Free tertiary education
THE recent signing into law of Republic Act 10931 or the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education by President Duterte was received with joy and relief by the majority of our countrymen. An initial victory for youth and future generations, was the comment made by lawmakers who sponsored the bill and for millions of Filipino families and their children. For any policy that supports access to education, the most valued of all aspirations, is prized by most parents who regard education as the passport in their quest for human security.
Nobody would argue that of all rights, the right to education and health are at the top in the hierarchy of human rights that the average Filipino aspires for. This was the rationale for free primary, then secondary, and now tertiary education. But why did our government economists and other development specialists try to persuade the President to veto the bill? After all, many countries today now provide its citizens free tertiary education, among them Denmark, Sweden, Norway and other Scandinavian countries, Greece, Argentina, Brazil, Uruguay, Turkey, France, Scotland, Germany, Russia, Czech Republic, Trinidad & Tobago. The United States offers two years of free community or technical college for those who are able to maintain a certain average grad. Some countries in Asia – Sri Lanka and Cambodia have started to offer free tertiary education. Some of the best universities and research centers are public institutions.
Our Constitution has given education the highest budgetary priority. Social justice is the centerpiece of our Constitution and we continue to search for means by which we can best address the needs of the most marginalized sectors of our society.
It is precisely this concern that development economists thought that the 100 billion would be better utilized to fund projects that would directly alleviate the plight of our brothers and sisters who live in abject poverty. A large percentage of our people still continue to live in the margins, and at the top of our priorities is that of searching for means by which they can become productive members of society.
Too, case studies of countries that provide government subsidies have shown that the latter are “regressive,” meaning, that they appear to favor the rich. The subsidies have been found to benefit students from middle and high income families. Opportunity costs are high in terms of increase in taxes to fund subsidies which amount to a considerable chunk of the national budget. As in the South African experience, less than 5% of students qualify for higher education. Thus, free tertiary education appeared to have broadened inequality.
In the country, what we have observed is that although most families want a college education for their children, they are at the same time faced with the dilemma of needing extra farm hands in the case of farming and fishing communities. And having to provide for additional expenses. The present law provides additional subsidy for food, clothing and miscellaneous expenses, but nonetheless, the children feel obliged to help their parents.
What the advocates among our lawmakers may consider are how best one can improved the existing conditions in most of our rural and urban poor communities. The need for setting up new learning systems such as distance learning delivered through radio and the new information technology in farming and fishing communities may be an alternative to the traditional SUCS. Farm schools where both parents and children study together are also feasible structures. Restructuring the curricular offerings of the 112 state colleges and universities to ensure that they become more relevant to the needs of the marginalized sectors of society can be considered. The Implementing Rules and Regulations (IRR) should give a realistic picture of the socio-economic background of the beneficiaries of the subsidies. The intent should be towards motivating those who are still out of the formal school system though incentives and subsidies.
The law which will take effect next year will require a total amount 100 billion to fund the 113 state colleges and universities, technical and vocational institutions and local universities and colleges. Since this was not included in the 2018 budget that was just approved, it will have to be taken from “underperforming” agencies and those with poor “absorptive capacity.” And that the long-term benefits to be derived from a well-developed tertiary education will outweigh short-term budgetary challenges according to the lawmakers.
This historical landmark law must not be allowed to perpetuate current imbalances. It should in fact close the gaps and provide the model of what can be done to provide all Filipinos equal protection, the real substance of social justice. My email: