DONATE A SCHOOL HOUSE PROGRAM

DONATE A SCHOOL HOUSE PROGRAM

In the Philippines today, the cry for “more classrooms” is not just a slogan—it’s a symptom of a deeper crisis. According to the Department of Education (DepEd), our country is facing a classroom backlog of approximately 165,000 rooms nationwide.

Add to that a projected enrollment of 27.6 million learners for School Year 2025-2026. The numbers alone are staggering—and behind them are real children walking long distances, teachers slipping into fatigue, classrooms so full they border on chaos.

Into that gap steps the proposal for the Donate A School House (DASH) Program, submitted to DepEd by myself, Mr. Jorge Malig, and Mr. Dodi Limjuco. At first glance it may appear yet another infrastructure plan—but I believe it carries far more potential: to reshape how we conceive education in underserved, remote, and disaster-prone areas.

What makes DASH different?
Most classroom initiatives deal with one floor, one building, one set of desks. DASH imagines a four-storey “school-house”—classrooms on the first two floors, a common third floor (kitchen, canteen, lounge), dormitories on the fourth floor for students, teachers, and staff, plus a rooftop with solar panels, rainwater harvesting and internet connectivity. The design is eco-friendly, disaster resilient, prefabricated for faster construction, and explicitly targets places where students and teachers alike lack safe living spaces.

Here’s why this matters: if children walk hours to reach school, or if a teacher must travel an hour each day and worry about safe lodging overnight, learning suffers. Absenteeism grows. Time is lost. Motivation fades. DASH’s concept responds to that reality. It says: let’s build a home within or adjacent to the school. Let’s eliminate the travel-worry-weariness cycle.

Public-private partnerships, local funds and CSR
DASH is designed to operate under the existing legal and policy frameworks: the Adopt-A-School Program (ASP) and the Special Education Fund (SEF) of Local Government Units (LGUs). Private corporations can sponsor these school-houses through CSR initiatives, donation-in-kind, or full funding, taking advantage of tax incentives under Republic Act 8525 (“Adopt-a‐School Act of 1998”) where donors can claim up to 150% of their contributions as tax deduction.

This mix of funding — from GAA allocations of DepEd, IRAs/SEFs of LGUs, and private-sector CSR dollars — is smart. Because simply relying on the national budget or on DepEd’s annual infra allocation won’t close the gap. As one report notes, “at the current pace, it will take 55 years to eliminate the backlog.” We cannot wait 55 years.

My questions and suggestions
But of course there are questions, and ways to refine the idea:

1. Site selection and land tenure – The concept wisely gives options: existing DepEd land, LGU-donated land, or private donations. But in many remote areas, the stumbling block is legal titles, zoning, and access roads. The authors should include a pre-assessment checklist: is the land safe from flooding/typhoons, does it have utilities access, is the soil stable? A dashboard of ready lands per region would accelerate rollout.
   
   

2. Sustainability of operation – Building the structure is only one part; running the dormitory and utilities cost money. Who pays for electricity (even if solar panels are installed)? The internet connectivity? The clean-water supply? The MOA among DepEd, LGU and partners must clearly allocate recurring costs and maintenance responsibilities.
   
   

3. Community buy-in and culture – A dormitory in a school may raise concerns (especially in some cultural contexts) about supervision, safety, gender-segregation, and boarding behaviours. The program should involve local stakeholders (barangays, parents, teachers) in the design and rules for dorm life.
   
   

4. Data-driven targeting – We know the classroom shortage is worst in places like NCR, CALABARZON, Soccsksargen and BARMM. But the boarding concept is particularly suited to remote islands, mountainous regions, or areas with indigenous communities. The program might prioritize those first—where the “walk hours” problem is acute.
   
   

5. Replication and modularity – Because the design is prefabricated and CKD (completely knocked down), as the proposal rightly says, there’s scalability built in. But we should also pilot one or two modules first, evaluate cost-per-student, maintenance over 3 years, and then refine.
   
   

Why this matters now
Because children cannot wait. Because teachers cannot open class while worrying about how to get home. Because a classroom is more than four walls—it is stability, dignity, hope. The world expects us to deliver not just some infrastructure, but the right kind. One that respects people, environment, and disaster-risk realities.

If the DASH programme succeeds, it could become a model: not just building more rooms, but building better lives. And if we don’t try now—given the backlog and mounting pressures—we risk leaving hundreds of thousands of learners behind.

In the end, it’s about more than capacity. It’s about commitment. Let’s turn every “classroom shortage” statistic into a “home for learning” milestone.

Ramon Ike V. Seneres, www.facebook.com/ike.seneres

iseneres@yahoo.com, senseneres.blogspot.com 03-06-2026