Is Philippine Education Commercialized?

Is Philippine Education Commercialized?
 “The Law and Philippine Schools” (Ed 235)

The 1987 Constitution states in article 14 that “the State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels, and shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all.” (Constitution, 1987)

Section 2 of the constitution specifically provides that “a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels”. Education to be effective vehicle for development should not be limited to basic (elementary and high school) as basic education may importantly provide the foundation to the kind of citizens a society moulds but should be extended to the tertiary education will determine how a society’s important resource, its people, will be of use, contributive or functionally responsive to the economy.

Unfortunately, in terms of resource allocation, government’s sense of priority for education is not nearly enough given United Nations standards. To date, the Philippines is yet to comply with the UN-prescribed 6% share of education spending vis-a-vis national GDP.

The current education expenditure to GDP ratio is at 2.45%, based on the official computation of the Department of Education (DepEd) Finance and Administration office. It is higher than last year’s reported 2.10% share, but a far cry from 1997 when education spending accounted for a 3.8% share in the country’s GDP. (rappler.com/March 18, 2013)

If we compare resource allocation of the Philippines to that of our neighbor Singapore, which ranks high on educational benchmarks, Singapore spends 20% of its GDP equivalent to education. Not only does it provide elementary and secondary education accessibly to its citizens, it also makes tertiary education within reach. Education in Singapore asks citizens to shell out personal monthly amounts but these are affordable to its citizens, understandably though the purchasing power of its citizens is also higher such that they can afford to pay minimal counterparts of their children’s education. However, even in the tertiatry level several subsidies or publicly funded degrees are offered. Here the point as well highlights the fact that education is one of Singapore’s well used vehicle to enhance its economy and its peoples lives.

The Landscape of the Philippine Educational System

There are currently 21.7M elementary (14,509,690) and secondary students (7,110,994) (2013, DepEd data sets. Annual increase in enrolment is at 1.5% (2009 - 2013). (DepEd, datasets)

In 2014, The Department of Education (DepEd) approved the tuition increase in 1,299 private elementary and high schools in the Philippines.

The majority of these schools (311) are located in Western Visayas. The lowest increase granted is 1.35% while the highest increase is 35% of their existing fees.

From DepEd data, there are a total of 46, 404 elementary schools in the country of which 7,745 (17% of total) are private schools while the public elementary schools number to 38,659 (consisting 83%). While all High Schools total 12, 878 where 5,130 (40%) are privately owned and 7,748 (60%) are public high schools. The number of private school significantly increases as the grade levels increase. The landscape further changes in the tertiary level in favor of private ownership.

In the 1990s, only about 6 percent of elementary students were in private schools, but the proportion rose sharply to about 63 percent at the secondary level and approximately 85 percent at the tertiary level. About a third of the private school tertiary-level enrollment was in religiously affiliated schools. Catholic and Protestant churches sponsored schools, and privately-owned-nonsectarian schools comprised what is known as private education. In the 90’s, neither the private-sectarian nor the religious schools received state aid except for occasional subsidies for special programs. (Dolan,1991)

Private Education and the Law

The context of the predominance of private education in the Philippines is exacerbated by the fact that political policy works to the advantage of private educators. Ownership of private educational institution has moved along way from the mainly religious organization ownership to increased ownerships in the hands of private individuals. Many rich families have stakes now in private education especially in the tertiary level.

Our historical experiences with education point to its use as a tool of pacification rather than of liberating people for genuine human development. In the time of the Spaniards, education was an adjunct of religion, instruments in the main to pacify the natives. The public education that the Americans brought paved the way for colonial mentality and for the most part diminished the beauty of Filipino heritage and the strength of our patriots in pushing out Spain from our soils.

