The Role of Private Higher

Education in the Philippines

CONFERENCE REPORT

APRIL 30, 2011

The Role of Private Higher Education in the Philippines

Conference Report
April 7-8, 2011,
ADB Auditorium, ADB Complex
ADB Avenue, Mandaluyong City
Metro Manila, Philippines

BACKGROUND
The Conference on the Role of Private Higher Education gathered 159 delegates from private
universities and colleges, higher education councils/federations, the government, and international
agencies to discuss issues and trends in the private higher education system. The event was
organized by the Philippine Business for Education (PBEd) in partnership with the Asian
Development Bank (ADB) and the Coordinating Council of Private Education Associations
(COCOPEA). Distinguished leaders in higher education representing the different stakeholders of
the private higher education system formally opened the Conference:
SPEAKER

STAKEHOLDER REPRESENTED

Dr. Patricia B. Licuanan,

Chairperson, Commission on Higher Education (CHED)

Government

Mr. Ramon R. del Rosario

Chairperson, Philippine Business for Education (PBEd)

Business Sector

Mr. Neeraj Jain,

Head Philippine Country Office,
Asian Development Bank

International Agencies

Dr. Jose Paulo Campos,

Incoming Chairperson
Coordinating Council of Private Education Associations
(COCOPEA)

Private Higher Education

Institutions

Basically, three challenges were tackled: (1) government regulations on private higher education
institutions; (2) ensuring quality in terms of faculty, programs, and operations; and (3)
financing/resource accessing.

These topics were discussed within the broader global and national

milieu of higher education.

The Conference brought in international experts who presented the global trends in private higher
education. Recognized leaders of the sector in the country reacted to the presentations by
contextualizing the issues within the Philippine setting; and by relating their own experiences in
dealing with these issues.

Specifically, the following are the topics discussed by the speakers:

TOPIC

RESOURCE PERSON

Philippine Higher Education

Challenges

Dr. Edilberto de Jesus

Asian Institute of Management
(former Secretary of Education)

International Trends in Private Higher

Education

Dr. Daniel Levy

Director of Program for Research on Private
Higher Education (PROPHE)

Asian Trends in Private Higher

Education

Dr. Prachayani Praphamontripong

Higher Education Specialist (Staff Consultant),
Asian Development Bank (ADB)

Regulatory Framework for Private

Higher Education

Mr. Norman LaRocque

Senior Education Specialist, ADB

Regulatory Framework for Private

Higher Education in the Philippines
(reaction to the input of Mr. Larocque)

Dr. Ester Garcia

President of the University of the East
(former Chairperson of CHED)

Creating World Class Institutions

Dr. Carolyn Campbell

Head of International Affairs,
Quality Assurance Agency for Higher Education,
United Kingdom

Experience of Mapua Institute of

Technology (reaction to Ms.
Campbells Input)

Dr. Reynaldo B.Vea

President, Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT)

Financing Private Higher Education

Mr. Norman LaRocque, ADB

Delegates interacted with the resource persons after every presentation to pose questions and share
their own insights. In addition, participants also got the opportunity to exchange views about
issues related to quality of the faculty, programs, and operations of their universities/colleges
through a workshop processes.

Dr. Chito Salazar of PHINMA facilitated the Conference

proceedings.

PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION CHALLENGES

The member businesses of the Philippine Business for Education (PBEd)

continue to be confronted with the declining quality of graduates coming out of
the higher education system If this remains unresolved ultimately down the
road we will be faced with declining competitiveness which is rather sad for a
country that prides itself of its human capital If we want to build world class

businesses, we need to do everything we can to address education issues at

all levels.
1.

Ramon Del Rosario, PBEd Chairman, in his Opening Address

According to Dr. Edilberto C. De Jesus, Philippine higher education has through the years been
confronted by the following challenges:
Access making higher education available to as many Filipinos -- especially the poor
who see education as a means to enhance the quality of their lives.
Retention making sure that students stay in school and complete their education.1
Relevance producing the graduates that the country and the economy need;
Quality ensuring that higher education institutions produce graduates that can
competently practice their chosen careers
Equity in terms of access across different strata of the population but also in terms of
the quality offered by higher education institutions.

