Department of Education – Office of the Secretary

class: center, middle, inverse, title-slide

.title[
# Department of Education – Office of the Secretary
]
.subtitle[
## The FY 2027 proposed budget in context, 2018-2027
]
.date[
### September 2026
]

---

## Executive summary -- and the FY 2027 proposal

- **The FY 2027 proposal (NEP) is PHP 914B for DepEd-OSEC** -- up about **PHP 41B (+5%)** on the FY 2026 proposal (PHP 873B), and the largest DepEd proposal yet. It is a *rising*, not shrinking, proposal, though it sits PHP 44B below the Congress-augmented 2026 enacted level (PHP 959B).
- **The increase is concentrated in running schools.** Operation of Schools -- Elementary **+PHP 32B**, JHS **+PHP 18B**, SHS **+PHP 9B** -- plus the teachers' cash allowance (+PHP 7.5B). This remains a teacher-salary organization: the three school lines are ~75% of the proposal, and Personnel Services 64-80% of every year.
- **The student subsidies were reclassified, not cut.** The Senior High Voucher (PHP 26.5B) and Educational Service Contracting (PHP 12.4B) lines are folded into a single new **"Government Assistance and Subsidies" line (PHP 38.1B)** -- roughly budget-neutral, but harder to track by component.
- **Several quality-and-access inputs are trimmed in the proposal:** **Computerization/ICT -PHP 10.7B**, **New School Personnel Positions -PHP 10.6B** (fewer new teacher items), **Textbooks & instructional materials -PHP 4.7B**, and resilient-school infrastructure -PHP 7.2B.
- **Absorption remains a non-PS problem.** Headline disbursement looks strong (86-92%) but is carried by Personnel Services (97-99%); **Textbooks disburse just 2-17%**, and the GASTPE subsidies' cash rate collapsed (Voucher to 28% by 2025) -- context for any restoration of these lines.
- **Capital Outlay, sharply restored in the 2026 GAA (PHP 100B), is pared back** in the 2027 proposal.
- **The scrutiny question for advocates:** does a proposal that funds more school operations but trims textbooks, computerization and new teacher positions match DepEd's stated learning-recovery priorities?

---

## A few notes on the data

- **Period:** FY 2018-2027. **FY 2027 is the NEP (the Executive's proposal) only** -- not yet debated or enacted, and with no execution data. FY 2026 reflects NEP/GAA only; execution runs FY 2018-2025. Because Congress raises DepEd's budget above the proposal, the FY 2027 NEP is best read as a floor.
- **Scope:** the main analysis covers the DepEd Office of the Secretary; a short section at the end summarises the attached agencies (National Museum, Teacher Education Council, National Academy of Sports, and others). "Current New Appropriations" only -- excludes Continuing and Automatic Appropriations and Special Purpose Fund transfers.
- **P/A/P consolidation:** the Educational Service Contracting (ESC) program and the Senior High School Voucher program each appear under two or three slightly different P/A/P labels across years; each is reported here as one continuous line.
- **Absorptive capacity denominator:** Adjusted Allotments (AdjAllot), the closest proxy for what the agency was actually given to spend.
- **Key terms:** NEP = National Expenditure Program (Executive proposal); GAA = General Appropriations Act (enacted). Obligations = spending commitments; Disbursements = cash actually paid out.

---

## Big picture: the budget keeps growing

---

## Big picture: a few takeaways

<table class="table table-condensed table-striped" style="font-size: 15px; color: black; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
 <thead>
  <tr>
   <th style="text-align:left;"> PHP B </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2018 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2019 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2020 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2021 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2022 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2023 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2024 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2025 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2026 </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> 2027 </th>
  </tr>
 </thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> NEP </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 585 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 498 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 518 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 568 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 589 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 666 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 712 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 746 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 873 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 914 </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> GAA </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 553 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 500 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 520 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 556 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 591 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 676 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 715 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 734 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 959 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Adj. Allotment </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 477 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 530 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 517 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 607 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 642 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 720 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 769 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 802 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Obligations </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 454 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 503 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 501 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 590 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 612 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 682 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 714 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 756 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Disbursements </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 426 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 472 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 466 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 552 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 593 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 647 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 660 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 694 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

- **GAA has grown every multi-year stretch**, from PHP 552B (2018) to a proposed PHP 959B (2026).
- **The Executive proposal and the enacted GAA track very closely** -- DepEd is rarely a target of large Congressional augmentation. FY 2026 is the striking exception: Congress added PHP 86B over the President's NEP.
- **Disbursements lag allotments by a stable PHP 50-110B**; the gap widened notably in 2024-2025.