In keeping the tradition of education as a pacifying tool, Marcos maximized the role of education to smoothen his iron-rule. A few days after Martial Law was declared in September 21, 1972, Presidential Decree 6-A, known as the Educational Development Decree of 1972, was announced. (www.lawphil.net)

Hidden in the legalese of ”improving curricular programs, upgrading academic standards through accreditation, democratization of access, responsiveness to national development, training of manpower and shifting of funding responsibility of primary and secondary education to local government” is Marcos’s design to make education work for Martial law and his personal plans specifically to funnel funds into his own coffer. This is apparent in section 7, the authority to borrow which vests in the sole hands of the president. Although limited to loans not exceeding 100M dollars and not beyond ten years. These loans are intended supposedly under the proclamation to improve education (“financing of educational development projects”).

Despite the seemingly enormous allocations and financial support to education since 1972, nothing much has changed, instead the maladies of poor quality, inadequate access and underpaid teachers specifically persisted. Education after Marcos’s 10-year educational development program remained irrelevant to the people’s needs. (www.lawphil.net)

When Martial Law was lifted in 1981, the Education Act of 1982 (Batas Pambansa blg. 232) was promulgated.

With the lifting of Martial Law, then President Marcos needed a law that would circumscribe all his past decrees pertaining to education, as with all his Martial Law legislations, the Education Act of 1982 proclaimed itself as landmark law that would democratize access in education. However, BP 232 further reoriented the Philippine education system from playing an integral role in national development, pursuit of knowledge, and flowering of culture and the arts towards being profit-oriented and producing graduates that would feed the global need for cheap labor.

When Ed Act 82 came into the picture, the already solidified position of government providing inadequate education to its citizens was gaping. The neglect created a vacuum that private educators especially in the tertiary level filled in willingly.

More than three decades hence, the Philippine education system has clearly drowned in the murky waters of commercialization, murky for the Filipino youth and their parents but not for the few private education owners.

Commercialization they say fosters competition that is healthy to the buyer, but not in the case of education which is a basic service paid for already by taxes imposed on citizens hence governments are obliged to provide. (bukisisa.com)

Due to the Education Act, according to Angel de Dios, the government has failed to regulate tuition increases in the country, rendering both the Department of Education (DepEd) and the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) – agencies that have been borne out of later revisions to BP 232 – useless paper tigers, especially in curbing annual tuition hikes.

(philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012)

This is why the Ed Act of 1982 serves well the advantage of commercializing education.

Legislated Tuition Deregulation

One of the most pernicious provisions of the Education Act is Section 42, which pertains to tuition and other fees. It states, “Each private school shall determine its rate of tuition and other school fees or charges. The rates and charges adopted by schools pursuant to this provision shall be collectible, and their application or use authorized, subject to rules and regulations promulgated by the Ministry of Education, Culture and Sports.” (now the DepEd and Ched).

The said provision effectively granted school owners the unlimited authority to raise tuition fees, and even repealed an earlier law – Presidential Decree 451 – which states that 60 percent of tuition fee hikes be allotted to teachers’ salaries and benefits. (philbasiceducation.blogspot.com)

Based on DepEd's 2010 Manual of Regulations, 70% of the increase should go to the teachers' salaries, and at least 20% for the improvement of the school's facilities and equipment. (Rappler.com, May 20, 2014)

Due to the deregulated nature of tuition under the Education Act, tuition in private schools has risen to skyrocketing levels. NUSP, the National Union of Students of the Philippines) one of student conglomeration of student councils in higher education, claims that national average of tuition and other fees in private higher educational institutions has increased from P257.41 in 2001 to P501.22 in 2010. (philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012)

Relatedly, from a 2009 study by the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, for every 100 pupils who enter Grade 1, only 86 will continue to Grade 2. By Grade 4, 76 will remain, while only 65 will graduate from elementary. Of this number, only 58 will enter high school, and 42 of them would graduate basic education. The survival rate of 100 pupils entering Grade 1 and finishing College is 14%.

Profitability of Higher Education

Tertiary education has become a lucrative business for many corporate individuals and interests, not for their motives in promoting development through research, science and technology that their businesses promote but for selfish profits.

