Following the concept paper for this Second Annual NIUFE Conference, the four NIUFE regional convenors for Mindanao sent out the questionnaires to tertiary-level institutions in Mindanao. The responses from the schools were not too enthusiastic: about a third as an average; a little over forty percent for Region X; a little over twenty percent for Region XI.
Except for Region XII, regional consultations were convened to comment on draft papers on the two suggested subtopics: “Financing Higher Education vis-a-vis Socioeconomic Growth Trends and Needs and the Vision of an Improved Quality of Life for the Filipino” and “Financing Higher Education relative to Resource Capabilities or Tertiary -Level Institutions.” These regional consultations were multisectoral, with representatives from academe, public and private, government, business and industry and NGOs.
Towards mid-September a Mindanao area consultation was held in Davao City. In attendance were the regional convenor of Region IX assisted by a colleague, the regional convenor for Region X, a representative sent by the regional convenor of Region XII and four representatives from the host region, Region XI.
The Mindanao area consultation discussed the process and the results from the questionnaires and the regional consultations. The meeting decided that instead of presenting two papers from Mindanao at this Conference, one for each of the suggested topics, two summary papers would be presented — one from the point of view of SUC’s and the other from the point of view of private schools. This highlights the radical difference in funding and fund-sourcing for SUC’s and private schools.
This paper from the point of view of private schools will treat mainly of the second topic: “Financing Higher Education relative to Resource Capabilities of Tertiary-Level Instructions.”
From the beginning the following caveats should be kept in mind:
1. Average response from the school in the different regions averaged only about thirty percent. Hopefully the responses received were representative of most schools .
2. Probably due both to a faulty questionnaire and careless reading of the questionnaire and careless answers, the data which could be derived from the questionnaires were at best spotty and incomplete.
However, despite these shortcomings, the data received were reasonably similar uniform and consistent, and verifiable from other sources, especially from the EDCOM Report of 1992.
Mindanao and the Schools
The schools feel that at present Mindanao needs graduates in agriculture, technology and engineering, education and business. The schools also feel that they are producing the graduates needed for the development of Mindanao. The schools also feel they are contributing towards the development of Mindanao.
This may not be the proper forum for a discussion of the developmental concerns and priorities for Mindanao. Clearly this would greatly affect the schools and their offerings.
The Resources of the Schools
1. The resources schools have are their faculty, physical facilities, library and other learning resources, and research/laboratory facilities.
Data from Region XI give us a sampling of the responses.
Making use of standard FAAP accreditation levels 1-3, with three as highest, Faculty was deemed at level 1 by one school, at level 2 by five schools and at level 3 by three schools. Two schools said their Physical Plant was at level 1, two schools placed their Physical Plant at level 2 while five schools placed their Physical Plant at level 3.
One school placed Library and other learning facilities at level 1, four schools at level 2 and four schools at level 3. Research and Laboratory facilities were rated at level by three schools, at level 2 by four schools at level 3 by two schools.
Six schools did not give ratings to these school resources because they are not yet accredited or have not done any work towards accreditation.
2. Of the fifteen respondent schools, two had full-time faculties of over a hundred teachers; four have between fifty and a hundred, while the remaining nine schools had less than fifty FT faculty members.
Regarding the percentage of FT faculty with master’s and higher degrees, percentages went from a low of zero percent to a high of 67%. The median percentage was about 14%.
Percentage of doctorate degree holders had a high a 7 percent. Half of the schools did not have a single faculty members with a doctorate.
Most of these graduate degrees were in the field of education.
3. Faculty salaries varied but were uniformly low and over rather narrow ranges. One school had monthly salaries ranging from P2,417 to P3,000. The “best” range was from P3,942 to P7,674. Most faculty salaries ranged from three to four thousand pesos monthly.
For schools which reported hourly pay, the ranges were from P28-40; P35-55; P50-57; and P50-100.
