Philippine Daily Inquirer
May 15, 2005
EDITORIAL

HIGHER-EDUCATION LOWS

The RESIGNATION of the Dominican educator, Fr. Rolando V. De la Rosa, O.P. as chair of the Commission on Higher Education shows how the tentacles of petty politics and nepotism have reached higher education, choking it of the feeblest striving toward excellence, pulling it down to the level of the middling, the mediocre and the meretricious.

Father de la Rosa resigned after failing to get the support of Malacanang and Congress in reforming the education system. Instead of backing the Commission's crackdown on substandard nursing schools, several representatives, led by Rep. Cynthia Villar (Las Pinas), the chair of the House committee on education, pressured him to reopen 23 nursing schools across the country. The schools had been ordered closed for poor performance in board examinations and for failing to comply with the minimum requirement to have a base tertiary hospital where students could have a hands-on training.

In meetings with the CHED, Villar – whose husband, Sen. Manny Villar, has presidential ambitions – hardly showed the comportment of a legislator, much less of an educated woman, in demanding the closure order be lifted. When her group of lawmakers was informed that the campaign against poor performing nursing schools is mandated by the Nursing Law that Congress had passed only two years ago, one lawmaker shamelessly exclaimed, “Then let us abolish that law!”

If De la Rosa had expected he would get support from Malacanang against such pack of malevolent and “maleducated” lawmakers, he was wrong. The AMA computer school staved off the closure of its nursing school by going to Malacanang, where it got an order directing De la Rosa and his commissioners to explain the closure of the school. In effect, Malacanang rebuffed the CHED and stayed the closure. How computer and nursing schools have achieved political clout despite their poor performance in electronic communication engineering and in nursing board exams should show how educational franchises and profit-oriented schools have built up their resources by packing their classrooms with enrollees, without the least provision for student selectivity and quality standard – indeed, without the least investment in campus infrastructure and pedagogical facilities. Some schools appear to have shored up their position by getting cozy with politicians in Congress and Malacanang.

It is these same politicians who have made a merry cottage industry out of establishing state colleges and universities (SCUs) and local colleges and universities (LCUs). The proliferation of these SCUs and LCUs has invited a comment from the British Council that the Philippines have too many colleges and universities. While it is true that these schools provide easy access to education, the truth is that many SCUs and LCUs have been established to cash in on public works funds.

These colleges and universities are also packed with political appointees that have made them dens of nepotism. Moreover, these schools have charters created by law so that they can insist that their programs are beyond the supervision of CHED. Sen. Juan Flavier has called for a moratorium on the establishment of new SCUs and LCUs, but the resignation of De la Rosa should indicate that our politicians would continue to set up schools for parochial interests and self-aggrandizement.

What picture are we getting here? Politics is destroying higher education. Politicians and bureaucrats have already destroyed basic education- that is obvious in the annual litany of class-opening problems, such as the lack of teachers, classrooms, and books, which provide petty politicos and greedy bureaucrats with the alibi to dip[ into the public coffers and spend resources, leaving them enough room for kickbacks. This state of affairs has perennially saddled our basic education with issues of quantity, not quality, so that we are producing graduates who hardly have the rudimentary qualification for college.

Now, politicians and bureaucrats are set to complete the sweep. After destroying basic education, they seek to infect higher education with the virus of commercialism and academic philistinism. Father De la Rosa, a former rector magnificus of the University of Sto . Tomas and Colegio de San Juan Letran in Calamba, saw the writing on the wall and would have none of it. He said he would rather go back to his “priestly and religious duties” than compromise his principles as an n educator and an academic manager. Perhaps, back in the peace of his Dominican monastery, he could pray and exorcise the demons of politics and greed that are killing Philippine higher education.

May 17, 2005

To the Editor
Philippine Daily Inquirer

Dear Editor,

I write in reference to your editorial on May 15, 2005 , wherein several issues regarding the state of Higher Education in the Philippines were raised.

Your editorial on February 5, 2005 already touched on a similar matter to which I sent a reply to clarify the various issues. I respectfully reiterate some of the matters regarding the SUC's that I raised in my letter to you dated February 9, 2005 :

Like you, I am disturbed with the drop in quality of education in our schools vis-à-vis our neighboring countries.