In the country’s list of top 1000 corporations, there are nine HEIs who made it with profits ranging from 20M to 297M in 2003. (Top Moneymakers, Graphic, December 2003 issue)

Among these profitable schools are Centro Escolar University (CEU) at 198th of top 1000 corporations is owned by Emilio Yap of Phil. Trust Co., Manila Bulletin and Manila Hotel. The University of the East (UE) at 517th is owned by Lucio Tan who controls Fortune Tobacco, Asia Brewery, Allied Bank and PAL. The Mapua Institute of Technology (MIT) at 218th is under the Yuchengco group which owns Malayan Insurance and RCBC. In 2009, Henry Sy of the SM group acquired National University (NU) adding its influence over education on top of ownership of Asia Pacific College. The other private schools in top 1000 are FEU at 272nd, FEATI at 364th, Manila Central University at 785th, Cebu Doctors College at 845th and Velez College also in Cebu at 987th.

It is no wonder that the last to suffer is profit in an educational context like this, as CHED has itself found out, tuition increases in the NCR during a 5-year period from SY 1999-2000 to 2003-2004 rose by 64.14%. (Top Moneymakers)

Private Higher Education Institutions in the NCR charge the highest average tuition per unit. In 2003, it stands at 614.54/unit (approximately 12,000.00 of tuition per semester). On top of this though, there is greater leeway for private schools to charge on miscellaneous fees or other fees as CHED exempts this from the need to consult with students or parents. Miscellaneous fees are charged for use of facilities like laboratories, clinic, library, AVR, athletics, etc. The variety of nomenclature for other fees include such things as insurance, energy, power plant development, land-infrastructure-maintenance-acquisition development, accreditation or copier fees.

Profitability of private HEIs is seen here in the 2012 Census of Business and Industries, higher education institution earned 18.4B pesos after deducting all expenses incurred.

In the last 14 years, the number of High Ed Institutions rose to 1,231 from 595 (1990 – 2004). Yet in the face of increased number of schools, one of the most serious problems in the Philippines in the 1980s, the early 1990s and at present concerns with the large number of students who completed college but then could not find a job commensurate with their educational skills. If properly utilized, these trained personnel could facilitate economic development, but when left idle or forced to take jobs beneath their qualifications, this group could be a major source of discontent. (Dolan, 1991).

The case of Singapore is a novel good example of education as vehicle for national development and heavily subsidized by government.

Government Role and a Regulatory Framework Model for Private Education

Instead of abandoning responsibility to education especially in the higher education to the hands of the private sector, greater and better government regulation should be exercised. An example in point is Singapore through its Ministry of Education (MOE). With higher budgetary allocation to education, the MOE, seeing in 1997 – 2007 that private education has significantly increased its foothold in education, began to initiate measures to ensure the following: raise corporate and academic governance standards; enhance student protection measures; compel disclosure of key information by private educational institutions (PEI); and require PEIs to seek, on a regular basis, fresh approval to renew their registration.

The MOE created the Council for Private Education (CPE) which has extensive regulatory and punitive powers over private education including foreign schools operating online or directly in Singapore. Foreign education companies operating or have programs in Singapore are also made to assure that programs offered by foreign schools are recognized in their home countries or get the degrees equivalent to the home universities.

The CPE made criminal offenses of such acts as failure of private school managers to do their responsibilities which “include the keeping of proper records; providing for students affected by the PEI’s closure to complete their enrolled course or a similar one in another PEI; and furnishing information requested by the CPE within the stipulated duration. The failure of a manager to fulfill his responsibilities without any justifiable reason will constitute a criminal offence. The CPE will also have the power to direct any PEI to suspend or remove any of its managers if they are found to be inadequate in carrying out the responsibilities of managing the school or are unable to discharge their prescribed duties” (MOE Singapore)

Private educators offering courses without CPE registration and approval were also made criminally liable. If a program is closed or a school is, it is the responsibility of the PEI to ensure that the student can continue and finish his studies in another PEI or through government support.

