ABSTRACT
The aim of this study was to understand the different factors and priorities of the school heads when it comes to MOOE (Monthly Operating and Other Expepnses) allocation. Using qualitative method of research focusing on descriptive phenomenological research design, the factors and priorities of the respondents who were Principal IV under a big school classification and Principal I under a large school category were given. It was also highlighted here about the self-assessment of the respondents when it comes to budget allocation and things that they need for self-improvement. The findings signified five main themes that include academic factors, academic priorities, non-academic priorities, and self-assessment. These five themes are the main areas that are suggested to achieve the factors and priorities of the school heads in allocating monthly resources and their self-assessment to budget allocation. Furthermore, it was suggested that school needs still need to undergo trainings for budget planning to fully attain their targets in the monthly distribution of budget and for the benefit or everyone in the school community.
Keywords: Factors, Priorities, Budget Planning, Resource Allocation
INTRODUCTION
The 1987 constitution Article XIV section 5 paragraph 5 states that the state shall assigned the highest budgetary to education. However, despite of this government mandate, public schools still manage to allocate outside resources to support other school needs and programs. Hence, the question is how do school heads and principals allocate resources?
Education is considered by many as a vehicle to success. A way of making life better. It plays a vital role in promoting human rights, dignity and the progress of every individual. It is also a significant instrument in socio economic growth and sustainable development (De Belen, 2011). The 1987 constitution article XIV section 5 paragraph 5 states that “The states shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education and ensure that teaching will attract and retain its rightful share of the best available talents through adequate remuneration and other means of job satisfaction fulfilment”.
For the past years, the Department of Education gets the biggest chunk of thenational budget. This is to provide quality education that will be accessible to everyone. That will hone skills, values and knowledge that young individuals needed. However, despite of this government mandate, public schools seems to still struggle with the resources assigned to them.
Nowadays, most schools specifically public also dwell with support and donations coming from the outside. In this regard, the school heads or principal must be creative in allocating resources for the betterment of the school. Resource allocation is one of the challenges every institution faces. According to Obadara and Alaka (2010), to sustain improvement, schools must allocate enough resources to fully achieve the top priorities before moving to others. In addition, knowing how to allocate resources can lead to perennial accomplishment of goals than short-lived success. The purpose of this study is to explore the creativeness of the school principals in allocation outside resources. What are the important things to consider? It also aims to dig into the principles, priorities and factors deemed by the school principals resource allocation.
Resource Allocation Theory in the definition of Joseph Bower will be used as basis this study. Resource allocation is the process whereby an organization determines how to apportion its production factors among the various productive activities in which it aims to engage. The field of economics conceives of firms as resource-allocating entities engaged in the production of goods and services.
Meanwhile, Bower (1970) in Maritan et. al. (2017) stated that the first stage, labeled definition, is cognitive in nature and begins with some trigger, such as a performance shortfall or a perceived opportunity that leads operating managers to initiate an investment project and characterize it in technical and economic terms. This is followed by the second stage, labeled impetus, in which social and political forces govern the actions of middle managers who decide whether or not to support a proposal and direct it through the organization’s evaluation and approval system. The primary role of senior managers is to set the structural context with which definition and impetus interact. This final element of the model includes organizational and administrative systems such as performance measurement, evaluation, and incentives that influence behavior. So, not only are investment projects not predefined awaiting selection, but cognitive, social, and political factors determine to which projects resources are allocated.
Resource Allocation in Different Settings
Resource Allocation plays a significant school for a successful school project and attainment of its program. It is a plan in using available resources like budget, materials and even human resource for the achievement of the goals before the end of the term.
Obadera et.al. (2010), stated that Resources allocation is one of the most challenging tasks that our educational system faces, whether they are in the early stages of reform or years into sustaining improvements. To sustain improvement, schools must devote sufficient resources to fully implement priority goals before moving on to others. Knowing how to allocate resources effectively can lead to long-term accomplishment of goals rather than short-lived success. Facing the challenge of resource allocation begins with knowing the range of resources available. But knowing at one point in time is not enough; schools must periodically take stock of their resources. This means revisiting regularly whether financial, human, and time resources are allocated in the most appropriate ways to achieve school’s goals.
In Philippine educational setting, MOOE refers to expenditures to support the operations of government agencies such as expenses for supplies and materials; transportation and travel; utilities (water, power, etc.) and the repairs, etc. A school MOOE budget is allocated to DepEd schools, providing for the cost of running these schools (e.g., utilities, communications expense, etc.) and for maintenance (e.g., repairs).
