A Study on the Quality of Education for Young Filipino

Implemented by the Public School system

(using Advanced Statistical Tools)

A Project Study in partial fulfillment

for the requirements in
Advanced Statistical Methods
(DBMADSTACOMP)

Submitted to:

Dr. Jose Ramon G. Albert

Submitted by:

Anna Liza Cao Nacion

April 12, 2008

Chapter 1: The Problem And Its Setting

1.1 Background of the Study

In the Philippines, education is a public or state function. Public

elementary and secondary education is supported by the national

government, the former as mandated by the Constitution (1987), which states

that “the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality

education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to make such

education accessible to all”, and the later by Republic Act No. 6655 (Free

Secondary Education Act).

The human capital theory states that the economic development of a

nation is a function of the quality of its education. In other words: the more

and better educated a people, the greater the chances of economic

development (Meinardus, 2003). Hence, history bears out that the quality of

education the country had in the past decades produced illustrious men and

women who paved the way for national development.

The quality of education continues to deteriorate in the Philippines. It

indicates that the government does not put priority in improving the public

school system. Oftentimes, there are more than 70 students in one classroom

and the textbook-to-student ratio stood at 1:4 (Table 1). Survey shows that the

more textbook, which is approximately more than 9 textbooks (Table 2), uses

by a student the performance level in the study is much better (Source:

Department of Education – Report Card to the Public School System, SY

2004 – 2005).
 Today, there are 16 million enrolled in public elementary and high

schools (Philippine Center for Investigative Journalism, 2000). Grade Six

pupils who are in classes with 21 – 60 pupils performed slightly better than

those in classes with more than 60 pupils. On the other hand, Fourth year

high school students who are with 31 – 50 students achieved better

performance level than those classes with more than 50 students (Social

Sectors A Division, NSCB, July 2006).

The National Educational Testing and Research Center (NETRC) lead

in research, evaluation and assessment of the effectiveness of education

which provide information vital of the formulation of educational policies

geared towards the realization of an empowered and globally competitive

Filipino.

No doubt, teachers themselves are a problem. Low salaries and poor

working conditions have meant that for decades, education attracted the lower

third of graduating students. The poor quality of teachers is reflected in the

performance for the licensing examinations: Only a third of teaching

graduates who take the professional examination pass every year. The

problem becomes more evident in high schools where the teachers'

knowledge of a subject has been found to be about the same as the students

they teach. This lack of teaching competence, especially in science and math,

explains why the public school system churns out graduates who are totally

unprepared for a complex world.

The National Achievement Tests were administered by the NETRC to

Grade Six and Fourth Year students in government schools. The tests were
designed to assess the abilities and skills of graduating students to determine

their knowledge and capabilities in five subject areas at the end of the school

year, namely: Mathematics, Science, English, Filipino and Hekasi / Araling

Panlipunan (AP). A score of 75% and over means that the student has

mastery of the subject; 50% to less than 75%, near mastery; and below 50%

means low mastery (DepEd).

1.2 Statement of the Problem

This study sought to determine the stumbling blocks to quality

education for young Filipino. Specifically, this attempted to answer the

following questions:

a) What are the major factors that affect the quality of education in the

Philippines?

b) What region of the Philippines performs better in education?

c) What is the performance level of Region III (Central Luzon) as

compared with the other regions of the Philippines in public

education?

d) What will be the performance of the young Filipino in the tertiary

level?

1.3 Objective of the Study

The purpose of this study is to gain a rich understanding and analyze

the current situation of the educational system of the Republic of the

Philippines and points out some of the factors that have an effect on the
public education. Furthermore, it aims to profile the regions based on the

education performance level.

1.4 Significance of the Study

This study focused on the different bone of contentions to quality

education. The result of the study will provide a general idea to other

researcher/s a propos of the hindrances to achieve a quality education.

The outcome of the study will hopefully enlighten parents as well as the

community about their important role for the students’ future.

This will facilitate teachers to look at carefully about their methods and

strategies applied in teaching.

Lastly, this may bolster the government to scrutinize the present public

educational system of the country, the Republic of the Philippines.

Chapter 2: Methodology

Data used in this study were downloaded from the website of the

Department of Education (Deped), National Statistics Office (NSO), and NSC.

Figures were presented into tables and are analyzed using the SPSS program

instigating to the interpretation of results.

Descriptive statistics was applied to give a picture of the variables

being evaluated. OLAP cubes summarized the Mean and Standard deviation

of the performance level of grade six and fourth year high school students in

each subject area.