Faculty benefits varied but generally included study and leave privileges and education benefits for dependents. Some schools also had education benefits for dependents. Some schools also had housing and various levels of health and hospitalization.
How are Schools Financed?
Again data from Region XI will give us a sampling of the responses.
1. Tough there was a question requesting that approved schedule of fees for SY 1990-91 be attached, only half of the respondent schools did so. We do not know why the questionnaire asked for fees for SY 1990-91.
Per unit charges per semester in SY 1990-91 varied from a low of P15 at public community college to a high of P99.95. The other schools had similar semester per unit tuition charges: P65 for first year and P54.32 for upper years; P70 for freshmen; and 63.65 for upper years; P72; P77.80; P80.
2. To the question inquiring about sources of income other that tution and other schools fees, the two public schools checked government subsidy or assistance. Of the private schools five said they had no other sources; two checked government subsidy or assistance but without specifying how (could this be the grants given to students by the government?); one school indicated rentals and interest income; and three other schools said they received government assistance or grants from other sources. The level of these other sources as a percentage of total income was not indicated.
3. To the question asking about major problems related to financing current degree programs, one public school said they offered no degree programs. Three schools said “no problems” or did not answer the question.
The other schools mentioned that faculty salaries were low and could not be made higher because of limited tuition income. Some mentioned DECS constrains on tuition increases; at the same time these schools were concerned about the paying capacity of their clientèle. A few schools mentioned more specific constraints such as a recent fire or the recent drought.
The responses agree that to provide quality education tuition alone is not able to adequately support a school. However, as one school put it, “fund raising is slow due to response of people. Lack of social concern. “One public school mentioned “lack of instructors, lack of government support and lack of market to buy their produce.”
4. To cope with these financial difficulties, schools have tightened up their financial control systems and have sacrificed other needs of quality education (especially to be able to take care of salaries). They have also continued to look for other sources of funds, especially for scholarship, special projects and capital expenditures.
5. As more long-term solutions to these problems, schools recommend government subsidies and grants to private schools, even for part of the salaries of faculty. They also propose less control and restrictions from DECS on school tuition and fees. They also propose that government should provide more funds for scholarships for students in private schools. Some also recommend that small programs either be phased out or merged with others and that duplication of courses offered in the same localities be better rationalized.
Summary, Recommendations and Conclusions
1. The data provide by the questionnaires, though skimpy, say that tertiary-level educational institutions are having a difficult time providing equaly education. SUCs say that except for a few they are inadequately funded by the government. Private schools which provide for the greater majority of college-level students in the country are almost completely tuition-dependent.
Tuition charged at Mindanao private schools are about a fourth of fifth of what the top Manila schools are able to charge.
While schools deplore too much control from DECS, especially with regards to the tuition they may charge, these same schools are also worried about the ability of their clientèle to continue to pay the ever-rising costs of higher education.
And yet tuition charges must continue to rise if these are the only source of ever-increasing (and still very inadequate) teacher/staff salaries and of the other costs of schools operations.
We cannot over-stress that fact that quality education will have its costs: better teachers with better academic qualifications deserve better salaries; libraries and laboratories have costs which are often foreign-currency and foreign-economy related since more sophisticated equipment and better library books come from abroad; it remains doubtful how much of capital expenditures and expansion of school facilities could be financed by tuition and the usual operational income of schools.
And while we may complain about the ever-rising cost of education, tuition charges of Philippine private schools remain very low compared to schools abroad. In general per capita expenditures at Philippine schools are also much lower than comparable education in other countries. As EDCOM documents, Philippine expenditure for education as a percentage of GNP stands at 1.3%; expenditure for education as a percentage of GNP is 3.7% for Indonesia, 3.6% for Thailand, 6% for Malaysia. The average for all Asian countries is 3.3%.
2. DECS regulations prescribe that faculty at tertiary-level institutions should possess appropriate graduate degrees. The data given confirm that the great majority of faculty in most schools do not possess appropriate graduate degrees.
