Form without force: The limits of cabinet cluster for education

The Senate’s adoption of Concurrent Resolution No. 21 urging the creation of a Cabinet Cluster for Education has been met with applause from advocates of reform, who frame it as a long-overdue response to the so-called “fragmentation” of the education bureaucracy.

However, in the absence of a clearly articulated purpose for this new body, there are concerns that it may merely add another layer to the bureaucracy or promote exclusivity in policymaking, rather than genuinely streamlining governance and fostering inclusive reform.

But beneath the well-rehearsed talking points and ceremonious unanimity lies a dangerous illusion: that coordination, by itself, can solve a decades-long crisis of leadership, capacity, and political will.

In truth, the proposal risks becoming yet another high-level distraction—one more advisory body atop an already bloated structure of inter-agency committees, councils, and commissions that have long failed to deliver meaningful results for Filipino learners.

To dress up structural dysfunction in the language of synergy and harmonization is not innovation; it’s bureaucratic repackaging. In practice, many don’t even like turfing and end up working in silos.

For decades, the education sector has seen a proliferation of coordination mechanisms—from task forces to interagency councils to monitoring units—all intended to harmonize DepEd, CHED, TESDA, ECCD Council and others.

What have these achieved? We remain at the bottom of international learning assessments. Our classrooms are overcrowded and inadequate. Our teachers are underpaid, undertrained, and overburdened. And we still cannot agree on a clear division of roles across agencies.

A Cabinet Cluster, without clear executive power or performance mechanisms, does not resolve this confusion. It risks deepening it.

Even current coordination practices—such as stakeholder consultations—are often tokenistic: platforms are provided, but genuine influence remains elusive.

Authority continues to be concentrated, allowing legislators and decision-makers to override participatory processes in favor of their own agendas.

The very idea of collective responsibility, when not matched by clear lines of authority, leads to a diffusion of accountability. When outcomes falter, who will be held responsible—the cluster as a whole?

The president’s designated adviser? The co-chairs? Unless the cluster is backed by enforceable compacts and performance-based targets, it will serve only to shield individual agencies from blame. This is not improved governance—it’s administrative and leadership camouflage.

Even more concerning is the vague promise of harmonizing education budgets. Such proposals tend to collapse once the Department of Budget and Management begins reworking allocations in the face of rigid procurement cycles and entrenched agency ceilings.

Is there any clear and reliable data that will guide DBM? Will the cluster override the DBM? Will it have budget certification power to expedite procurement? What about COA?

The resolution offers no clarity. Instead, it gestures at financial synergy while ignoring the underlying inefficiencies that keep resources from reaching the ground on time.

This move is not just misguided—it is politically convenient. It allows policymakers to project action and unity while evading the hard work of genuine reform.

Creating a cluster looks good in headlines and PowerPoint decks, but it does little to fix the disjointed curriculum strands, mismatched learning assessments, or the 91,000-classroom backlog. While children attend half-day classes in sweltering rooms, lawmakers debate the design of coordination charts.

EDCOM II’s own reports have made it clear: the education crisis in the Philippines is not simply a matter of structure—it is a matter of leadership.

A leadership crisis that has remained unresolved for the past 100 years. We do not need another committee to tell us what is wrong. We need leaders who will act on what is already known, take responsibility for outcomes, and commit resources where they are most needed.

What’s required is not more meetings, but a radical simplification of governance, a reallocation of budgets tied to measurable outcomes, and a political leadership willing to invest in teachers, not just task forces.

The creation of a Cabinet Cluster for Education reflects a familiar reflex in Philippine policymaking: when real reforms seem difficult, form a new body.

But coordination without power and budget is paralysis. Until this administration confronts the deeper causes of our education malaise—with courage, clarity, and urgency—a new cluster will be just that: a cluster of good intentions bound to fail.

---

Allen A. Espinosa and Arlyne C. Marasigan are professors and fellows at the Educational Policy Research and Development Office; Levi E. Elipane is associate professor and deputy dean of the College of Advanced Studies of the Philippine Normal University Manila; and Leah Amor S. Cortez is associate professor at the Faculty of Science, Technology, and Mathematics and executive director and provost of the Philippine Normal University South Luzon.They may be reached at [email protected], [email protected], [email protected] and [email protected], respectively. The views expressed here are those of the authors and do not necessarily reflect the University's official position.