 Factor analysis was employed to represent relationship between

variables which are the factors affecting the quality of education for young

Filipino.

Cluster analysis was used to profiling, that is describing the

characteristics of each region, as to the degree of similarities/differences in

terms of the performance level in public educational system.

Univariate Box-Jenkins (UBJ-ARIMA) modeling was applied to

describe the performance level of the students in tertiary level using the data

of elementary and secondary levels. ARIMA modeling is a type of univariate

analysis where only past observations on the variable are used to describe

the behavior of a time series data.

Chapter 3: Results, Analysis & Interpretation

The performance of the Elementary and Secondary levels is waning. Data

shows, see Table a and Table b, that the Grade Six pupils average rating of 58.21% in

the achievement test which ranged from 53.71% to 60.89%, equivalent to near mastery

level, while Fourth Year students were worse off with average rating of 46.95% which

ranged from 39.97% to 51.45% , or a low mastery of the subjects. Total performance

level of public education is low mastery with an average rating of 49.58%.

Table a
Case Processing Summary

Cases
Included Excluded Total
N Percent N Percent N Percent
math * region 17 100.0% 0 .0% 17 100.0%
english * region 17 100.0% 0 .0% 17 100.0%
science* region 17 100.0% 0 .0% 17 100.0%
filipino * region 17 100.0% 0 .0% 17 100.0%
hekasi * region 17 100.0% 0 .0% 17 100.0%

Table b
Descriptive Statistics
using the mean percentage score of the National Achievement Test
in Grade Six by Region and subject area, SY 2004 – 2005.
(OLAP Cubes)

% of
Std. Total % of Total
Sum N Mean Deviation Sum N
math 997.80 17 58.6941 7.08109 100.0% 100.0%
english 1000.40 17 58.8471 5.54889 100.0% 100.0%
science 913.00 17 53.7059 5.21338 100.0% 100.0%
filipino 1035.10 17 60.8882 5.59921 100.0% 100.0%
hekasi 1000.70 17 58.8647 5.72428 100.0% 100.0%
 Table c
Descriptive Statistics
using the mean percentage score of the National Achievement Test
in Secondary Level by Region and subject area, SY 2004 – 2005.
(OLAP Cubes)

% of
Std. Total % of Total
Sum N Mean Deviation Sum N
math 873.50 17 51.3824 7.23613 100.0% 100.0%
english 874.80 17 51.4588 5.01262 100.0% 100.0%
science 679.50 17 39.9706 5.49008 100.0% 100.0%
filipino 717.50 17 42.2059 3.17480 100.0% 100.0%
hekasi 846.00 17 49.7647 4.88748 100.0% 100.0%

Table d
OLAP Cubes

% of
Std. Total % of Total
Sum N Mean Deviation Sum N
Elementary 989.50 17 58.2059 5.76601 100.0% 100.0%
Secondary 798.10 17 46.9471 5.01624 100.0% 100.0%

Factor Analysis

Table e
Correlation Matrix (a)
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005

ratio1 ratio2 ratio3

Correlation ratio1 1.000 .702 .626
ratio2 .702 1.000 .766
ratio3 .626 .766 1.000
Sig. (1- ratio1 .001 .004
tailed) ratio2 .001 .000
ratio3 .004 .000

a Determinant = .202

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin (KMO) Measure of Sampling Adequacy is an indicator of

factorability, which measures the homogeneity of variables; a value of 1 indicates high

common variance while a value of 0 indicates unique variance. It was found out that

from the pupil/teacher, pupil/room, and pupil/seat ratios of Grade Six pupils the degree

of common variance is 0.717. A KMO of 0.717 means that the correlation is middling

(Table e1).

Table e1
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Grade Six, SY 2004 -2005

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.717

Bartlett's Test of Sphericity Approx. Chi-Square 22.656

df 3
Sig. .000

Table e2
Communalities
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005

Initial Extraction
ratio1 1.000 .746
ratio2 1.000 .853
ratio3 1.000 .798

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Considering the Eigenvalue ( represent amount of variance in the data described

by the factor) of the 3 the components, there is only one principal component with an
initial eigenvalue of 2.397 using the Kaiser criterion which suggest that retaining only
factors with Eigen values greater than 1.