Limiting the number of SUCs, however, does not guarantee that overall competence will increase. Perhaps, the notion that limiting their number will allow a more focused allocation of resources and thereby improving quality may hold some water. But what is definite is the decline in the number of Filipinos who are able to gain access to tertiary education.

However, the quantity versus quality of schools and graduates is not the only question that a third world country such as ours has to face. In a world wherein documentation becomes a necessary qualification for livelihood, it is obvious that those with lesser financial means do not primarily choose to be educated but rather to get the necessary paperwork qualification to land a job. Hence, the proliferation of what have been dubbed as “diploma mills”.

This does not mean that these people do not recognize institutions that offer quality education as manifested, for example, in the high regard afforded to graduates of UP, Ateneo, La Salle , UST, etc. But the reality of their available budget and earning capacity, the majority of Filipino students are simply left to be content with the state universities and colleges in their locality or the more affordable private schools.

In a free market such as ours, schools with ill reputations will eventually have to face and bear the consequences of incompetence: that is, declining enrollment and perhaps the eventual closure of their school. In economic theory, it is only a matter of time. Unless, of course, they endeavor to upgrade the quality of their education and raise their passing quotients in professional boards.

In the light of the reality in the current workplace where to be a Metro aide sweeper one is not required to have excellent cleaning abilities but a minimum of a high school diploma or a civil servant desiring to be promoted to a higher post and what would count towards that promotion is not performance alone but a masters degree, we can begin to appreciate why the demand for documents such as certificates and diplomas create the diploma mills. It is also an indictment on our society which places greater value on educational levels that one has passed rather that on the education that one possesses.

When people are poor and are in need of jobs, the tendency is to minimize the cost of education to get a job.

On the matter of the 23 nursing schools, I wish to point out that the lines of communication between the CHED and the Senate and House Committees on Higher Education have been open. The items that I have pointed out in the letter have been topics of discussion during a meeting between Fr. Rolando de la Rosa, OP and Senator Juan Flavier who seats as Chairperson of the Senate Committee on Education and Culture. Please allow me to share with you some parts of the letter of Sen. Flavier (dated April 7, 2005 ) to me regarding the developments/agreements that were established during that meeting. I quote:

•  “That of the twenty-three problematic schools, three have withdrawn their applications, and that four have already qualified. Of the 16 remaining schools, the CHED has re-sent inspection teams to re-evaluate the applications. The teams are composed of persons in no way connected with the old evaluation, to ensure objectivity. All of the remaining schools have submitted themselves to re-inspection…;

•  The suggestion that the remaining schools be allowed to offer two-year courses, e.g., Associate in Health Sciences, with subject offerings that may be credited towards eventual entry into third-year nursing levels was welcomed. Note, however, that these schools must not advertise these course offerings as nursing courses. Lastly, that if this becomes acceptable to them, licensing processes regarding the offering of these two-year courses will now be vested in the TESDA and not with the CHED;

•  We agreed that the requirement that nursing schools conduct their related learning experiences (RLE) or clinical training ONLY with tertiary hospitals, as certified by the Department of Health, must remain.”

As you may glimpse from the foregoing, we are offering suggestions to the CHED on how we can strike a balance between maintaining a high standard of tertiary education and answering the real and existing needs of our people to gain education as well as the qualification for decent livelihood.

I believe that we can agree that legislation and education should not be static. Rather, it should continuously evolve in order to be responsive to current realities that surround us. We are not demanding that the CHED compromise the principles of quality education. Discussions over higher education issues may become charged or even heated, but this should not be reason for us to stop conducting dialogues. Rather than be used as points of conflict, the differences in our opinion, experience and expertise should perhaps be tapped into as a resource to come up with comprehensive and responsive legislation and directives.

Allow me to reiterate my hope that the legislature, the CHED and the media can work together in understanding the issues concerning Philippine higher education and find possible solutions to these concerns.

I trust that your highly-respected and widely-read newspaper will allow all sides of the issues be heard.

Very truly yours,

Cynthia A. Villar

Cc : Speaker Jose De Venecia
Senator Juan Flavier
Father Rolando Dela Rosa, CHED Chairman
Com. Maria Cristina D. Padolina
Com. Carlito S. Puno
Com. Luningning Umar
Com. Jun Ocampo
All members of House Committee on Higher and Technical Education

(Note: This letter to the editor was not printed by the Philippine Daily Inquirer)