---

## Where the money goes (by PREXC program)

---

## Composition by Expense Class

---

## The ten largest P/A/Ps (FY 2027 NEP, proposed)

---

## Operation of Schools dominates the budget

---

## Why the concentration matters

- **The three "Operation of Schools" P/A/Ps -- Elementary, JHS, SHS -- together make up 65-78% of the entire OSEC budget.** Operation of Schools - Elementary alone is PHP 358B in the 2026 GAA.
- **These lines are almost pure Personnel Services:** teacher and non-teaching staff salaries. They are obligated and paid like clockwork (disbursement runs 98-99% of allotment).
- **This is why the agency's headline absorption looks excellent.** A budget that is two-thirds salaries will always show a high aggregate disbursement rate.
- **The corollary:** everything interesting -- and everything problematic -- about budget execution is happening in the other ~25-35% of the budget: facilities, materials, equipment, subsidies, and programs.
- For an audience focused on **learning outcomes and service delivery**, the non-salary tail is where attention belongs.

---

## What changes in the FY 2027 proposal (NEP 2026 -> NEP 2027)

.small[
Excludes the student-subsidy lines: in 2027 the **Senior High Voucher (PHP 26.5B)** and **Educational Service Contracting (PHP 12.4B)** are consolidated into a single **"Government Assistance and Subsidies" line (PHP 38.1B)** -- a reclassification that is roughly budget-neutral, not a cut. Comparing the two *proposals* (rather than proposal-vs-enacted) isolates what the Executive actually chose to change.
]

---

## Where Congress adjusts the DepEd budget

.small[
- DepEd is **rarely heavily augmented** -- in most years the enacted GAA differs from the Executive's NEP by under 2%. The adjustments below are cumulative over nine budget cycles.
- **Note the tension:** the most-added lines -- Basic Education Facilities, Textbooks, School-Based Feeding -- are among the **weakest absorbers** in the portfolio. Congress channels extra money into programs that already struggle to disburse it.
]

---

## Absorptive capacity: aggregate

---

## Absorption by Expense Class

---

## The absorption paradox

- **At the aggregate, DepEd-OSEC looks like a model absorber:** disbursement-to-allotment holds at 86-92% every year. Taken alone, that number suggests budget execution is not a problem.
- **But that average is a weighted blend** of a near-perfect Personnel Services block (98-99%) and a much weaker non-PS tail.
- **MOOE disburses at 53-80%** and has weakened sharply since 2023. **Capital Outlay swings between 9% and 54%** -- and is low in most years.
- **The programs that actually deliver classrooms, textbooks, equipment, and subsidies** -- the discretionary, procurement-heavy lines -- are where appropriated money piles up undisbursed.
- **The headline number is misleading for service delivery.** Because salaries dominate, the agency-wide absorption rate hides exactly the execution failures that matter most for learners.

---

## Strongest absorbers (FY 2025)

<table class="table table-condensed table-striped" style="font-size: 15px; color: black; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
 <thead>
  <tr>
   <th style="text-align:left;"> P/A/P </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> Allotment (B) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> O/A </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> D/O </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> D/A </th>
  </tr>
 </thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Connectivity Enhancement Program for e-Learning i... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 1.5 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 100% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 100% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 100% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Operation of Schools - Junior High School (Grade ... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 184.0 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Curriculum Programs, Learning Management Models, ... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 6.8 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 100% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Operation of Schools - Elementary (Kinder to Grad... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 331.2 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 100% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Operation of Schools - Senior High School (Grade ... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 58.9 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Policy and Research Program </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.2 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 97% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Joint Delivery Voucher for Senior High School Tec... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 1.5 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 94% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 91% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Quick Response Fund </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.6 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 92% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 91% </td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The strongest absorbers are the salary-driven school-operations lines and a few small, well-defined programs. Disbursement at or near 100% is the norm where spending is payroll.