Table e3
Total Variance Explained
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005

Extraction Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings
Compone % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
nt Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 2.397 79.905 79.905 2.397 79.905 79.905
2 .382 12.748 92.654
 3 .220 7.346 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table e4
Component Matrix (a)
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005

Component
1
ratio1 .864
ratio2 .924
ratio3 .893

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a 1 components extracted.

Scree Plot
3.0

2.5

2.0

1.5

1.0
Eigenvalue

.5

0.0
1 2 3

Component Number

Factor Analysis: High School

Table f
Correlation Matrix (a)
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

ratio1 ratio2 ratio3

 Correlation ratio1 1.000 .328 .045
ratio2 .328 1.000 .524
ratio3 .045 .524 1.000
Sig. (1- ratio1 .099 .433
tailed) ratio2 .099 .015
ratio3 .433 .015

a Determinant = .631

The Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin measyre of sampling adequacy reveals that the

pupil/teacher, pupil/room, and pupil/seat ratios of Fourth year students the degree of

common variance is 0.464 which means that the correlation is unacceptable with a level

of significance of 89% (Table f1).

Table f1
KMO and Bartlett's Test
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Kaiser-Meyer-Olkin Measure of Sampling Adequacy.

.464

Bartlett's Test of Approx. Chi-Square 6.516

Sphericity df 3
Sig. .089

Table f2
Communalities
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Initial Extraction
ratio1 1.000 .261
ratio2 1.000 .792
ratio3 1.000 .586

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

In view of the Eigen value of the 3 components, only the first component with an
initial eigenvalue of 1.639 is considered as principal component.

Table f3
 Total Variance Explained
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Extraction Sums of Squared

Initial Eigenvalues Loadings
Compone % of Cumulative % of Cumulative
nt Total Variance % Total Variance %
1 1.639 54.625 54.625 1.639 54.625 54.625
2 .960 31.997 86.622
3 .401 13.378 100.000
Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

Table f4
Component Matrix(a)
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Component
1
ratio1 .511
ratio2 .890
ratio3 .765

Extraction Method: Principal Component Analysis.

a 1 components extracted.

Scree Plot
1.8

1.6

1.4

1.2

1.0

.8

.6
Eigenvalue

.4

.2
1 2 3

Component Number

Cluster Analysis
 Agglomerative hierarchical clustering techniques use a simple and easy to

understand algorithm. Clusters are built step by step. The agglomeration schedule can

be visualized by a so called dendrogram.

Cluster Analysis for Elementary Level

The dendogram evidently shows that performance level of Grade Six pupils per

region is divided into two major groups. Group 1 composed of NCR and Group 2 the

rest of the regions.

Initially the second major group is divided into three sub-groups: first sub-group is

composed of Region VI, Region VIII, Region II, Region I and CAR; second sub-group

composed of Region VII, Region XI, Region XII, Region IVB, Region X, Region III,

Region V, CARAGA, and Region IX; Region IVA and ARMM belongs to the third sub-

group. And finally the first and second sub-groups are clustered forming the second

major group.

The Agglomeration Schedule shows that the coefficients of the two major groups,

NCR against all the rest of the Regions, are 1875.24.

In the Pupil/Teacher ratio, there is an even distribution of Regions for the 2 major

Groups. (Refer to the dendogram of table 10). Basis is the national average ratio of

35.73. Eight (8) Regions belong to Group 1 with a ratio below the national average;

Region IX, Caraga, Region V, Region VI, Region VIII, Region II, Region I and CAR.

The other nine (9) Regions are under Group 2 which are above the national average

ratio, with ratio of 36.02 to 41.53; these are Region VII, Region XI, Region IVB, Region

X, Region III, ARMM, NCR, Region XII, and Region IVA.

In the Pupil / Room ratio, the dendogram of Table 11 shows that Regions are

divided into two major groups: first group, NCR; and the second group, rest of the
Regions. In NCR, the average number of pupils per room is 78.16 while the rest of the

region is divided into two sub-group; above the average number of pupils per room

which is 40, the Region IVA and ARMM with a ratio of 43.75 and 47.54 respectively

while the other sub-group satisfies the 40 average.

In the Pupil / Seat ratio, (see dendogram of Table 12) one major group where

divided into sub-group: first major group with NCR and ARMM while the second group

composed of the other Regions where divided into two sub-groups. In comparison to

the national ratio of pupil to seat of 1.19, NCR and ARMM has a ratio of 1.77 and 1.91

respectively which means that in one seating it accommodates almost two pupils.

