What’s wrong with Philippine higher education and its governance?

Last of 4 parts

Thinking out of the box, not inside

IN the 21st century, we often hear the phrases “paradigm shifts” and “thinking out of the box.” Indeed, higher education supervision and governance systems and processes have been practically outpaced or rendered ineffective by trends and developments in science, technology, ICT and the internet.

Educational paradigms that we used to know and are considered our comfort zones need to be continuously challenged and validated to determine whether these models or paradigms can still deliver the relevant knowledge, skills, competencies and values crucial to the survival of the products of tertiary education, both higher and TVET.

The Fourth Industrial Revolution has changed the way industry behaves and operates. Has Philippine higher education and TVET adapted to the demands of the 4th IR? The increasing role of AI in academia, industry, commerce and government is a phenomenon we need to contend with.

Flexible learning vs residential

The coronavirus pandemic episode that the world recently experienced forced the Philippines to abruptly adopt learning modalities that were once reserved for a few HEIs.

In one fell swoop, the distance learning paradigm and its restrictions were set aside, and flexible learning was adopted by all HEIs, whether autonomous or not. The experience of most HEIs is that flexible learning is the future. And yet we are back to the “old school” — residential learning. It is submitted both paradigms can co-exist in varying intensities.

Innovative curricula/ degrees and pathways

The CHEd has yet to embrace and fully operationalize the concept of learning pathways, out-of-the-box curricula and the true meaning of RPL (recognition of prior learning). The CHEd developed curricula are not innovative enough to give Philippine HR a real edge in the world of work, especially in the international arena.

The challenge remains: How can we educate and train the ideal HR? One with both the skills, competencies and knowledge that Tesda and CHEd require. The perfect hybrid!

Conclusion

On the whole, the governance of Philippine higher education or the entire tertiary education system (that is, Tesda and CHEd) can still be improved if the legislature adopts laws that unify and integrate governance rather than fragment or compartmentalize it. Needless to say, the trifocalization paradigm should be reviewed with the view of tightening coordination and governance of the education agencies, including the professional regulation and labor regulation components.

At the very least, Edcom 2 should steer clear of laws containing provisions that could clash with constitutional guarantees of academic freedom and institutional autonomy. Certainly, it would do well if the developmental character of CHEd is enhanced and the too regulatory complexion minimized. Key to the improvement of the quality of the higher education sector is the system of empowerment and accountability and the progressive development of mature HEIs to become autonomous, high-quality and relevant players in human resource development.

An area of interest would be the governance of state colleges and universities. The composition and the number of members of the governing boards need to be reviewed taking into consideration factors of economy, autonomy and efficiency. One observation is that the CHEd should no longer be on the governing boards since CHEd is the highest policymaking body in higher education, and the SUCs are bound by such policies. The presence of CHEd simply interferes with the SUCs’ internal governance and can be seen somehow as a possible concern for conflict of interest. Instead, CHEd should implement its management audit functions over SUCs rather than micromanage them to an unhealthy extent.

Admittedly, the past 29 years have not seen the development of the higher education system and the HEIs as potent tools in the rapid economic growth of the country. We have not attained the levels of educational development of other Asean neighbors, which have placed dozens of their academic institutions in international academic rankings like the Times Higher Education World university rankings or the Quacquarelli Symonds university rankings. Up to now, the four top Philippine universities continue on their roller-coaster ride in the global academic rankings.

While there are some gains with the entry of a few Philippine HEIs in the Asian rankings, 29 years is an awfully long time to wait. CHEd should show and lead the way through its developmental and progressive leadership and not through its regulatory face. No amount of police power or coercive processes can transform our HEIs, public or private, into world-class institutions of higher learning. Academe is best left alone to flourish and scale greater heights. That’s just the way things should be. Innovation, creativity and high quality are products of the free mind in a free or autonomous environment. That’s why the University of the Philippines, DLSU, Ateneo and UST continue to land in the rankings.

It’s about time Edcom 2 frees up academia and lets a thousand flowers bloom!

Julito D. Vitriolo, PhD, is a lawyer and former executive director 4 at CHEd. Dr. Jose D. Lacson is a former director-general of the National Manpower and Youth Council and the founding director-general of Tesda.