Literacy Mapping of 5th and 6th Class Municipalities: Policy Implications to Local Government Units

RESOURCES:

Literacy Mapping of 5th and 6th Class Municipalities: Policy Implications to Local Government Units

In May 2003, the Literacy Coordinating Council (LCC) commissioned the Department of the Interior and Local Government (DILG) to undertake a literacy mapping study on 5th and 6th class municipalities and their local government units. Due to financial constraint, the study was conducted from 2005 to 2006.

The DILG study 1) measured the basic and functional literacy levels of 20.20% (82) of the 406 5th class municipalities and 16.67% (7) 42 of the 6th class municipalities; 2) determined the literacy policies in these municipalities and the extent to which literacy concerns have been incorporated in municipal development plans, programs and projects; 3) described the scope of literacy practice in program/project participation in the same municipalities; and 4) specified possible policy directions in the decentralization of literacy programs and projects.

The survey method was used and the unit of analysis was the household. The respondents were 41,861 household heads and their representatives who were randomly chosen using the Table of Random Numbers. Five survey forms were used to collect data, including the two forms which the national Statistics Office (NSO) used in its 2003 Functional Literacy, Education and Mass Media Survey (FLEMMS).

Among the findings were:

  • The identification of Barangays Matampa, Alipuaton and Banal in the Municipality of Salay, Province of Misamis Oriental as the tail-ends among the Bottom 30 barangays (that is, with the lowest literacy rates)
  • Of the 89 surveyed municipalities, (82, 5th class; 7, 6th class), only Daguioman and Tayum in Abra; Sadanga in Mountain Province; Mahatao in Batangas; and BAto in Catanduanes had LGU resolutions from 2003 to 2004 which allotted a literacy-related budget. Only 32% of the 89 municipalities had literacy projects in their development plans.
  • The LGU’s common reasons for not initiating literacy projects were:
  1. The Department of Education or its teachers have the responsibility to initiate literacy projects.
  2. There are no available funds for literacy projects.
  3. No interested parties had proposed to the LGUs to implement a literacy project.
  4. No resolutions on literacy had been made.
  5. Literacy projects were not the priority of the LGU.
  6. Unfamiliarity with the previous administration’s literacy projects.

These were among the study’s recommendations:

  • Congress should pass a law mandating municipal governments and other LGUs to set aside some percentage of the Internal Revenue Allotment (IRA) for literacy projects.
  • Within the framework of the Social Reform Agenda, beneficiary participation in the planning and implementation of literacy programs and projects should be made a policy and the DILG should lead the LCC member agencies in advocating this policy among LGUs.
  • Barangays with the lowest basic or functional literacy rates should be top priority in the delivery of LGU literacy services. As a policy decision, literacy programs and/or projects should be included in the annual municipal development plans.

Leave a Comment