Table g
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Teacher, Pupil/Room and Pupil/Seat Ratios
Grade Six, SY 2004 – 2005

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
 1 7 9 .082 0 0 8
2 6 14 .430 0 0 7
3 5 11 .655 0 0 4
4 3 5 .893 0 3 10
5 1 16 1.000 0 0 12
6 8 12 1.660 0 0 9
7 6 10 4.569 2 0 10
8 2 7 4.678 0 1 12
9 8 13 7.071 6 0 13
10 3 6 9.985 4 7 13
11 4 15 16.470 0 0 15
12 1 2 20.291 5 8 14
13 3 8 28.263 10 9 14
14 1 3 91.735 12 13 15
15 1 4 204.741 14 11 16
16 1 17 1875.240 15 0 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Teacher, Pupil/Room and Pupil/Seat Ratios
Grade Six, SY 2004 – 2005

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region VI 7 
Region VIII 9 
Region II 2 
Region I 1  
CAR 16  
Region VII 8  
Region XI 12   
Region XII 13   
Region IVB 5  
Region X 11  
Region III 3   
Region V 6   
CARAGA 14   
Region IX 10   
Region IVA 4  
ARMM 15  
NCR 17 
Cluster Analysis for secondary level

The dendogram shows that performance level of fourth year students per region

is divided into two major groups. Group 1 composed of NCR and Group 2 the rest of the

regions.

Originally the second major group is divided into seven sub-groups: first sub-

group is composed of Region III, Region X, Region XII, and CARAGA; second sub-

group composed only the Region XI; under the third sub-group are Region IVB, Region

IX and Region V; fourth sub-group are Region VII and ARMM; fifth sub-group is Region

IVA; the six sub-group are Region II and Region VIII ; and the last sub-group Region I,

CAR and Region VI.

The Agglomeration Schedule shows that the coefficients of the two major groups,

NCR against all the rest of the Regions, are 651.274.

The pupil / teacher ratio is divided into two cluster, Group 1 includes Region VII,

ARMM and Region IVA with an average ratio of 48.84 to 53.25; the rest of the Regions

belong to the second Group with a ratio of 34.95 to 45.08.

The pupil / room ratio in the secondary level is much worst compare to the

elementary level with Cluster 1 composed of Region IVA, 72.43 ratio and NCR with

81.56 ratio. The Cluster 2 ratio is of pupil to room is in between 47.88 to 65.35.

Pupil to Seat ratio in ten Regions: NCR, CARAGA, Region XII, Region XI, Region

X, Region IX, Region VII, Region V, Region IVB and Region IVA, is almost 2 pupils per

seat, a ratio of 1.60 to 1.85 while the other seven Regions is below the national ratio of

1.57.
 Table h
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Teacher, Pupil/Room and Pupil/Seat Ratios
Fourth Year, SY 2004 – 2005

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 3 11 1.777 0 0 3
2 5 10 2.474 0 0 4
3 3 13 3.730 1 0 6
4 5 6 5.958 2 0 12
5 1 16 6.735 0 0 8
6 3 14 11.215 3 0 11
7 2 9 12.592 0 0 10
8 1 7 15.984 5 0 10
9 8 15 25.829 0 0 13
10 1 2 28.723 8 7 15
11 3 12 32.646 6 0 12
12 3 5 56.332 11 4 14
13 4 8 112.010 0 9 14
14 3 4 153.309 12 13 15
15 1 3 244.935 10 14 16
16 1 17 651.274 15 0 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Teacher, Pupil/Room and Pupil/Seat Ratios
Fourth Year, SY 2004 – 2005
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region III 3 
Region X 11 
Region XII 13 
CARAGA 14  
Region XI 12  
Region IVB 5   
Region IX 10  
Region V 6   
Region VII 8   
ARMM 15   
Region IVA 4   
Region II 2   
Region VIII 9   
Region I 1   
CAR 16  
Region VI 7  
NCR 17 
Summary, Conclusion and Recommendation

Many problems are besetting education in the Philippines. The problem

on poor quality has been traced to a number of causes which includes school-

related and non-school factors. Among the school-related causes are the

unqualified and poorly trained teachers, inadequate facilities and equipment,

and lack of instructional materials such as textbooks and teacher’s manuals.

Non-school factors include poverty, low educational attainment and illiteracy

of parents, and poor health and nutrition.

The biggest barrier for many young Filipino to get hold of education is

poverty. Many students are unable to finish education because of not having

enough resources to go to school and receive a decent education. Moreover,

due to poverty, many students are forced to drop out and forced to work.