2. The government and private sector have at varying degrees been exerting efforts to respond to
the above challenges. Their responses to these challenges are not necessarily complementary.
Efforts to address challenges related to social inclusion like access and equity have run counter
to solutions identified to improve quality and relevance of higher education. As a concrete
example, government decision to impose ceilings on tuition fee increases to keep higher
education relatively affordable (accessible) do not augur well to private higher education
institutions that need additional funds to enhance the quality of education being offered to
students.

He shared that statistics show that out of every 100 who enrol in Grade 1, only 23 get to enrol in college and
only 14 complete their degree.
1

3. These challenges are made more complex and formidable given the following trends:
Massification of Higher Education At present, having a college degree has been
believed to be an indicator of ones status in society. In many Philippine companies,
having a college degree is the minimum requirement in hiring salaried employees. This
has resulted in the increasing demand for higher education at a rate much faster that the
country can readily supply.
Corporatization of Educational Institutions There is a growing number of forprofit corporations venturing into higher education. In addition, universities have been
professionalizing the management of their institutions and incorporating business
practices in school administration. This trend has been somewhat unsettling for those
who view profit and public service as clashing concepts. International experts though
see this trend as an opportunity to promote professionalism and innovation in the higher
education system.
Globalization Advancements in telecommunication have greatly facilitated access to
information about the quality of higher education being offered around the world. It
has led to the advent of world class rankings and international accreditation which
affects the market for higher education. It has also facilitated access to education in
other countries.
4. Given the challenges and trends, the government and the private sector grappled with the
following issues:

How can divergent efforts to respond to these challenges be harmonized?

Can a national agenda lead to a more concerted effort among stakeholders? What should
this national agenda contain?
What strategies can be pursued to take advantage of opportunities and mitigate threats that go
with these socio-economic trends?

THE SIGNIFICANCE OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

5. Dr. Daniel Levy underscored the global significance of private higher education (PHE) by telling
about the tremendous growth in size of the PHE in the recent decades. Globally, PHE
institutions have a total enrolment of about 35 million students -- this number constitutes about
one-third of total enrolment around the world.

The significance of PHE emerged largely

because of the demand-supply gap in higher education. The private sector has outpaced the
governments around the world in responding to this gap.

6. Asias PHE enrolment share is 36% of the total higher education enrolment. Dr. Prachayani
Praphamontripong revealed that the Philippines is one of a few countries in Asia wherein the
number of private higher education institutions and the level of PHE enrolment have
traditionally been much higher than public higher education.
7. CHED Chair Dr. Patricia Licuanan noted that PHE has long dominated the landscape of higher
education in the Philippines. The University of Santo Tomas (UST) was established in 1611 long
before the University of the Philippines (UP) was established in 1908. Private higher education
institutions also constitute 88% of the nations total higher education institutions. In addition,
private schools in the Philippines make up at least 60%2 of the enrolment share in higher
education.

The PHE share in total higher education enrolment in the Philippines is nearly

double the percentage share of PHE enrolment at the global and Asian levels.
8. The enrolment share of PHE vis--vis that of the State Universities and Colleges (SUCs),
however has been declining. According to Dr. Ester Garcia, the present enrolment share of
PHE in the Philippines is a far cry from the 96% level reached in 1996. Based on Dr. Levys
presentation, this phenomenon is not consistent with the global trend as PHE size in terms of
enrolment compared to public universities and colleges in most countries has been rapidly
increasing.
9. The key questions raised regarding the magnitude of PHE in the Philippines are:

Do we have the sufficient and appropriate number of private higher education institutions in
the Philippines?3
Do we have the right proportion of PHE enrollees per total higher education enrollees?4
What will be the implications of the forthcoming implementation of the K+12 program5, on the
size of the number of higher education institutions in general, and the size of the PHE in
particular?

Based on Dr. Ester Garcia presentation; the figure cited by Dr. Licuanan in here opening address is slightly
higher at 61%.
3It was noted that our size of PHE in terms of number institutions is twice as much as China)
4As already mentioned, the PHE size in terms of enrolment compared to the countrys total number of
enrolment is twice the size of the global and regional number.
5K+12 means Kindergarten and the 12 years of elementary and secondary education. This model involves
Kindergarten, six years of elementary education, four years of junior high school (Grades 7 to 10) and two
years of senior high school (Grades 11 to 12). The two years of senior high school intend to provide time for
students to consolidate acquired academic skills and competencies.
2

REGULATION OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION

10. There was no argument about the need to regulate PHE. In fact, PHE representatives
themselves have articulated that they look up to the government to provide policy guidance and
support to make their services more effective.
11. Dr. Praphamontripong disclosed that issuance of policies regarding PHE has been of late
because the growing significance of PHE is a recent and unforeseen phenomenon in many
countries. At this point in time though, there have been lessons from good and bad experiences
of governments in regulating PHE.
12. The PHE is a very diverse sector. According to Dr. Levy, cases of flawed policies regarding PHE
can be attributed to analyses conducted that incorrectly viewed PHE as a homogenous entity.
Dr. Levy suggested a typology of PHE that can be used for policy formulation.