And faculty development for appropriate graduate degrees is very expensive. It includes present salaries and an appropriate living allowance (since many must go to Manila schools) and the tuition and other school fees. In addition, the salaries of replacement faculty must be paid.
3. The main cost in schools is faculty and staff salaries. Salaries of Teachers have remained ridiculously low in comparison to business and industry, and yet teachers are expected to pursue more education.
While it may not be possible to equal salaries in business and industry, salaries of teachers should be dramatically improved, if quality education is to be had.
4. Even the 1992 EDCOM Report does not say mush about the financing of higher education, most of which is provided by private tuition-dependent schools.
EDCOM concentrates on the necessity of giving first and foremost attention to basic education, most fof which is provided in public schools.
For higher education, EDCOM recommends that the financing of SUCs be reviewed, especially with regard to the present system of subsidizing all and with regard to the efficiency of their use of funds. While EDCOM notes that private schools seem to generally have lower per student cost, it adds that “there is need to evaluate whether . . . [this] . . . is the result of lower quality or higher efficiency.”
The EDCOM also shows concern about the “mismatch” between what graduates had taken and job opportunities.
EDCOM recommends that all income generated by SUCs be retained for their use; it further recommends that scholarships and tuition subsidies be increased for priority courses. It recommends the possibility of socialized tuition schemes in some private schools. It recommends that the private sector be brought in for grants for graduates they need, for incentives for research outputs they are interested in, etc.
While EDCOM recommends the expansion of the voucher system, it is not clear whether this is only for basic education or for all levels. It should be noted that the voucher system will not effectively help private education if tuition charges remain low and inadequate for better faculty/staff salaries.
It would seem that due to the scarcity of public monies and the serious needs of basic education EDCOM has presupposed that government will have most of tertiary-level education to private schools. The highest realistic level of assistance government may be able to give private schools seem to be to leave them alone and to allow market forces to dictate their charges (and even their existence), while hopefully also maintaining a realistic level of educational quality.
We should note that through the Department of Science and Technology government is assisting a few selected engineering schools and graduate schools for equipment and faculty development.
5. The financing of tertiary-level education remains most problematic and there seem to be no ready and easy solutions in sight.
SUCs should be required to offer quality education and to make use of scarce government funding and other resources made available to them. There should be a moratorium on the establishment of new SUCs. SUCs should seriously review present practice of subsidizing all students and at the same level.
Private schools will continue to be mostly dependent on tuition and other fees. Government should be encouraged not only to accept them as partners and to allow them greater administrative and fiscal autonomy but also to give them support through student vouchers and scholarship,support for equipment and faculty development and even for salary supplements for faculty.
ZABAPS, the association of private schools in Region XI, summarized their main reflections and recommendations:
a. The association is encouraged by the DECS Secretary A. Fabella’s statements that his “priorities will stress greater curricular flexibility and equality in regulatory treatment between public treatment between public and private schools.”
b. The association is not concerned about the problems of equity of access and quality of education.
c. The association supports greater fiscal autonomy for private schools.
d. The association does not feel that schools should operate parallel “business ventures” just to enable them to continue in their main task of education.
e. The association supports a voucher system to be adopted by the government. It makes recommendations on how to arrive at a fair and equitable value of the voucher.
f. The government should more actively assist faculty development programs for advanced degrees.
6. For the development of the whole country and to minimize too much movement to Manila and the resulting talent drain to Manila from the provinces, it is imperative that there be genuine centers of academic excellence in the provinces, comparable to Manila schools.
7. As a nation we should seek a better understanding and rationalization of our educational system, especially on the college/university level. While out Constitution mandates that the “State . . . protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels and . . . to make such education accessible to all,” are we able to afford the very extensive system of college and university education that we have, especially seems to have been greater access to all, but at the sacrifice of educational quality.