Parents and the community play a very important role in the education

of young people in the Philippines. Studies have consistently shown that

students who have been actively supported by the parents and the community

will perform and learn better. The community should play a more proactive

role in helping improve the quality of public schools that the Philippines have.

Moreover, actively engage parents to just not merely rely on teachers and the

school to educate the students and should play a more active role in ensuring

that the students are able to read, write and do arithmetic correctly and at the

same time show full support in the student’s education.

 To improve the quality of education, teachers must undergo massive

training for effective skills development using modern school facilities to level

up professional competency.

To augment the accommodation problem, government must provide

construction of additional school buildings or classrooms. Moreover,

improvement of school libraries, science laboratories, updating instructional

materials, curriculum development and upgrading school equipments will

elevate the performance level of the young Filipino enlisted in public school.

Finally, Students must value education and learn to share it with others

who mostly needed it. Education is the greatest key in solving poverty and in

solving many of the world’s problems.

References

Catolico, L.D and D.G. Tan. Teaching competencies in the new millennium as
perceived by high school cooperating teachers. Education Digest. Vol. ii No.
1, January – December 2001. ISBN 971-705-043-0. p.10.

Meinardus, R. The Crisis of Public Education in the Philippines. Business

World Internet Edition: June 30, 2003
http://www.fnf.org.ph/liberalopinion/crisis-public-education-philippines.htm
Accessed April 9, 2008.

Social Sectors A Division, NSCB. Quality of basic education remains poor but
improving; eastern Visayas is tops. Ref No.: SS-200606-SS2-01
http://www.pcij.org/imag/latest/education2.html
 Appendix A
Republic of the Philippines’ Map
 Table 1
National Ratio, SY 2002 - 2003

Particulars Elementary High School

Classroom – Pupil ratio 1:38 1:60
Seat – Pupil ratio 1:1.22 1:1.62
Textbook – Pupil ratio 1:4 1:3
Teacher – Pupil ratio 1:36 1:40

Source: MTPDP 2004 – 2010, NEDA

Resource Gap (Cost in Million Pesos)

Table 2
Mean Percentage Score by Number of Textbooks Lent to Grade VI Pupils
NAT SY 2004-2005

Subject Philippines none 1-2 3-4 5-6 7-8 9 or Not

more specified
Math 59.1 54.2 57.3 57.8 58.9 61.3 61.6 55.2
English 59.2 55.1 57.8 58.2 59.0 60.9 61.2 55.8
Science 54.1 50.5 53.0 53.3 54.0 55.6 56.0 50.6
Filipino 61.8 57.3 60.4 60.7 61.6 63.7 63.8 57.8
Hekasi 59.6 55.3 58.2 58.7 59.4 61.3 61.6 55.6
TOTAL 58.7 54.5 57.3 57.7 58.6 60.6 60.8 55.0

Source: Department of Education – Report Card to the Public School System

(SY 2004-2005)

Table 3
Ratios: Pupil/teacher, Pupil/Room, Pupil/Seat
 Elementary Education by Region, SY 2003 - 2004

Region Pupil/Teacher Pupil/Room Pupil/Seat

ratio ratio ratio
Region I 29.45 28.01 1.00
Region II 31.43 29.78 1.03
Region III 36.84 35.69 1.07
Region IV-A 41.53 43.75 1.14
Region IV-B 36.02 35.84 1.31
Region V 33.73 34.62 1.35
Region VI 31.71 32.06 1.13
Region VII 37.90 37.81 1.08
Region VIII 31.69 31.78 1.07
Region IX 33.56 36.47 1.17
Region X 36.34 36.57 1.17
Region XI 37.70 39.07 1.26
Region XII 39.25 40.57 1.30
CARAGA 33.58 34.10 0.98
ARMM 40.30 47.54 1.91
CAR 28.94 27.15 0.98
NCR 40.33 78.16 1.77
total 35.73 37.68 1.19

Source: Basic Education Information System, Quick Counts SY 2003 – 2004,

DepEd, 2005

Table 4
Ratios: Pupil/teacher, Pupil/Room, Pupil/Seat
 Secondary Education by Region, SY 2003 - 2004