---

## Weakest absorbers (FY 2025)

<table class="table table-condensed table-striped" style="font-size: 15px; color: black; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
 <thead>
  <tr>
   <th style="text-align:left;"> P/A/P </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> Allotment (B) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> O/A </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> D/O </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> D/A </th>
  </tr>
 </thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Learning Tools and Equipment </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 4.4 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 49% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 21% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 10% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 17.2 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 58% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 24% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 14% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> National Assessment Systems for Basic Education </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 1.8 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 68% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 34% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 23% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Basic Education Facilities </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 8.9 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 64% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 43% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 27% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> GAS - Senior High School Voucher Program </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 31.5 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 55% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 52% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 28% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> GAS - Educational Service Contracting (ESC) for P... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 16.4 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 65% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 54% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 35% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Flexible Learning Options (ADM/ALS/EiE) </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 5.9 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 86% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 41% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 35% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> School-Based Feeding Program (SBFP) </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 14.3 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 91% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 53% </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 48% </td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

The weakest absorbers are procurement- and subsidy-heavy: instructional materials, equipment, facilities, and the demand-side voucher/ESC lines. **Textbooks disbursed 14% of a PHP 17B allotment.**

---

## Trajectories of the largest programs

---

## The GASTPE puzzle: demand-side subsidies

- **GASTPE = Government Assistance to Students and Teachers in Private Education** -- public money following students into private schools.
- For most of the period both lines disbursed well; the SHS Voucher ran 91-100% through 2018-2022.
- **Then both collapsed:** the Voucher fell to 76% (2023), 53% (2024), 28% (2025); ESC fell from ~80% to 34-35%.
- The allotments did not shrink -- the money was appropriated and released, but **not paid out**.
- **Open question:** payment-processing/liquidation bottleneck, falling enrollment in the voucher program, or a deliberate slowdown? The data cannot say -- but the break is steep and recent.

---

## Trajectories of chronic low absorbers

---

## What the low-absorber trajectories show

- **Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials is the standout failure:** disbursement-to-allotment has stayed between 2% and 17% in every year on record. Money for learning materials is appropriated and allotted, but barely paid out.
- **Basic Education Facilities is DepEd's infrastructure bottleneck** -- the agency's equivalent of a chronic capital-outlay problem. D/A swings between 16% and 54% with no clear improvement trend.
- **Computerization Program** has been similarly weak (12-48%), though 2024-2025 show some recovery.
- **School-Based Feeding Program** is volatile (35-87%) -- a recurring annual program that nonetheless struggles to disburse on a predictable schedule.
- **The common thread is procurement.** Every chronic under-absorber here depends on bidding, contracting, delivery, and liquidation -- not payroll. This is where execution reform would have the most leverage.

---

## Line-item reference: the FY 2027 proposal in context

<table class="table table-condensed table-striped" style="font-size: 13px; color: black; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
 <thead>
  <tr>
   <th style="text-align:left;"> P/A/P </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> NEP 2027 (B) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> NEP 2026 (B) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> GAA 2026 (B) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> D/A 2025 </th>
  </tr>
 </thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Operation of Schools - Elementary (Kinder to ... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 390.38 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 358.13 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 358.13 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Operation of Schools - Junior High School (Gr... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 215.69 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 197.73 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 197.73 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Operation of Schools - Senior High School (Gr... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 78.70 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 69.62 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 69.62 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 98% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Government Assistance and Subsidies </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 38.12 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> New School Personnel Positions </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 31.74 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 42.30 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 42.30 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 88% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Basic Education Facilities </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 30.55 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 28.06 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 85.40 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 27% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Implementation of the Grant of Cash Allowance... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 28.25 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 20.74 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 20.74 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 82% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> General Administration and Support </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 22.60 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 21.83 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 20.76 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 74% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> School-Based Feeding Program (SBFP) </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 11.43 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 11.78 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 25.70 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 48% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Project for Learning Upgrade Support and Dece... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 10.81 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;">  </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Curriculum Programs, Learning Management Mode... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 7.56 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 7.18 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 7.18 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 99% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Textbooks and Other Instructional Materials </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 6.47 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 11.16 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 19.51 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 14% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Computerization Program </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 5.79 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 16.45 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 10.68 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 48% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Administration of Personnel Benefits </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 5.29 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 5.53 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 8.44 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 87% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Flexible Learning Options (ADM/ALS/EiE) </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.85 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 4.36 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 4.92 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 35% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Learner Support Programs </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.22 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.97 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 5.11 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 86% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Human Resource Development for Personnel in S... </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.01 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.92 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 4.67 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 60% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Quick Response Fund </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.00 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.00 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.00 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 91% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Learning Tools and Equipment </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.89 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.89 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.89 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 10% </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Basic Education Curriculum </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 2.79 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 3.56 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 5.67 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 55% </td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