The typology

is based on the primary purpose of establishment of PHE, the reputation and performance of the
PHE, and structure of ownership of the PHE.
Identity Institutions These are PHEs that are religious (faith-based) and cultural
(based on ethnicity, and social group (e.g., women). Catholicism has usually been the
dominant faith-based form which pioneered the establishment of private universities in
Latin America, the United States, and Asia (e.g., Philippines). The purposes of a PHE
belonging to this type are to foster the identity of the group for which it was established,
and to protect interests of this group.
Semi-Elite PHEs This categorization is based on academic leadership and quality of
education. PHE presence is mostly found among semi-elite higher education
institutions. Outside of the United States, PHEs that can be categorized as elite is
extremely rare because world class universities anywhere else in the globe are public
higher education institutions.
Dr. Praphamontripong outlined the characteristics of Semi-Elite PHEs as follows:

High selectivity of students and professors.

National or regional reputation (leading PHEs in their own countries).

Mostly founded by business elites or having religious affiliations.

Emphasize good practical teaching, hands-on training, applied research, in-tune

with market niches and prospect employers.

Aspire for international recognition & legitimacy.

Semi-elite PHEs absorb top graduates of secondary basic education who belong to the
middle-upper income class in society.
Non-Elite PHEs form the largest segment of PHEs and performs the function of making
higher education more accessible to the people. Non-elite PHEs can be categorized into
two sub-types: (1) the serious and (2) problematic.

Serious Non-Elite PHEs under this sub-type are often more job-focused, do more
practical training, and offer an industrial niche. These PHEs should be appreciated
for their value adding function that is, they take students with modest economic
backgrounds and intellectual capacities, and provide inputs that add value to their
potentials and can make them more productive citizens of the country.

Problematic Non-Elite they have been called diploma mills; they offer low
quality education and are usually non-transparent in their programs and operations.
These PHEs should be closed down or should have never been allowed to operate in
the first place. They undermine status & legitimacy of PHEs.

For-Profit HEs These are educational institutions registered as for-profit business

corporations. Their number is still small but growing particularly in developing countries
like the Philippines. Profit and education have been seen by governments and its citizens as
opposing concepts. However, because of its market-driven orientation, these types of
higher education institutions have the potential to introduce innovative approaches to
education and to demonstrate professionalism in managing institutions.
13. Dr. Norman LaRocque related that the regulatory framework of PHE all over the world covered
policies on:

Regulatory institutions and overall sector governance

Establishment and registration rules and processes
Funding levels and mechanisms
Taxation and customs treatment
Rules relating to governance and management
Admission/enrollment rules
Curriculum
Day to day operation
Information disclosure requirements
Regulation of the teacher/ academic labour market
Quality assurance rules and processes
Tuition-fee setting
Health and safety

14. In the Philippines, Dr. Ester Garcia highlighted some policies related to the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED) as provided in Republic Act (RA) 7722, or the Higher Education Act.
The coverage of CHED includes public and private institutions of higher education as
well as degree-granting programs in all post-secondary educational institutions, public
and private.
CHED is a collegial body consisting of a chairperson and four members. It is not a oneman/one-woman body. As such, the powers of CHED are not given to one person (i.e.,
the Chairperson) but to the Commission as a whole.
Section 8 of RA 7722 lists 15 powers and functions of CHED, and among these 15 items,
only three in the list are related to regulatory powers/functions:

Section 8d - Set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning
recommended by panels of experts in the field and subject to public hearing, and enforce the
same;

Section 8e - Monitor and evaluate the performance of programs and institutions of higher
learning for appropriate incentives as well as the imposition of sanctions, such as but not
limited to diminution or withdrawal of subsidy, recommendation on the downgrading or
withdrawal of accreditation, program termination or school closure;