Region Pupil/Teacher Pupil/Room Pupil/Seat

ratio ratio ratio
Region I 36.78 49.72 1.34
Region II 41.06 48.33 1.50
Region III 44.59 62.17 1.41
Region IV-A 48.84 72.43 1.60
Region IV-B 40.01 57.38 1.85
Region V 38.49 56.46 1.77
Region VI 37.29 52.30 1.47
Region VII 52.03 65.35 1.62
Region VIII 40.84 51.87 1.39
Region IX 40.10 58.94 1.67
Region X 43.33 62.40 1.78
Region XI 42.15 66.99 1.74
Region XII 45.08 63.71 1.62
CARAGA 44.25 59.57 1.68
ARMM 53.25 60.42 1.43
CAR 34.95 47.88 1.32
NCR 35.88 81.56 1.73
total 41.65 60.96 1.57

Source: Basic Education Information System, Quick Counts SY 2003 – 2004,

DepEd, 2005

Table 5
 Mean Percentage Scores of the National Achievement Test (NAT) in
Grade VI
By Region and Subject Area, SY 2004-2005

Subject Area
Region Average Rank
Math English Science Filipino Hekasi
Philippines 59.1 59.2 54.1 61.8 59.6 58.7
NCR 56.9 57.6 52.8 62.7 59.3 57.9 8
CAR 55.0 56.0 51.3 56.5 53.5 54.5 14
I-Ilocos 65.8 64.6 58.9 65.6 64.5 63.9 3
II-Cagayan
52.7 53.8 49.1 57.2 54.7 53.5 15
Valley
III-Central Luzon 57.0 58.1 52.9 61.4 58.5 57.6 9
IV-A-Calabarzon 64.7 62.5 58.0 67.5 64.2 63.4 4
IV-B-Mimaropa 62.1 60.0 55.8 65.1 62.3 61.1 5
V-Bicol 53.9 54.9 50.3 59.3 56.7 55.0 12
VI-Western
54.1 56.5 52.6 58.4 57.7 55.8 10
Visayas
VII-Central
63.7 61.8 55.2 62.2 59.9 60.6 6
Visayas
VIII-Eastern
72.1 70.0 63.7 70.6 69.4 69.2 1
Visayas
IX-Zamboanga
59.6 59.5 53.8 58.8 57.9 57.9 7
Peninsula
X-Northern
54.7 56.3 50.5 56.7 55.0 54.6 13
Mindanao
XI-Davao 54.8 55.8 51.9 57.8 56.1 55.2 11
XII-Soccskargen 52.6 53.8 50.1 56.0 54.2 53.4 16
CARAGA 71.9 69.9 63.4 70.1 69.4 68.9 2
ARMM 46.2 49.3 42.7 49.2 47.4 47.0 17

Source of basic data: NETRC

Table 6
 Mean Percentage Scores of the National Achievement Test (NAT) in
Fourth Year
By Region and Subject Area, SY 2004-2005

Subject Area
Region Araling Average Rank
Math English Science Filipino
Panlipunan
Philippines 50.7 51.3 39.5 42.5 50.0 46.8
NCR 46.8 50.5 36.3 42.5 49.0 45.0 11.5
CAR 49.8 53.2 38.2 41.7 49.7 46.5 8
I-Ilocos 56.9 54.0 46.3 43.6 53.2 50.8 3
II-Cagayan
51.5 52.4 39.9 6
Valley 42.2 51.1 47.4
III-Central
48.2 49.7 37.6 11.5
Luzon 41.3 48.4 45.0
IV-A-
49.1 50.3 37.7 10
Calabarzon 42.9 50.4 46.0
IV-B-Mimaropa 54.7 53.5 41.7 44.6 53.2 49.5 5
V-Bicol 44.2 46.4 34.6 40.8 46.4 42.5 16
VI-Western
45.9 49.3 37.0 13
Visayas 42.0 49.2 44.7
VII-Central
56.8 55.1 41.4 4
Visayas 43.8 52.2 49.9
VIII-Eastern
68.9 62.6 53.1 1
Visayas 47.8 60.3 58.6
IX-Zamboanga
52.5 51.0 41.8 41.6 48.1 47.0 7
Peninsula
X-Northern
49.9 50.8 39.4 9
Mindanao 42.1 48.9 46.2
XI-Davao 45.8 48.4 35.8 40.6 45.3 43.2 15
XII-
46.7 47.4 37.4 14
Soccskargen 40.6 47.0 43.8
CARAGA 64.7 59.7 49.9 46.7 56.2 55.4 2
ARMM 41.1 40.5 31.4 32.7 37.4 36.6 17

Source of basic data: NETRC

Table 7
Mean Education Expenditure by Family Size, 2002
 Family Size Mean Education Expenditure per student