Teachers and Pupils were some of the factors being considered by the Department of Budget for the amount of MOOE to be distributed in a school. The higher number of teachers and the more learners that they have turn into a higher amount of MOOE allocation.
In the implementation of DepEd Order No.12, s. 2014, it was clearly stated there that the DepEd central office should provide the Regional and Schools Division Offices with a matrix showing the MOOE allocation of each public ES out of the appropriations authorized for MOOE for each SDO for Elementary Education under Operations of Schools. By this, we can clearly see and easily understand how pupils play a vital role in the monthly allocation of school budget.
Policy makers have been in the process of determining if effective financial resource allocation by a building principal is important to a school’s performance (Miles & Darling-Hammond, 1997). In an effort to better understand what practices in resource allocation exist among urban elementary school principals, the literature review begins with the history of urban schools, and the educational challenges they confront specifically related to accountability measures and budget factors. The literature review also examines aspects of school finance and the research regarding the strategic allocation of funds to improve student performance (MILLER, 2012).
Taken from OECD (2017), School autonomy in generating funds can help promote local efforts to complete school revenues, there are concerns about the inequalities this creates. Schools in challenging socio-economic circumstances will be less able to complement their budget with parental and other local contributions. In some countries insufficient in monitoring of school income leads to a lack of transparency regarding the real resource levels of individual schools, which makes it difficult to achieve equitable resource levels through school funding mechanisms.
Meanwhile, Hadar et. al. (2010) studied the efficiency of resource allocation in Israel and noted that diversity is also found in the differing levels of economic material well-being. Income inequality in Israel is high and increasing. The Gini coefficient of income inequality (0.3878) has increased and now even exceeds that of the USA. In recent years, the average income of the highest decile has been increasing, while the average income of the lowest decile has declined. The average standard of living has increased, yet 24% of the permanent residents are poor, as are 34% of Israeli children.
However, Clark et. al. (2013), found out that most public schools in Australia have substantial autonomy, this is true even more so in Victoria which began decentralisation in the late 1960’s. Unlike U.S. states which delegate decision-making authority to local school districts, decentralisation in Victoria resulted in a state-to-site funding model in which state funds are allocated directly to individual schools. The Education Act (School Councils Act) of 1975 created school council as legal entities and in 1983 school councils were vested with powers pertaining to the governance of the school.5 Council powers were subsequently enhanced so that, by 1992, school councils had substantial autonomy to determine school policy and allocate budgets (Odden and Busch, 1998, Ch. 4). Since then, however, there has been a move toward increasing the responsibility of principals – who have clear goals and accountability – in managing schools.
Moreover, Topk et.al. (2004), presented how resource allocation affects students outcome. They said that an institution’s environmental variables have has been found to affect student outcomes. Chapman and Pascarella (1983) explored the relationship between institutional type and size and academic and social integration at 11 institutions. They found that students enrolled in residential institutions were more likely to be involved academically and socially than were their peers who attended commuter institutions. Students in larger institutions were more involved socially in their institution, but had less contact with faculty than did students in smaller institutions. Although it is difficult for institutions to change their size or shift dramatically from commuter to residential, this study suggests that institutional environment and behavior do impact student outcomes.
School Performance affects how parents make decision in sending their children in school. The reality that parents value education and they want a high-performing school for their parents.
Harris (2014), stated that parents held many meetings giving reasons why they did not want their students to be placed at different schools. They stated that student test scores at the low income school were below test scores of students at the high income school. Additionally, parents argued that that their children would not be safe at the low wealth school. Parent reluctance to re-balance enrollment at the two schools, left one school with more resources than the other school. Enrollment was a factor in allocation of resources, thus leading to limited resources to the low enrolled school in comprising to the enriched resources at the high-enrolled school. Parents made the decision to send their children to one school over another, based on geographical location. When district officials proposed redrawing boundaries, parents threatened to move in order to keep their children at the high wealth school.
Khamsi et.al. (2009), made a statement that the impact of increased expenditures on educational outcomes is a controversial and hotly debated topic in the field. Eric Hanushek is perhaps the most cited scholar on this issue and for over the past two decades has conducted research on education production functions (the relationship between school inputs and student outcomes) and the failure of input-based school policies (1981, 2003).3 Hanushek’s research concludes that there is a lack of evidence that increased per pupil expenditures has a consistent or strong positive impact improved educational outcomes. He states that is not that resources never matter and that they cannot matter. Instead, he urges researchers to consider how resources are allocated and measuring the impact of targeted increased expenditures.
