Let small schools help: Expanding capacity with equity and integrity
EDCOM II has reported that the Philippines faces a classroom backlog running into the hundreds of thousands nationwide. That number alone should ground our conversations about access and reform. Even under the most aggressive infrastructure programs, the government cannot build hundreds of thousands of classrooms in just a few years.
Constructing a single classroom costs approximately P1 million to P1.5 million, depending on location, materials and procurement conditions. When multiplied across a deficit of this magnitude, the total investment reaches tens, even hundreds, of billions of pesos.
Beyond funding, there are also constraints related to land availability, contractor capacity, procurement timelines, and audit processes. Public construction remains necessary, but it is not a fast solution to an urgent problem.
Meanwhile, children continue to crowd into large classes. In early grades, where literacy and numeracy foundations are formed, congestion reduces instructional time and limits opportunities for remediation. The consequences accumulate quietly but steadily.
What makes this situation more frustrating is that in many communities, unused capacity already exists. While public schools overflow, some small private schools operate below capacity. Empty seats can often be found within the same barangays where public classrooms are stretched to their limits.
Every unused seat in a functioning private school represents infrastructure that already exists, teachers already hired, and classrooms already built—without requiring new public capital expenditure. Leveraging existing classrooms through partnerships is fiscally efficient. It allows government to expand access immediately while long-term infrastructure investments continue.
The Philippines is not new to public and private collaboration in education. RA 6728 and programs such as GASTPE and Education Service Contracting were designed precisely to allow private institutions to complement public provision. These mechanisms have expanded access, particularly at the secondary level.
However, participation remains uneven, especially for small and community-based schools. Many of these institutions are deeply rooted in their communities. They serve working families. They operate in rented spaces. They function with lean administrative teams and modest financial margins. Their motivation is often service as much as sustainability.
Many small schools were founded not by corporations but by educators and community leaders who saw unmet needs in their neighborhoods. Community-based schools often serve learners who would otherwise travel farther or join already crowded public classrooms. They are frequently within walking distance, embedded in barangays, serving working-class families and offering smaller class environments that allow for more individualized attention.
Yet when these schools attempt to participate in partnership programs or renew their permits, they encounter regulatory frameworks that are frequently designed with large institutions in mind. Policy discussions often assume that private schools have large administrative offices. In reality, small schools operate very differently.
In small community schools, compliance is not handled by a department. It is handled by one or two people who are simultaneously managing enrollment, payroll, regulatory reporting, and daily school operations.
The principal often functions simultaneously as administrator, compliance officer, HR manager, and finance officer. For large schools, these responsibilities are distributed across separate offices. For small schools, it is the same desk.
Small schools do not deal with a single regulatory environment. They navigate a compliance stack involving education, taxation, labor, corporate governance, and local government permits. This includes DepEd permits and recognitions, PEAC and ESC documentation, SEC corporate reporting, BIR tax compliance, SSS, PhilHealth and Pag-IBIG contributions and local government permits.
Each agency has different formats, deadlines, and documentation requirements. When requirements multiply without coordination, the burden grows exponentially.
One of the most misunderstood issues is that small schools are not highly profitable enterprises. Operating costs are heavily compliance-driven: teacher salaries and benefits, government contributions, withholding taxes and BIR reporting, facility rental or amortization, DepEd compliance requirements, utility costs and learning materials.
Many small schools operate on narrow margins where regulatory compliance and teacher salaries already consume the majority of available resources. Partnership programs are not subsidies for profit—they are survival mechanisms that keep classrooms open.
The effect of disproportionate regulatory burden is not always visible, but it is real. When regulatory expectations do not account for institutional scale, participation narrows. Larger providers with dedicated compliance units can absorb the administrative costs.
Smaller schools struggle to keep up. Over time, public subsidies and partnership opportunities tend to concentrate among institutions already equipped to navigate complex procedures.
At the same time, heavy and sometimes redundant processes create delays. Delays create uncertainty. When uncertainty affects enrollment cycles and financial viability, pressure builds. When procedures become excessively complex and timelines are uncertain, systems unintentionally create incentives for informal shortcuts.