1 5,558

2 3,135

3 2,243

4 1,787

5 1,558

6 1,090

7 858

8 1,081

9 or more 682

TOTAL 1,369

Source: Orbeta, Aniceto: “Poverty, Vulnerability and Family Size: Evidence

from the Philippines”.
PIDS, Makati City. September 2005

Table 8
Average Annual Family Income and Expenditure by Region, 2003
(in Philippine Peso)

Region Average Income Average Expenditure

 Philippines 148,616 124,377
NCR 274,529 225,936
CAR 157,045 130,154
Ilocos 124,437 102,596
Cagayan Valley 124,375 97,945
Central Luzon 158,075 136,548
Calabarzon 185,661 159,267
Mimaropa 97,394 80,732
Bicol 106,813 93,666
Western Visayas 112,593 98,332
Central Visayas 119,119 100,168
Eastern Visayas 103,874 83,459
Zamboanga Peninsula 95,660 76,805
Northern Mindanao 106,897 89,592
Davao 114,065 97,505
Soccsksargen 116,284 86,376
Caraga 86,859 75,899
ARRM 84,439 68,212
Source: National Statistics Office

Table 9
Health Facilities and Government Health Manpower
1995-2005

Item 1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005

Hospitals 1,794 1,712 1,708 1,739 1,719 1,725 1,838
Government 648 623 640 662 662 657 702
Private 1,146 1,089 1,068 1,077 1,057 1,068 1,136
Gov’t Health
Manpower
Doctors 2,948 2,943 2,957 3,021 3,064 2,969
Dentists 2,027 1,943 1,958 1,871 1,946 1,929
Nurses 4,945 4,724 4,819 4,720 4,735 4,435
Midwives 16,173 16,451 16,612 16,534 17,196 16,967
Barangay 14,416 15,204 15,107 15,283 14,490 15,099 15,436
health Stations
Rural Health 2,212 2,218 1,773 1,974 2,259 2,258 2,266
Units

Source: Department of Health

Table 10
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Teacher Ratio
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005
 Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 10 14 .000 0 0 4
2 7 9 .000 0 0 6
3 15 17 .001 0 0 10
4 6 10 .026 0 1 13
5 8 12 .040 0 0 11
6 2 7 .073 0 2 13
7 5 11 .102 0 0 9
8 1 16 .260 0 0 15
9 3 5 .461 0 7 11
10 13 15 1.134 0 3 12
11 3 8 2.084 9 5 14
12 4 13 2.717 0 10 14
13 2 6 4.076 6 4 15
14 3 4 12.703 11 12 16
15 1 2 12.797 8 13 16
16 1 3 51.390 15 14 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Teacher Ratio
Grade Six, SY 2004 – 2005

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region IX 10 
CARAGA 14 
Region V 6  
Region VI 7   
Region VIII 9  
Region II 2   
Region I 1  
CAR 16  
Region VII 8  
Region XI 12   
Region IVB 5    
Region X 11   
Region III 3  
ARMM 15  
NCR 17  
Region XII 13  
Region IVA 4 
 Table 11
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Room Ratio
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 10 11 .010 0 0 5
2 3 5 .023 0 0 5
3 7 9 .078 0 0 9
4 6 14 .270 0 0 8
5 3 10 .578 2 1 8
6 1 16 .740 0 0 12
7 8 12 1.588 0 0 10
8 3 6 3.391 5 4 13
9 2 7 4.599 0 3 12
10 8 13 4.934 7 0 13
11 4 15 14.364 0 0 15
12 1 2 14.368 6 9 14
13 3 8 15.071 8 10 14
14 1 3 56.607 12 13 15
15 1 4 148.486 14 11 16
16 1 17 1832.766 15 0 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Room Ratio
Grade Six, SY 2004 – 2005
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region IX 10 
Region X 11 
Region III 3 
Region IVB 5 
Region V 6 
CARAGA 14 
Region VII 8 
Region XI 12 
Region XII 13  
Region I 1  
CAR 16  
Region VI 7   
Region VIII 9   
Region II 2   
Region IVA 4  
ARMM 15  
NCR 17 
 Table 12
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Seat Ratio
Grade Six, SY 2004 - 2005

