EmUQ. Javier President
University of the Philippines
On at least two earlier occasions, the University of the Philippines has formally presented to Congress its comments on specific provisions of HB 9935. A new round of debate and strong opposition from private schools on the Bill has necessitated its return to the House Committee for further deliberation. Because of its major implications on Philippine higher education, I propose that the debate on the pro- posed Magna Carta for Students be framed more broadly.
taking into account the implicit and major intentions of HB 9935, the educational issues addressed, and the possible directions in reconfiguring Philippine higher education aimed not only to reconcile diametrically opposed views but, more important, to ensure that our education system can more fully respond to the challenges of our time and of the 21~
entury.
I consider it proper for the University of the Philippines to propose this extended analysis in aid of legislation, be- cause of its leadership function as the national university of the Philippines, and because among Philippine higher edu- cation institutions. UP has had the longest record of ac- cording to its students extensive participation in University governance, having granted them the widest latitude in the exercise of their rights as students. We in UP have every intention to continue with these practices which were insti- tuted over the 90-year history of the University, without the benefit of legislation and in the context of dialogue and principled negotiation.
Implicit Intentions of the Bm
An analysis of HB 9935 will reveal that its implicit and major intent is to effect significant reforms in the Philippine higher education system through the exercise of organized
I
student power.The Bill delineates the broad framework for the exercise I f student power in five important ways. to wit:
• by incorporating all the provisions of the 1987 Bill of Rights and applying these to students and their activi- ties;
• by vesting organized student groups with specific pow- ers to coordinate all student activities and to partici- pate in school administration, governance, and policy- making (including the fixing of tuition and other fees) not only at the school level but also at the level of the relevant government agencies (such as CHED);
• by enlarging the scope and practice of student aca- demic freedom to include all aspects of the academic freedoms enjoyed by the faculty and the educational institution, such as: curriculum design and review, ad- missions, scholarship rules, recruitment and promotion of faculty;
• by providing for the mechanism of students' initiative and referendum through which any policy may be in- troduced, modified, or rejected by a simple majority
vote of all students cast in a referendum; and
• by attaching penal provisions such as fines. imprison- ment, dismissal. deportation, and the withdrawal of school operating licenses to those who would restrain,
coerce, or otherwise interfere with the exercise of stu- dent rights and powers as provided in the Bill.
It may be instructive to analyze in wholistic and sys- tematic fashion this proposed architecture of student power, as embodied in the Bill. Let me comment on each of these five aspects.
First, the reiteration of the Bill of Rights, within the limits already set by law, is well intentioned and proper, particularly for college students. Surely these rights, which are of general application and which embody the liberties of citizenship, cannot be abridged simply on account of one's status as a student.
Second, empowering the student council with the sale authority to coordinate the activities of all student organi- zations as well as their accreditation is part and parcel of responsible student governance. However, these must be circumscribed by respect for the rights of those students who do not wish to be organized, or those who oppose policies set by the student council; and by accountability for the disbursement of funds collected from student fees to defray the operating expenses of the student council and the student newspaper.
Moreover, the enforcement of non-violence, particularly in fraternity and sorority initiation rites and inter-fraternity relations, must not be the sale prerogative of the student council. Too many acts of violence arising from such ac- tivities, resulting in permanent injury to or death of stu- dents have occurred and continue to occur. It is proper for school authorities to lay down and enforce their own policies and rules to prevent such violence, particularly in the face of a recent Supreme Court ruling which holds school authorities liable for damages for the death of a student on campus, if it can be shown that the school has failed to exercise -due diligence and care in safeguarding the safety and well-being of its students.
The participation of student representatives in school administration, governance and policy-making such as mem- bership in the governing board and other school commit- tees, is not in itself objectionable, provided that it is un- derstood by student groups that at this level, the delibera- tions are not intended to advance and protect student in- terests only but also the interests of other stakeholders as well as the mission and objectives of the school, and its contribution to the common good. Thus, for example, the matter of policies on tuition and other fees, particularly for private schools which receive no public subsidy, and the pursuit of quality education at affordable cost should be balanced against the continued financial viability of the institution. In any case, at the higher level, it is the duty of CHED (Commission on Higher Education), TESDA (Tech- nical Education and Skills Development Authority) and DECS (Department of Education Culture and Sports) to prescribe and enforce accreditation and tuition fee regulatory mea- sures fairly and firmly, in order to distinguish between schools with a mission orientation and those which wish only to profit from the education enterprise.
C
"tJ G)
i o
If a-
7
l6' Q
3
If ., .... l8
~
129
~
Q):;,
E
g
130
Third, on the enlargement of student academic freedom to include the power to pass upon purely academic deci- sions, itis necessary to remind ourselves of the distinction between: lal the exercise of student power to ensure tsir- ness, and (b} the exercise of student power against the authority of competent knowledge. The latter is protected by the academic freedom of the faculty since it makes no sense to insist upon a "democracy of judgment" in decid- ing for example, on the education. and training of doctors, engineers, scientists, or lawyers.
Faculty members, by reason of rigorous study in the disciplines and the professions, earn the right to their aca- demic freedom by continuing study and scholarly work.
