Higher education and how to improve it

The joint resolution of the House and the Senate proposes to amend the restrictive provisions of the 1987 Constitution by adding the phrase, “Unless provided by law,” to the general provisions of Article XIV, Paragraph 2, which provides that all educational institutions shall be owned solely by citizens and corporations or associations at least 60 percent owned by Filipinos.

The intent of the amendment is to give greater flexibility to educational policy so that we can take advantage of the benefits of globalization and innovative developments in higher education.

Congress, in its wisdom to amend the Constitution, should consider simply to replace this section on education with the provisions on education of the original 1935 Constitution.

Provisions of the 1935 Constitution on education.

Article XIII, Sec. 5 of the 1935 Constitution has almost all the ingredients of the 1987 Constitution. The first sentence of that section in the 1935 Constitution said: “All educational institutions shall be under the supervision of and subject to regulation by the State.”

The next 90 words of the section enumerate general and specific directives of educational policy which are reproduced below:

“The Government shall establish and maintain a complete and adequate system of public education, and shall provide at least free public primary instruction, and citizenship training to adult citizens. All schools shall aim to develop moral character, personal discipline, civic conscience, and vocational efficiency, and to teach the duties of citizenship. Optional religious instructions shall be maintained in the public schools as now authorized by law. Universities established by the state shall enjoy academic freedom. The state shall create scholarship in the arts, science, and letters for specially gifted citizens.”

These additional words are essentially the generalities that had guided the formation of educational developments of earlier times since 1901 when Philippine educational policies were inclusive of many developments.

As such, they could become simple guidelines for ordinary policy-making on education.

Progress of education in historical perspective.

The private educational sector experienced advancement and expansion at the secondary and tertiary levels, sectarian and non-sectarian. The private sector tertiary level thrived as an educational business. Domestic and foreign (meaning American) educational investors took to establishing colleges as well as vocational schools.

Gradually, they facilitated the growth of private educational institutions in the Philippines. This came from private educators and from religious mission boards and Catholic religious orders engaged in education.

Private universities across the nation – sectarian and non-sectarian – grew to provide tertiary education to many Filipinos. The public educational system was growing according to the pace of national development. The thirst for higher education was provided by a growing network of private universities in the country.

Many cities in the country became educational centers – Manila and its environs, Cebu, Iloilo, Bacolod, Baguio, Cagayan de Oro, Dumaguete, Zamboanga, prominently among other regions-were becoming centers of private college education.

Throughout the Commonwealth period, the growth of education in general – and of private educational institutions in the secondary and tertiary levels – was steady, providing general commensurate advancement of the nation’s human resources.

The private sector was providing great relief to the burdens of the state’s finances. They were conserved to provide quality mass education for Filipinos and to develop high quality publicly provided higher educational institutions such as UP and normal colleges to set the pace of standards for the nation.

The Second World War brought interruption and destruction, but educational recovery was rapid because early postwar economic rehabilitation was also rapid.

By the 1970s, the Philippine educational system enjoyed a relatively high international and regional prestige. Many regional scholars and trainees were coming to the Philippines to learn from us.

However, the growing economic protectionist policies that began with import and exchange controls during the 1950s, Filipino First policies meant that early private American investments in the educational sector would not be sustained.

Many privately owned colleges would also fail to sustain their operations when, with the advent of inflationary economic conditions, some of these institutions not only suffered from tuition control policies but also from enrollment decreases as economic crisis began hitting many middle class families. This happened especially during the period of economic crisis after the 1980s to the 1990s.

New developments in Philippine private education.

The 1990s was the period when private major Filipino conglomerates began acquiring economically ailing educational institutions. The most dramatic of these was when Lucio Tan acquired controlling interest in the University of the East (UE). The condition of the school was a symbol of the challenges that emerged in the overall private higher educational sector.

Luckily, successful business conglomerates in the country recognized the challenges. Today, these conglomerates have come to support the growth and expansion of the private educational sector.

Having no space to expand on this point, let me just say that most of them are now involved and some are already deeply invested: The Yuchengco Group, the Henry Sy Group, Phinma, Ayala Group, Metrobank, STI, and more.

While this is a good development, let’s not say the educational sector has been saved. There is much to be done in education. This is the objective of the move of Congress to liberalize the provisions of the Philippine Constitution. We can improve the nation’s higher education further. Let more foreign capital help us!

Malaysia‘s example.

It is useful to look at Malaysia’s experience in the field of education to view what might come next. In 1963 when Malaysia became independent, its educational sector at the tertiary level was far less developed than that of the Philippines. It had some good state-run universities and little else.

Malaysia was not shackled to Constitutional provisions like ours on the educational sector. So, it could maneuver policy more freely under day-to-day legislation.

Today, Malaysia has far and away a more developed tertiary educational sector than the Philippines. Its network of publicly funded state tertiary universities and colleges are well-funded and some are internationally regarded. Ten foreign-owned university have branches actively participating in Malaysia’s educational program. There is sufficient private competition to raise the quality of tertiary education.

Malaysia is fulfilling a role as an educational center in the region, educating some 50,000 international students yearly.

For archives of previous Crossroads essays, go to: https://www.philstar.com/authors/1336383/gerardo-p-sicat. Visit this site for more information, feedback and commentary: http://econ.upd.edu.ph/gpsicat/