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 14 16 .000 0 0 7
2 10 11 .000 0 0 8
3 3 9 .000 0 0 5
4 5 13 .000 0 0 10
5 3 8 .000 3 0 9
6 4 7 .000 0 0 8
7 1 14 .000 0 1 12
8 4 10 .001 6 2 13
9 2 3 .002 0 5 12
10 5 12 .002 4 0 11
11 5 6 .004 10 0 15
12 1 2 .006 7 9 13
13 1 4 .017 12 8 15
14 15 17 .020 0 0 16
15 1 5 .059 13 11 16
16 1 15 .515 15 14 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Seat Ratio
Grade Six, SY 2004 – 2005
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

CARAGA 14 
CAR 16 
Region I 1 
Region III 3 
Region VIII 9 
Region VII 8 
Region II 2  
Region IX 10  
Region X 11  
Region IVA 4  
Region VI 7   
Region IVB 5   
Region XII 13   
Region XI 12  
Region V 6  
ARMM 15 
NCR 17 
 Table 13
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Teacher Ratio
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 5 10 .008 0 0 6
2 2 9 .048 0 0 6
3 3 14 .116 0 0 5
4 1 7 .260 0 0 10
5 3 13 .464 3 0 11
6 2 5 .815 2 1 13
7 16 17 .865 0 0 12
8 11 12 1.392 0 0 11
9 8 15 1.488 0 0 14
10 1 6 2.182 4 0 12
11 3 11 4.074 5 8 13
12 1 16 5.161 10 7 15
13 2 3 12.690 6 11 15
14 4 8 14.812 0 9 16
15 1 2 37.465 12 13 16
16 1 4 135.365 15 14 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Teacher Ratio
Fourth Year, SY 2004 – 2005
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region IVB 5 
Region IX 10 
Region II 2  
Region VIII 9  
Region III 3   
CARAGA 14   
Region XII 13  
Region X 11   
Region XI 12   
CAR 16   
NCR 17  
Region I 1  
Region VI 7  
Region V 6  
Region VII 8  
ARMM 15  
Region IVA 4 
 Table 14
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Room Ratio
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 3 11 .053 0 0 7
2 7 9 .185 0 0 11
3 2 16 .202 0 0 8
4 10 14 .397 0 0 6
5 5 6 .846 0 0 10
6 10 15 1.456 4 0 10
7 3 13 2.044 1 0 12
8 1 2 2.659 0 3 11
9 8 12 2.690 0 0 12
10 5 10 7.996 5 6 13
11 1 7 12.505 8 2 15
12 3 8 12.761 7 9 13
13 3 5 36.446 12 10 15
14 4 17 83.357 0 0 16
15 1 3 141.816 11 13 16
16 1 4 434.851 15 14 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Room Ratio
Fourth Year, SY 2004 – 2005
Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region III 3 
Region X 11 
Region XII 13 
Region VII 8  
Region XI 12  
Region IVB 5   
Region V 6  
Region IX 10  
CARAGA 14   
ARMM 15   
Region VI 7   
Region VIII 9  
Region II 2  
CAR 16  
Region I 1  
Region IVA 4 
NCR 17 
 Table 15
Agglomeration Schedule
Pupil/Seat Ratio
Fourth Year, SY 2004 - 2005

Agglomeration Schedule

Stage Cluster
Cluster Combined First Appears
Stag Cluster Cluster Coefficie Cluster Cluster Next
e 1 2 nts 1 2 Stage
1 8 13 .000 0 0 7
2 12 17 .000 0 0 10
3 10 14 .000 0 0 11
4 6 11 .000 0 0 10
5 1 16 .000 0 0 14
6 3 15 .000 0 0 9
7 4 8 .000 0 1 11
8 2 7 .001 0 0 12
9 3 9 .001 6 0 12
10 6 12 .002 4 2 13
11 4 10 .004 7 3 15
12 2 3 .006 8 9 14
13 5 6 .009 0 10 15
14 1 2 .014 5 12 16
15 4 5 .021 11 13 16
16 1 4 .098 14 15 0
 Figure
Dendrogram using Average Linkage (Between Groups)
Pupil/Seat Ratio
Fourth Year, SY 2004 – 2005

Rescaled Distance Cluster Combine

C A S E 0 5 10 15 20 25
Label Num +---------+---------+---------+---------+---------+

Region VII 8 
Region XII 13 
Region IVA 4 
Region IX 10  
CARAGA 14  
Region XI 12   
NCR 17   
Region V 6   
Region X 11   
Region IVB 5  
Region I 1  
CAR 16  
Region II 2  
Region VI 7  
Region III 3  
ARMM 15 
Region VIII 9 