In Singapore’s enhanced regulatory framework through its Private Education Act, PEIs are allowed to operate under stringent accreditation measures using period of validity of registration as incentive for best performing PEIs. If the school performs well based on corporate and academic governance standards, a longer registration period is provided. Singapore’s private education act also stipulates maximum amount of fees PEIs can collect from students upfront as well as compel PEIs to disclose key information on its premises, courses and teachers to enable students to make informed choices. (Parliamentary-Replies2009)

If Singapore has made private education truly a partner for its national and social advance, the same can be done in our country where PEI managers under the new regulatory regime internalize their obligations as responsible education service providers.  The authority of CPE not only centers on intensified efforts to monitor the PEIs but also include, where necessary, undertaking of enforcement or punitive action. An appropriate regulatory authority necessarily includes investigative and enforcement powers to conduct regular audit checks and to investigate complaints against PEIs.

Singapore’s model of excellent public education and a strong complementary private education is the way to go for the Philippines as well. Instead of making our state colleges and universities income generating and catering only to the rich through STFAP (the socialized tuition fee program of UP which earns more income for the school than grants access to the poor), government can provide a suite of financing schemes to students to obtain university degrees like Singapore does through an extensive Publicly-funded degree programs.

It is understandable for our leaders trained in the American way to probably stop to looking at the west but draw sight to a fellow Asian country for examples in forging educational frameworks and policies in order to put an end to commercialized and profit-oriented private education and end neglect or disarray in the public school system.

Adding two years in basic education will serve only as palliative for as long as the structure and policies of our educational system proliferate deregulation of private education and perpetuate the same limited government foothold in public education.

An overhaul of the educational system is needed and can be done with enough political will. No reinventing of the wheel, so to say is needed, Singapore, an Asian neighbor, is an appropriate model to follow. Its educational institutions are not as aged as ours yet it ranks highest in the world. Its universities are recognized and the outcomes manifested through its students and citizens are acknowledged in the both educational and economic fields. To me this is proof that age-old institutions and traditions in education alone are not guarantees of correctness in line of development but good-effective educational policy does.

Instead of a commercialized education, a publicly-funded, vision-led, regulated and Asian-benchmarked educational system should be aimed for.

April 8, 2015

-end-

REFERENCES
1. Art. XIV, The Philippine Constitution, 1987.
2. Rappler.com/March 18, 2013.
3. Ronald E. Dolan, ed. Philippines: A Country Study. Washington: GPO for the Library of Congress, 1991.
4. Jee Geronimo/Rappler.com, May 20, 2014.
5. philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-philippine-education-system-three.html#ixzz3W7uEbylk
6. philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-philippine-education-system-three.html#ixzz3W7wdXuc2
7. census.gov.ph/content/2012-census-philippine-business-and-industry-private-education-establishment-all-employment
8. Top Moneymakers, Graphic, December 2003 issue
9. census.gov.ph/content/2012-census-philippine-business-and-industry-private-education-establishment-all-employment
10. bulatlat.com/news/4-23/4-23-education.html
11. www.deped.gov.ph/datasets?page=1
12. www.lawphil.net/statutes/presdecs/pd1972/pd_6_a_1972.html
13. www.bukisa.com/articles/536174_commercialization-of-education
14. philbasiceducation.blogspot.com/2012/09/the-philippine-education-system-three.html#ixzz3WVunTMJU
15. www.moe.gov.sg/media/parliamentary-replies/2009/09/second-reading-speech-on-the-p.php
16. www.ched.gov.ph/wp-content/uploads/2015/01/11-05/ASEA%20Higher%20Education.pdf
17. Prof. Flora C. Arellano, Philippine Education: Roadmap and Challenges, Department of Psychology, Polytechnic University of the Philippines, http://philrights.org/wp-content/uploads/2010/10/Philippine-Education.pdf
18. www.moe.gov.sg/media/press/files/2012/08/cuep-report-greater-diversity-more-opportunities.pdf