Section 8n Promulgate such rules and regulations and exercise such other powers and
functions as may be necessary to carry out effectively the purpose and objectives of this Act

All the other powers/functions prescribed in Section 8 to facilitate the development of higher
education.
15. Dr. Garcia emphasized the academic freedom guaranteed by Constitution and recognized by
RA 7722. Section 2 of RA 7722 declares that the government is committed to ensure and
protect academic freedom and shall promote its exercise and observance for the continuing
intellectual growth, the advancement of learning and research, the development of responsible
and effective leadership, the education of high-level and middle-level professionals and the
enrichment of our historical and cultural heritage.
Institutional academic freedom means that a university can determine for itself on academic
grounds: (1) who will teach; (2) what may be taught; (3) how it should be taught; and (4) who
may be admitted to study.

16. Dr. Garcia also stressed the following policy statements in the Manual of Regulations on
Philippine Higher Education (MORPHE) which lay down rules and regulations on
establishment and management of private schools issued by CHED:
The State recognizes the complementary roles of public and private education in educational
system and shall exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all higher education
institutions;
All doubts in the implementation and interpretation of the provisions of this Manual shall be
resolved in favor of the higher education institution the welfare of the students. and the welfare
of the teaching and non-teaching staff.
17. Issues on the Overall Policy Environment of PHE in the Philippines.
Dr. Garcia and PHE representatives criticised the policy environment upon which private
higher education institutions operate. They find the regulatory framework stringent. Despite
the academic freedom and flexibility articulated in existing laws/issuances, CHED has come up
with curricular restrictions that already impinge on this academic freedom by laying down so
very detailed policies, guidelines, and standards for many degree programs.
Sudden changes in policies have been made by CHED without public consultations. The result
of this is confusion among PHE institutions because of lack of information on the policies
revised or new policies passed. This shortcoming has deprived stakeholders the right to be
involved in decided affecting them. Without proper consultations, the practicality and
soundness of policies have been sacrificed at the expense of expediency. Moreover, PHE
institutions also aired the difficulty of complying with regulations because of inconsistencies in
interpretation and in the enforcement of such regulations.
Dr. Levy cautioned that hefty regulations such as what is happening in the country do not
allow good PHE institutional practices and people to be productive.
18. Issue on Tuition Fee Regulation.
PHEs depend on tuition fees to finance their operations and therefore the caps on tuition fee
increases have been inhibiting them to enhance their programs and improve their efficiencies.
Dr. LaRocque clarified that, though that tuition fee limits aim to make education affordable,
they have a backlash effect on the economy and in the educational system itself. Imposing
tuition fee caps reduce interest in private investment and reduce quality of education. Dr.
Levy noted that the government can pursue alternative means to make higher education more
affordable (e.g., vouchers, scholarships, grants, student loans).

19. Issue on Levelling the Playing Field.

PHE delegates also complained about the unequal application of regulations between the public
and private schools. PHEs are only allowed to set up programs if they are given prior consent
of CHED and if they follow the minimum standards set by the Commission. The same is not
true for public higher education institutions. The autonomy of State Universities and Colleges
(SUCs) is assured by their individual charters; while the autonomy of Local Universities and
Colleges is protected by the Local Government Code. The SUCs/LUCs are authorized to open
curricula and programs, and award degrees without the prior consent of CHED.
RA 8292, Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 directs the CHED Chairperson to be
the head of the governing board of SUCs. The intention of the RA is to put CHED in a position
to steer the directions of the academic programs and the internal operations of SUCs.
However, Dr. Garcia noted that the CHED Chair has little political power compared to SUCs
governing boards that have members of the Congress and local chief executives as members.
She/He is also outnumbered in the governing body, and hence, can be outvoted when the board
makes decisions about the school. So in practice, CHED has had little influence on the
governance of the SUC and much more by the LUCs established by the local government units.
20. Proposed legislations have been drafted to reform CHED and re-engineer the higher education
system. To promote the PHE, Dr. Larocque, presented the policy guidelines that may be
considered:
Introduce objective and streamlined criteria and processes for establishing and
regulating private HEIs by: (1) minimizing bureaucratic discretion and limiting the
scope for corruption; (2) making registration standards/criteria openly available; (3)
adopting output-focused and flexible delivery approaches; (4) streamlining and
time-bound registration process; (5) support potential providers and regulators
through guidebooks, standard contracts, toolkits, etc.; and providing scope for
private sector involvement in registration process.
Allow for-profit HEIs to operate because they can increase access for poor and nonpoor, spur innovation, bring new brand of management, new brand of pedagogical
and technical skills into the education sector.
Allow private schools to set tuition fees to maintain their financial viability and
allow them to improve their effectiveness and efficiency as educational institutions.

