that follow the general genre of The Learning Captain.
More power to all of us and God Speed!
Post a Comment