Similarly, Neal (2016), in his American setting research found out that despite the increase in per-pupil expenditures, the achievement gap between the economically advantaged and disadvantaged (those who lack the skills necessary to thrive in the 21st century) students continues to increase. For example, in 2011, 76% of economically advantaged students in Grades 3 through 8 scored proficient on the language arts portion of the NJASK; only 45% of economically disadvantaged students in Grades 3 through 8 scored the same. What is most disconcerting is that the gap in language arts has increased by 5% since 2005, from 26% to 31% (National Assessment of Educational Progress; Department of Education, 2012). Even the mathematics portion of the NJASK shows disturbing results. Since 2005, the advantaged and disadvantaged gap has remained constant at 24% to 25% (National Assessment of Educational Progress; Department of Education, 2012).
Beck (2002), in their research study about practices of resource allocation in American setting pointed-out that in recent years private foundations have joined in efforts to improve education by investing targeted resources in schools. Some schools and districts may find themselves in a favorable position to consider reforms and embrace change, while others need additional support and resources in order to achieve desired results. In either case, hard choices are required when schools are given a mandate for reform and an infusion of resources. Funding generally does not come without obligations and schools must wrestle with how to align themselves with the requirements of the reform agenda and the needs and constraints of their own local situation. This study explores the precursors that enable some schools to adopt a particular reform agenda aimed at improving instructional practice and examines how the breadth and depth of school leadership (principal and teacher) and the allocation of resources influences the ability of a school to make substantive change.
Obadera et.al. (2010) in Richard (2007), stated in his study on assessment, accountability and students’ learning outcomes made a distinction between students’ outcomes and students’ learning outcomes. He reported that students’ outcomes are the aggregate statistics on group of students like graduating rates, retention rates, transfer rates and employment rates for graduating class. Generally, students’ outcomes tend to measure institutional performance while students’ learning outcomes encapsulates wide range of students’ attributes and abilities which consists of cognitive and affective skills which are measures of how the experiences students acquired in school have supported their development as individuals. Cognitive outcomes include demonstrable acquisition of specific knowledge and skills. Posneer (1992) refers to cognitive learning as the recall or recognition of knowledge and to the development of intellectual abilities and skills.
Krumpre (2012), in his study stated that during the school day, elementary and middle school students can be placed in individual or small group tutoring (Torgeson, 2004). In addition, middle school students can be placed in double periods (Odden, 2009), usually receiving assistance in reading or mathematics. Outside the school day, both elementary and middle school students can benefit from before school, after school, or Saturday tutorials. Assistance can be individual or small group (no more than 5 students) and can involve homework help (Odden & Archibald, 2009). Summer can be also be very effective for the at-risk learner (Odden & Archibald, 2009) with a clear academic focus.
Miles et. al. (1997) in their study found-out that recent analysis of staffing and spending patterns from 1967 to 1991 in nine different districts across the country shows that only a small portion of new teaching staff went to reduce class sizes in for regular education students. Virtually all of the increase in staff per pupil went to provide small classes to the growing number of students in special programs, and to improve teacher working conditions by adding a modest amount of time to free teachers from instruction during the school day (Miles, 1997a and 1997b; Rothstein and Miles, 1995).
Furthermore, Gempes et. al. (2018), explained some issues in school fund. They said that budgeting and financial management in many schools nowadays remains a challenge in many schools. It shows that principals lack proper trainings to cope with the implementation and function of the school budget of their schools.
In this paper, we will clearly see how research allocation and different factors affecting it like priorities of budget planning and achieving target goals test the capability of a school head to lead a school. It is one of the things that make their leadership style efficient and serve as a key for the school effectiveness.
This study is helpful in the principal in the sense that they can eliminate unnecessary factors that can affect in achieving school targets thru resource allocation. Meanwhile, teachers will fully enjoy their privileges being one of the considerations to MOOE distribution. On the other hand, pupils’ needs can easily be addressed by the teachers because they know that the school head consider them as one of the main priorities. Considering that this research paper is beneficial to everyone especially in the school resource budgeting.
see PDF attachment for more information