10

 Provide a sound basis for the establishment of the private education sector for
instance by defining the place of private providers in the national long-term
education strategy provide potential investors with the confidence to invest.
Provide incentives/financial support for private sector, possible through provision of
tuition subsidies, scholarships, subsidies for research, and direct financial subsidies
for educational infrastructure, etc.
Promote and facilitate foreign direct investment in the education sector to provide
more resources for private HEIs
Provide parents and students with information to help them select quality private
education because well informed consumers and regulators important building
block in a more enabling regulatory framework
Establish quality assurance/ monitoring processes that support a sustainable private
education sector
Strengthen CHEDs government regulatory and oversight capacity This involves
building CHEDs capacity to design, develop and manage functions such as
institutional accreditation/registration, quality assurance, monitoring and incentives.
In terms of organization, the possibility of appointing a PHE representative as one of
the Commissioners was brought up in the Conference.
21. Dr. Larocque also pointed out that the performance of the private sector depends on policies
meant for the public sector. He cited as example, the need to come up with regulations to arrest
the proliferation of low quality SUCs.

There is also a need for CHED to have greater influence

over SUCs and LUCs to rationalize, put into effect, and ensure their compliance with the
minimum standards and requirements of academic degrees.
22. What is clear from the discussions in the Conference is that there is a need to have a flexible
approach to regulating a sector as heterogeneous as the PHE.

The regulatory framework

should be able to provide incentives to promote good performance. More autonomy should be
given to the PHEs that provide quality programs. There should also be a firm commitment to
bite the bullet to impose sanctions to those that are not doing well. All regulations should
be promulgated and enforced fairly and equally.

11

QUALITY OF HIGHER EDUCATION

23. Dr. Licuanan opined that private higher education represent the best and worst in Philippine
education. The sector is characterized by the proliferation of institutions and programs of
uneven quality.

The overall picture is that there is a present jobs-skills mismatch among the

graduates. The business sector has also expressed their wariness over the capacities of
graduates that have been available in the job market.
24. With the forthcoming implementation of the K+12 program, the need to revisit the role of

higher education vis--vis secondary education was brought up. There is a need to more
precisely define the skills, knowledge, and attitudes that can be expected from graduates of
secondary education. It is very important now with the K+12 program because higher
education institutions should be able to adjust their curricula based on the capacities of
secondary education graduates to be produced by the new program.
25. In the same vein, it was raised that there is a need to review what students are supposed to
obtain from higher education not only in terms of skills and knowhow about their chosen
degrees but also in terms of general life skills and behavior. Examples of general life skills
mentioned are critical thinking, decision-making, problem solving, developing interpersonal
relationships, coping with stress. Character building and instilling the values of decency and
integrity are likewise identified as possible outcomes that higher education can seek to inculcate
among its young students.
26. Dr. Carol Campbell, in her talk about quality assurance presented the following global
perspectives:
a. The practice of evaluating and ranking of world class institutions is a recent
phenomenon brought about by globalization, increased access to education, and changes
in the perceived purpose and importance placed (value for money) by
parents/students on education.
b. There is a need for an alternative mechanism that could provide information and
learning on quality education. There have been questions about the criteria being used
in the ranking (who defines world class?). Publication of results has not done a lot of good
to HEIs not included in the ranking.
c. It should also be noted that in reality only three per cent (3%) can attend top ranked
world class schools. So there is a need to safeguard the quality of education of 97% of
students all over the world.

12

d. Quality assurance and accreditation agencies should support confidence in and

recognition of a diverse range of higher education providers. They should provide the
market - secure accessible, reliable and useful information about quality, academic
standards and students achievement.
e. Quality assurance processes and standards should be developed to foster public
understanding of and confidence in the quality of higher education; and to better
respond stakeholder questions (What am I/are we getting for our money? What can/cant
our graduates do?). These processes should be able to lead to enhancements of the school
not just focus on compliance to some rules.
f.