The culture of gift-giving to move documents faster does not appear out of thin air. It often grows in systems where complexity becomes a barrier rather than a safeguard. Simplification and transparency are, therefore, not only administrative reforms but also integrity reforms.
This is not a call to lower standards. Child protection, safety requirements, and instructional quality benchmarks must remain firm. Learners deserve nothing less. But regulation should be proportional.
A school serving 150 learners should meet essential standards, yet the scale of reporting requirements, audit frequency, and administrative documentation should reflect institutional size and risk profile. Intelligent governance distinguishes between scale and quality.
There is also a strategic dimension to consider. Most partnership programs currently focus on Senior High School. Yet the most urgent learning challenges lie in early grades, where foundational literacy recovery is critical.
If partnerships extend meaningfully to Kindergarten through Grade 6, small schools can help address early-grade congestion while government infrastructure programs continue. This is where congestion is most harmful and where intervention matters most.
The government cannot build its way out of a classroom deficit of this magnitude in the short term. Optimizing existing capacity is fiscally prudent and administratively realistic. Instead of building new classrooms at P1 million to P1.5 million each, the government could temporarily utilize existing capacity. It is also fair to learners who cannot wait for construction cycles to conclude.
Consider the case of a modest private school established in 2000 in an urban community. Like many small institutions across the country, it operates with limited administrative staff yet complies with the same regulatory expectations required of much larger schools.
Despite financial pressures brought about by inflation, pandemic disruptions, and rising operational costs, the school continues to serve its community because of a long-standing commitment to accessible education.
Cases like this illustrate how small, community-based schools already contribute to sustaining local education systems. With thoughtful regulatory design and equitable partnership opportunities, such institutions can help expand classroom capacity while the country works through longer-term infrastructure solutions.
Three reforms could move this forward responsibly.
First, streamline and digitize compliance systems. Redundant documentary requirements across agencies should be reviewed and harmonized. Clear timelines and transparent tracking systems can reduce bottlenecks and discretionary friction.
Second, provide technical assistance, not just enforcement notices. Many small institutions are willing to comply but lack clear guidance. Proactive orientation and advisory support can prevent minor compliance gaps from becoming major obstacles.
Third, embed equity safeguards into partnership planning. Public resources should prioritize high-congestion and underserved communities rather than simply flowing toward institutions with the strongest administrative capacity.
When regulation becomes excessively rigid, smaller schools close. Community-based institutions disappear. Capacity shrinks instead of expanding. Across the country, many small schools closed during the pandemic; others continue to operate below sustainability levels.
When small schools close, the country not only loses a business. It loses classroom space that the public sector must eventually replace at far higher cost. That outcome contradicts the very objective of public-private partnership.
Allowing small schools to help the country is not about privatization. It is about recognizing fiscal limits while refusing to let children bear the cost of delay. It is about designing systems that encourage participation without compromising accountability.
The classroom deficit is real. The fiscal constraints are real. But so is the unused capacity in communities across the country.
If we truly want to expand access with equity and integrity, we must ensure that regulation supports partnership rather than unintentionally suppressing it. In a system facing such a significant backlog, leaving viable classrooms unused while public schools remain congested is not simply inefficient. It is a missed opportunity that thoughtful governance can correct.
---
Dr. Levi E. Elipane is a researcher-educator with over 15 years of experience in basic and higher education, currently serving as Deputy Dean of the College of Advanced Studies of the Philippine Normal University and as a member of the CHED Technical Panel for Secondary Education, with extensive work on Lesson Study, teacher development and classroom-based research, and around 50 scholarly publications since 2011 reflecting his sustained commitment to improving teaching and learning in the Philippines.
Jerald B. Bongalos is an academic consultant with over seven years of experience working with both private and public education institutions on science education, research and development, and regulatory compliance. His work focuses on helping schools navigate governance and policy requirements while strengthening research culture and evidence-based practices in education. He is a trained Paralegal from the University of the Philippines Law Center and is currently and currently a PhD in Data Science student at the Asian Institute of Management, where his interests include the application of data analytics to education policy, institutional decision-making, and the operational realities of community-based schools within the Philippine education system.
- Latest