They must police their own ranks, as it were, through peer review, or the approval of their creative works and research by their colleagues. Academic excellence thrives in an at- mosphere of openness and critical analysis, freedom, re- flection and speculative thought. Through the centuries, academics have successfully resisted outside pressures to influence the conduct and outcome of purely academic de- cisions. This is as it should be, for our society owes it to itself to ensure that our scholars, artists, scientists, and professionals are as competent as they can be for our con- tinued well-being and progress.
Those who dismiss the academics' objection to the use of student power in these matters, by saying that the stu- dent representative is only one of many in academic corn- mittees. miss the basic point of academic freedom and are in danger of succumbing to mere tokenism. Providing for the mandatory evaluation by students of the course and the professor's teaching competence at the end of every semester, for example, is entirely proper becausertis within the students' competence to make this evaluation. It is the duty of the faculty in the exercise of academic freedom to seriously consider the results of this evaluation and to insti- tute corrective measures, if necessary. It is also the right of students to insist that such evaluation be considered by the faculty.
At the level of CHED, proposals to suspend a school's permit or license to offer a degree program where gradu- ates consistently perform poorly in licensure examinations deserve support.
Fourth, the provisions giving students the power to in- troduce, modify, appeal, or reject any school policy by simple majority vote through the mechanism of students' initiative or referendum are unacceptable. Any student, faculty mem- ber, or staff should be able to call attention to the need for a policy, criticize, suggest modifications or appeal a school policy, as individuals or members of a group. But granting students a de facto veto power over all school policies en- courages the flexing of raw student-power, a direction which is unacceptable, difficult to defend and is in fact danger- ous, for several reasons.
• it unduly politicizes the conduct of higher education the main functions of which after all are to create and transmit knowledqe, and to train and educate compe- tent and responsible citizens who will serve our coun- try in their time, and serveitwell;
• it wreaks havoc on the institutional structure of admin- istration and governance by diluting the powers of fi- nal decision of the governing board subject only to recourse to higher authority (such as CHEDI or to the courts;
• finally. it will reduce the school into an arena of pitched battle, with skirmish lines permanently drawn between and among the conflicting interests of organized stu-
dent groups, the academic freedom of the faculty and academic institutions, and the school's highest gov- erning body. This situation is a prescription for con- stant conflict, and threatens the very nature, mission and goals of higher education.
Fifth, on the penal provisions of the Bill: Subjecting school administrators to penal sanctions for not being able to comply with managerial functions that are not even mandatory in nature is fraught with danger. There are already existing legalsanctions attached to the Bill of Rights, as well as the Civil Service Law which govern the acts of public sector employees.
Certain provisions identify as rights, subject to manda- tory provision, what properly should constitute best ef- forts (e.g., right to adequate welfare services, right to stu- dent housinq, right to quality education), and then sub- jects a failure or deficiency of these efforts to penal sanc- tions, This by no means constitutes fair le3islation, is in fact oppressive, and should therefore be completely re- jected.
Even as we must point out and object to specific pro- visions which are prejudicial to our own interests, we must also empathize with the viewpoint of those who are advo- cating special interests which countervail our own. Other- wise the single-minded pursuit of special interest regard-.
less of its effects on other groups, will amount to soeciel!
pleading which will not benefit the public interest.
Educational Issues and Present Situation of Philippine Higher Education
Educational issues of access, quality and relevance, flexibility and affordability, addressed in this Bill are real issues which now require us to take a closer look at the nature, structure and functions of our entire education system.
The tenacity shown by organized student groups in pur- suing the passage of this Bill is itself a symptom of the problems of the present Philippine higher education sys- tem. It is perhaps fair to say that because of their very numbers - 2 million students or 35% of the total number of college-age Filipinos - the students are the ones on whom these problems weigh most heavily.
The demand for access and quality education is ex- pressed in the Bill as a guiding principle:
"Education is a right and not a mere privilege. It • is therefore the responsibility of the State to pro- vide quality education accessible to all."
Together with another srated principle that:
"the educational system should be given priority attention and support by government,"
the demand for access is operationally translated to open admission in any field of study offered, "security of ten- ure" until graduation, and a prohibition on the exaction of waiver documents as prerequisite to admission.
The demand for quality and relevance is translated to the right of students to competent instruction, to adequate academic and other student facilities on campus, such as housing, to demands for participation of students in aca- demic committees, free exercise of student academic free- dom, and freedom from "any form of indoctrination lead- ing to imposed ideological homogeneity."
The issue of . affordability of education is expressed in terms of excessive school fees, involuntary contributions and prohibition from taking examinations due to unpaid tuitton.
.~e~e is~ueshave their roots in the present situation of Philippine higher education. A brief description of its char- acter Will suff'ce at this point.
As with the elementary and secondary education levels, our higher education system is narrowly limited to a large formal residential sector and virtually nothing else by way of continuing education in a more open and varied learning system. Thus at present, when one speaks of pursuing a higher education, it is understood to mean only formal edu- cation of the residential or campus type. Here we will have to address the issue of flexibility, which is coming to the fore in the face of the challenges of the 21st century.