New methods QA have been developed that:

Give due importance to stakeholder engagement in governance, internal and

external QA reviews, and through national student surveys

Use outcomes-based standards and criteria

Promote transparency and public information

Increase professionalism among reviewers

Place primary responsibility for academic standards on with the institutions

themselves.

Focus on how schools meet their objectives vis--vis their vision and mission.

27. As a reactor to the presentation of Dr. Campbell, Dr. Rey Vea also expressed his reservation
about the world class ranking system since many of the criteria are more resource-based (inputs
rather than outputs or outcomes).
Dr. Vea related the learning experience of Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) in
pursuing ABET (Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology), which is an
outcomes-based accreditation.
He recounted how they poured resources for faculty deloading because they practically
overhauled curricula and syllabi to be at par with international standards.
They also invested in hardware and software needed for the global practice of
engineering.
He emphasized that, to become world class, MIT also realized the need to build up its
research capability.

13

 Schools have to pay the cost to get to world class quality. He noted the great chasm
between the spending of MIT of $1,000/student/year compared to other universities in
Asia. He shared that Universiti of Malaya (Malaysia) and Chulalongkorn University (in
Thailand) spend $2,000/student/year. The India Institute of Technology
$5,000/student/year. The National University of Singapore spends $24,000 and Kyoto
University around $54,000/student/year.
He said he is looking forward to the day when the MITs outcomes can be seen in terms
of the number of companies established through their graduates; the number of people
employed by these companies, and the contribution of these companies in the economy.
28. It was shared during the open forum that accreditation is also one of the mechanisms for
ensuring quality in higher education in the Philippines.

The system of accreditation done in

the country is voluntary and program-based.

29. One of the challenges in accreditation is the determination of appropriate criteria for assessment
of programs of schools, and coming up with robust methods of measuring them. It was raised
that the important criteria should be the extent to which the school has pursued its vision and
mission.

Measuring outcomes of programs is an ideal approach in assessing quality of PHE

institutions. It is a very hard to do though because of the effort it requires to determine them
(e.g., tracking graduates, linking with employers and professional groups, conducting exit
competencies surveys).
30. CHEDs Deputy Executive Director Nap Imperial initiated discussions about PHE institutions
applying for ISO certification. He related that schools have spent so many resources to obtain
ISO certification and he qualified that ISO certification is not a substitute to accreditation.
It was asserted though by PHE delegates that their schools have benefitted from going through
ISO certification as it has made their administrators, faculty, and staff more conscious about
quality. The experience has also guided them on how they can make their management
systems become more efficient.
31. What is important, Dr. Levy said, is that schools learn from and get the most benefit they can get
when they go through assessment/audit/screening. Information drawn from the results of the
assessments -- whether for ranking, accreditation, or certification -- can be utilized to improve
their effectiveness as academic institutions.

14

32. Personally, he believes that the market is a better judge of quality rather than institutional
accreditation. He does not mean though that PHEs should disregard accreditation/certification
altogether because private institutions need documented evidence of quality to secure
grants/resources from the government and other donor agencies. Moreover, obtaining
accreditation/certification enhances credibility and reputation of a PHE institution.
33. The participants were grouped into three to discuss three specific concerns related to quality of
PHEs: (1) quality of faculty; (2) quality of programs; and (3) quality of operations.

The results

of the workshops can be summed up as follows:

Quality of Faculty.
Definition = Most of all, the quality of the faculty can be measured by how much the
students learned from the subjects handled by the teachers. Faculty members should
possess the needed: 1) Knowledge on subject (qualified, competent, experienced, and
updated); 2) Skills in teaching the subject (technical, communication, pedagogical,
professional); 3) Attitudes in teaching (has the passion and character).
Key Issues

Recommendations

*Schools have structures and processes

that do not foster quality in teaching
- Too much premium is placed on
seniority rather than competence in
recruitment, retention, and promotion
of teachers
- There is a need to balance the concern
of providing security to employment
tenure of teachers and the concern for
continuing faculty upgrading

*Advocate reconsideration of
Department of Labor and
Employment (DOLE) policies on
teacher labor
*Give schools greater more autonomy
and resources to engage effective,
qualified teachers

* Salary levels are not enough to attract

good teachers

*Secure a portion/percentage of
governments budget for teacher
salary
*Increase tuition fees

*Uneven skills possessed by faculty

members (e.g. some are technically
knowledgeable but do not have
sufficient instructional skills, some do
not have ample research capacities)

*Schools should invest in holistic

faculty development (holistic)
*Incentives for research can be
provided
*Teachers can be made to choose
focus: research or teaching

15

Key Issues

Recommendations

*Teachers are not industry-proficient

*Allow flexibility in rules regarding

fulltime engagement, rates of
industry professionals as teachers
(e.g. engineering, medical programs).