.footnote[FY 2027 = proposed (NEP). Compare "NEP 2027" to "NEP 2026" for the proposal-to-proposal change, and to "GAA 2026" for how far the enacted level ran above the proposal. D/A 2025 shows each line's most recent absorption.]

---

## The attached agencies: FY 2027 proposal

.small[
Appropriations basis only -- no P/A/P-level execution data is available for these agencies.
]

---

## Attached agencies: what to watch

<table class="table table-condensed table-striped" style="font-size: 14px; color: black; margin-left: auto; margin-right: auto;">
 <thead>
  <tr>
   <th style="text-align:left;"> Agency </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> NEP 2027 (M) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> NEP 2026 (M) </th>
   <th style="text-align:right;"> GAA 2026 (M) </th>
  </tr>
 </thead>
<tbody>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> National Museum </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 1,531 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 812 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 987 </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Teacher Education Council </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 358 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 207 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 563 </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Nat'l Academy of Sports </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 254 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 246 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 541 </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Book Dev't Board (NBDB) </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 165 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 152 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 202 </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> PHS for the Arts </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 131 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 157 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 218 </td>
  </tr>
  <tr>
   <td style="text-align:left;"> Children's TV Council </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 75 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 71 </td>
   <td style="text-align:right;"> 116 </td>
  </tr>
</tbody>
</table>

- **The National Museum is the outlier that grows.** Its FY 2027 proposal (**PHP 1.53B**) is up on both its 2026 proposal and its 2026 enacted level -- driven by **capital projects**: a new Rizal Park Exhibition Building (PHP 400M), heritage-building rehabilitation (PHP 240M), and church/site restorations (Boljoon, Tabon Caves).
- **The rest are proposed below their 2026 enacted levels** -- the same NEP-below-GAA pattern seen at the OSEC. Teacher Education Council (PHP 358M) and the National Academy of Sports (PHP 254M) are the next largest; the Book Development Board, PHS for the Arts and the Children's TV Council are smaller still.
- **The ECCD Council has no FY 2027 proposed appropriation in the data** -- a gap worth confirming for a body overseeing early-childhood care and development.

---

## For discussion -- scrutinising the FY 2027 proposal

1. **Trimming the learning inputs.** The proposal grows school operations but cuts **textbooks (-PHP 4.7B)**, **computerization (-PHP 10.7B)** and **new teacher positions (-PHP 10.6B)**. Do these choices fit a learning-recovery agenda, and should advocates press Congress to restore them?
2. **The subsidy reclassification.** Folding the SHS Voucher and ESC into one "Government Assistance and Subsidies" line is roughly budget-neutral but removes component-level visibility. Should the budget still show voucher vs ESC allocations separately?
3. **Can the money be spent?** Textbooks disburse 2-17% and GASTPE cash rates have collapsed (Voucher to 28%). If Congress restores or expands these lines, what fixes the pipeline -- procurement, printing, delivery, or payment processing?
4. **New teacher positions down PHP 10.6B.** With persistent shortages and rising enrolment, is proposing fewer new items the right call, and what will Congress do at enactment?
5. **The Congress gap.** The enacted budget has run above the proposal every year (a record +PHP 86B in 2026). If 2027 follows suit, where should advocates want the add-on to go?

---

class: center, middle

# Thank you

### Department of Education -- Office of the Secretary
#### The FY 2027 proposed budget in context, 2018-2027

.footnote[Underlying data: DBM NEP & GAA and DBM-published execution data for the DepEd-OSEC (Current New Appropriations only), NEP FY 2018-2027, GAA/execution FY 2018-2026/2025. FY 2027 is the proposed NEP only.]