Unfunded mandates and forgotten gardens: Rethinking accountability for Gulayan sa Paaralan Program
DepEd Memorandum No. 223, s. 2016 presents a commendable vision for the Gulayan sa Paaralan Program (GPP): transforming school grounds into vegetable gardens that address malnutrition, promote experiential learning and foster environmental stewardship.
Its ambition is clear, as it aims for full implementation across public elementary and secondary schools nationwide. However, a closer reading of the memorandum reveals a critical concern: while the program assigns responsibility to schools, it does not provide sufficient accountability mechanisms, resources, or institutional support to ensure equitable and sustainable implementation.
The memorandum places much of the operational burden on individual schools, school heads and parent-teacher associations. Schools are expected to establish and maintain gardens, with a suggested minimum area of 200 square meters.
While DepEd central, regional and division offices are tasked with providing technical assistance, monitoring and report consolidation, these roles remain broad and weakly enforceable. More importantly, the policy does not guarantee dedicated funding for schools that lack the resources to comply.
This is especially problematic for resource-deprived schools. The required materials, such as seeds, garden tools, composting bins, organic fertilizers and basic garden infrastructure, are treated as allowable Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses items.
In practice, this means that schools must draw from already limited MOOE funds. For schools in poor municipalities, where operating budgets are often barely enough to cover electricity, water and basic supplies, the GPP risks becoming an unfunded mandate rather than a supported intervention.
The limited role assigned to the Department of Agriculture is another major gap. The memorandum refers to DA offices and technical experts only as possible sources of assistance. It does not require a formal partnership, shared budget, or guaranteed provision of seeds, soil support, technical extension services, or training.
This weakens the program’s sustainability. If school gardening is meant to address food production, nutrition and agricultural learning, then the DA should be structurally accountable, not merely invited as an optional partner.
Local Government Units are similarly treated as potential partners rather than accountable institutions. This is a missed opportunity, especially because agriculture extension, nutrition and local development programs are already part of local governance responsibilities.
Without clear mandates for LGU support, school gardens may depend on the goodwill or priorities of local officials. This leaves schools vulnerable to inconsistent support, particularly in communities where political attention is directed toward more visible infrastructure projects.
The memorandum also emphasizes that school gardens should serve as laboratories for learning, particularly in Edukasyong Pantahanan at Pangkabuhayan, Technology and Livelihood Education and Health. Yet it provides no detailed curriculum integration framework, teacher training requirements, sample lesson guides, or learning competency mapping. This weakens the educational value of the program.
School gardens could be powerful spaces for teaching plant biology, nutrition, sustainability, climate resilience, entrepreneurship and food systems. However, without pedagogical support, they may become token plots maintained for compliance rather than meaningful learning environments.
The requirement for a 200-square-meter garden also raises equity concerns. Many urban schools have limited land. Schools in coastal, flood-prone, conflict-affected, or geographically isolated areas face very different implementation realities.
Schools serving learners with disabilities may require raised beds, accessible pathways, adaptive tools and inclusive garden designs. The memorandum mentions alternatives such as container gardening, but it does not provide differentiated standards, additional resources, or technical guidance for schools facing these conditions.
A socially just GPP would recognize that equal requirements do not produce equitable outcomes. Schools with more land, water access, community support and local resources are more likely to succeed, while disadvantaged schools may struggle to comply. Without differentiated assistance, the program may unintentionally penalize the very schools and learners it seeks to help.
The environmental education component of the GPP also needs strengthening. The memorandum encourages composting and organic inputs, but it does not fully engage with the environmental realities many schools face, such as water scarcity, poor soil quality, flooding, pollution and lack of green space.
A stronger environmental justice approach would help learners understand not only how to grow vegetables, but also why some communities have less access to nutritious food, safe environments and agricultural resources.
For the GPP to fulfill its promise, accountability must be shared more fairly across institutions. DepEd, DBM and NEDA should consider a dedicated annual budget line for GPP implementation, especially for disadvantaged schools.
The Department of Agriculture should be required to provide structured support through seeds, technical guidance, soil testing and agricultural extension services. LGUs should allocate resources from nutrition, agriculture, or local development funds to support school gardens within their jurisdictions. DepEd should also develop curriculum guides, teacher training programs and inclusive garden design standards to ensure that the program becomes a genuine learning intervention.
DepEd Memorandum No. 223, s. 2016 is not a bad policy. It correctly identifies important concerns: malnutrition, limited agricultural awareness, underused school spaces and the need for experiential learning. However, it remains incomplete because it does not adequately distribute responsibility, funding, and accountability across the institutions needed to sustain the program.
The Gulayan sa Paaralan Program could become a model for nutrition education, environmental stewardship and community-based learning. But this will only happen if schools are not left to carry the burden alone.
A meaningful GPP must be funded, supported, monitored and adapted to diverse school realities. Otherwise, “just plant a garden” becomes less a solution to poverty and malnutrition than an abdication of institutional responsibility. Filipino learners deserve a school gardening program that is not merely recommended, but resourced, sustained and made truly educational.
---
Jayson L de Vera ([email protected]) is an associate professor at the Faculty of Science, Technology, and Mathematics. Nikolee Marie A Serafico-Reyes ([email protected]) is an associate professor at the Faculty of Behavioral and Social Sciences and a fellow at Educational Policy Research and Development Office (EPRDO). Arlyne C Marasigan ([email protected]) is a professor at the College of Advanced Studies and a fellow at EPRDO. The views expressed here are those of the author and do not necessarily reflect the official position of the Philippine Normal University.
- Latest