*Adverse institutional reaction opinions

expressed by faculty on issues affecting
the school

*Foster academic expression, rules

should be institutionalized and
documented in the faculty manual

Program Quality.
Definition = A quality academic program leads to sustainable employability and
entrepreneurship among graduates. It should comply with recognized standards and
should contribute positively to well-being of society.
Key Issues

Recommendations

*Too many subjects integrated in the

curriculum

*K12 can address piling up of general

education (GE) courses
*Do not accommodate non-legislated
courses (e.g. requests by departments
and influential political personalities)
*Instead of adding subjects, schools
can consider merging new modules
into existing ones and/or enhance their
field practicum

*Continued presence of sub-standard or

diploma-mill programs

*Strengthen CHEDs legal clout

*Publication of information on erring
schools (website)
*CHED and PRC should be working
together for courses that require
professional licensing

Requirement of some technical panel on

rigid compliance to policies, standards,
and guidelines (PSG) even if only
minimum compliance is required

*PSGs to maintain minimum

requirements, institutions should be
allowed to innovate
*Develop alternative modes of
instruction
*Validation and evaluation of
curriculum must be done before a new
one is implemented

16

 Operational Quality
Definition = operational quality refers to the:
- Optimal/efficient and effective use of resources to achieve the institutions set
outcomes (vision-mission-goals-objectives)
- Smooth flow and execution of processes and systems according to chosen priorities
and focus
- Capacity of the institution to implement quality educational programs consistently
and sustainably
Key Issues

Recommendations

*Economic Inadequate resources

to ensure quality of faculty,
programs, and facilities

>Engage in partnerships/joint venture with

the business sector
>Lobby for more government support,
incentives, subsidies
>Foster collaboration among HEIs (pooling
of resources, complementation, niching)
> More strategic use of resources
(prioritization on the best use of resources)

*Political government needs to

provide a more enabling
environment to improve operational
quality of PHE

>Lobby for a clearer articulation of policy

on the role of PHEs in educational system
>Conduct more intensive and massive
orientation on the govt policies (esp. K+12)
>Maximize use of web/IT in
information/documentation
>Enjoin CHED to be more consistent in
enforcement of policies

*Technical
lack capacity and/or hands-on
leadership of administrators in
school management;
strained relationships between
faculty and administrators
weaknesses in internal
communication processes
readiness to respond to the
challenge of K+12 implementation

>Capacity building programs for school

administrators
>More stringent recruitment of
administrative staff
>Conduct of regular dialogue between
administration and faculty
>Review schools strategic directions in the
light of the K+12 program

17

34. The salient and consensus points on the discussions about the quality of PHE are:
The quality of the educational institutions is evidenced by the graduates they produce.
Based on the programs they offer HEIs should have a very clear idea answer to the question:

What can the students do after they graduate from our school?
Accreditations/rankings/certifications are useful quality assurance mechanisms; and frankly,
obtaining them is good for marketing and resource mobilization purposes. However, the
quest for quality should be an intrinsic aspiration and naturally integrated in processes of
the HEIs -- it should not be born out of a schools desire to be recognized nor be affirmed by
outsiders.
The quality of the educational institutions is very much affected by the regulatory
framework within which they operate and the resources they can generate and mobilize for
self-enhancement. In this regard, the government plays a very crucial role in providing the
enabling environment to ensure the academic quality of these diverse institutions.

FINANCING AND RESOURCE ACCESSING

35. Private higher education is overwhelmingly funded through tuition fees especially among
demand-absorbing private HEIs. The problem is tuition fees are often capped as a regulatory
measure of governments.
36. Dr. LaRocque rationalized governments financial support to PHE as follows:
Funding support for the PHE sector can lead to increased private investment , increased
access to education, greater equity and higher quality provision in the higher education
sector
PHEs have limited sources of capital. This is especially true in developing countries
where there credit market imperfections exist. Educational institutions could not readily
access loans to commercial banks.
37. He explained that public funding of private schools is common. It is being done in Bangladesh,
Chile, Netherlands, Australia, New Zealand, Pakistan, Canada, and -- to some degree in the
Philippines.