Second only to Japan in the Asia-Pacific Region in its magnitude, the formal higher education sector [in the Phil- ippines] now includes 1,286 colleges and universities, and two million students. Fully 35 percent of college-age Filipi- nos are now enrolled in colleges and universities of highly uneven quality and provision. The participation rate of 35%
is as high as those in advanced industrial countries like Ja- pan, the U.S.A., U.K. and Germany. This high demand for a college education, coupled with scarce government re- sources, accounts for the large role of the private sector in higher education which now stands at 85%. Except for a few tax exemptions, private schools do not enjoy any gov- ernment subsidy in spite of their provision of a public ser- vice.
For as long as both public and private universities were for the elite, as they were in the Philippines until roughly e period of the 1960's, questions of quality, costs, and access were of minor significance. However, several fac- tors have conspired to unduly expand formal higher educa- tion. Among these we can cite: 1) the expansion of sec- ondary education, 2) the abbreviated span of formal basic education which at 10 years is two years short of the stan- dard 12 years available in most countries, 3) the slow and unsteady growth of our economy which has resulted in the inability of our labor market to provide enough jobs to ab- sorb new entrants into the labor force, and consequently, 41 the increase in the educational attainment of the workforce as measured by mean years of schooling which rose from 5.1 to 7.8 mean years of schooling between 1965 and 1992 (Edita Tan, If We're So Smart, Why Aren't We Rich, E. de Dios, ed., p. 75).
The net effect of the combination of these factors on formal higher education has not been entirely salutary, giving rise to those four issues of access, quality and relevance, flexibility and affordability given earlier. As of 1987, as eported by EDCOM (1991), the subsidy structure for SUCs is 73% from government and 23% from tuition. Private higher education institutions (HElsl are 96% tuition- dependent; the rest are from donations and investment incomes. Private HEls of better quality are, in general, less dependent on tuition since endowment funds and investment incomes are probably higher. In all, total public spending for higher education which of course must be balanced against other public expenditures stands at only 28%; the rest are borne by students and their parents, and a little trom donations.
However, this picture does not yet convey the whole situation for, if we consider the college students in their huge numbers, we must understand the psycho-social effects of this situation on them. Coming from high school at age 17 (and now even younger since the starting age for Grade One has been reduced from age 7 to age 6), the majority find themselves concentrated in campuses with generally less than adequate facilities and sub-standard housing, in large classes where they would remain anonymous and generally without nurturing and guidance.
Later in their years at college, they become acutely aware
that, even after at least four (4) years of this situation, there is really nothing much for them in the labor market, except to work abroad or to compete for scarce jobs in the domestic market for which they may actually be overqualified. The figures on steady increases in the mean years of schooling for all sectors, except for professionals, does not mean an increase in the technical requirements of work but on labor demand not being able to keep up with labor supply. They figure out correctly, however, that their chances for employment are better with a college education of any kind or quality. The 1991 figures show that for college-educated labor, total unemployment rate is 14.5% as against 19% for the high school-educated IEdita Tan, p. 73).
In this situation of concentration of numbers, sub-stan- dard education, alienation and uncertainty, and without the matrix of a mass movement such as was the case in the 1960s, it is possible to imagine that the trajectory of student power would be purely on the conditions of their education, demanding access to it while bewailing its high cost and, poor quality and irrelevance, such as is being presented in HB 9935.
Reconfiguring Post-Secondary Education One way out of this impasse, and one that is already emerging from dramatic developments in the nature and technology of work, as well as in the so-called knowledge industries, is to reconfigure post-secondary education into continuing education within an open lifelong learning sys- tem, attuned to the existing and emerging requirements of the economy and to the humanistic motivation to learn for its own sake and for one's development.
The students' demand that education for all is a righ,t is essentially correct, but it need not be an education ina lock-step, ladder-type, residential formal system all the way up 10higher education, which is both inflexible and expensive.
The society of the future which is already upon us will be primarily knowledge-based, requiring its members to keep up with rapid changes and to learn on their own, thus the need for a flexible and varied education system which should be accessible to all.
A good quality f2-year formal basic education for all is a mandatory requirement: one where students learn the elements of problem-solving, scientific thinking, self-man- agement and learning to learn; one which inculcates adeep local and national identity, an abiding faith in God and goodwill for one's fellows, a substantive understanding of and participation in community life and development, as well as
a
commitment to our national purpose.After this, a whole range of possibilities and arrange- ments for lifelong learning and continuing education pro- vided by schools, industries, local government units, pri- vate groups, NGOs can be made available: courses which intersperse formal study with work, apprenticeship pro- grams, short-term skills courses, degree programs of good quality on campus or through distance education or a good mix of these, industry-based technical-training programs, community-based livelihood and skills training programs, refresher or updating programs such as are now required periodically for all professionals, and of course universi- ties of the residential type or open universities in the dis- tance education mode.
These programs will blur distinctions between formal andnon-tormet education, distance and residential type, youth and adult, in-school and out-of-school, student and non-student. Eventually these developments will redefine
C"tI G)
i o
~
tT(\)
7
o
(\)
o
(\)
3
tT(\)