18

38. Government can directly or indirectly provide assistance to private education. Some global
examples include:
Direct Assistance
Subsidies to HEIs operating grants, payment of academic staff salaries
Tax benefits tax write-offs, tax credits, tax holidays, customs/ duties/VAT
exemptions
Competitive research funding
Capital funding for infrastructure development
Free/discounted land
Soft loans
Capacity-building/staff training
Indirect Assistance
Scholarships for students at private HEIs
Scholarships for academic staff at private HEIs
Student loans for tuition fees and living costs for students at private HEIs
Living allowances for students at private HEIs
39. He cautioned though that there are potential downsides to government support private sector
assistance. It could lead to excessive regulation of private HEIs. It could lead to politicization
of private HEIs. It exposes government and PHEs to temptations to commit graft and
corruption. Furthermore, institutional dependency on government funding weakens the
private nature of PHEs.
40. In the Philippines, CHED has, to some extent, been indirectly subsidizing PHE institutions
through assistance in faculty development, financial assistance to students (scholarship, grantin-aid, student loans), and research aid (research fellowships, thesis, dissertation, support for
paper presentation in international conferences).
CHEDs Chairperson, Dr. Patricia Licuanan acknowledged that the Commissions resources are
inadequate to cater to the growing needs of the PHE, and thus, there is a need to strategically
use these resources to generate more substantial impact.
41. Aside from tuition fee and government support, PHE institutions can also access resources
through:

Grants from sponsoring organizations (e.g., religious orders)

Grants from foreign partner institutions
Philanthropy/endowments
Consultancy and contract research
Third party revenues
Commercialization of research

19

Joint ventures with the business sector and/or other PHE institution
Sharing of facilities/equipment
Adopt-a-program schemes
Partnership with a SUCs
Loans from government-owned and controlled banks
International aid agencies

42. In his talk on PHE regulations, Dr. Larocque revealed that international development agencies
like ADB, World Bank can directly and indirectly support private higher education institutions
by:
Assisting governments through loans and technical assistance to improve regulation and
funding and build capacity
Providing early stage equity and loan capital to catalyze investments in the private
education sector
Raising profile of the private education sector and sensitize private funders to increase
attractiveness of sector as an investment target
Building private sector capacity to increase attractiveness as investment target
Working with private sector banks to mitigate investment risks in the sector

THE ROLE OF PRIVATE HIGHER EDUCATION IN THE PHILIPPINES

43. The need for a national policy articulation on the role of private higher education (PHE)
resonated in the Conference.6 The sentiment of representatives of private institutions is that the
only reason why PHE has been officially recognized as important by the Philippine government
is because of its magnitude and demand-absorbing contribution.
A question that PHE delegates hope the government can answer is:

Aside from absorbing the excess demand for higher education, what is the role of
PHE in the Philippines?

Dr. Amelou Reyes, President of Philippine Womens University brought this up during the workshops and
quality and reiterated this concern during the plenary session.
6

20

44. Delegates expressed their concern over the decreasing level of enrolment of PHE relative to the
share of the SUCs; and the possible implications of the K+12 on the size of the PHE. They
wondered how significant the PHE would still be if the Philippine government would have
greater capacity to absorb the demand for higher education. CHED Executive Director Julito
Vitriolo assured delegates from the PHE sector that there are limits to what the government can
do in terms of supporting public higher education. The governments dependence on PHE to
step in and absorb the demand will definitely continue.
45. PHEsbecause of its private nature -- ought to be market-responsive. Creating a policy that
defines/delimits the role of PHE could curtail its flexibility. Dr. Edilberto Jesus raised that
probably the better question to ask is:

What is the role of public sector (SUCs) in the higher education system?
46. Offhand, he opined that the role public higher education can be (1) to provide access to
education programs that are not in the standard curricula of PHE; and (2) to promote resource
intensive disciplines that PHE could not afford to venture into. In other words, the government
could pour public resources into development areas that PHE neither has the capacity (in terms
of resources) nor the inclination to pursue.
47. What is clear in the Conference is that public education and PHE should complement each other
(not duplicate and compete) in bringing about a higher education system that contributes to the
achievement of national development objectives. This complementation should be based on the
comparative advantages and inherent limitations of both types of institutions.

21