Role of CHED

Download as docx, pdf, or txt
Download as docx, pdf, or txt
You are on page 1of 16

ROLE OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER

EDUCATION IN PROMOTING EDUCATION IN PROMOTING EDUCATION IN PROMOTING EDUCATION IN


PROMOTING

QUALITY EDUCATION QUALITY EDUCATION QUALITY EDUCATION QUALITY EDUCATION

Working Pap Working Pap Working Pap Working Paper Series er Series er Series er Series 201 201 201
2018 88 8--01 0011 01--046 046 046 046

By: Cecilia F. Malolos De La Salle University/Western Philippines University Tereso S. Tullao, Jr.
Angelo King Institute for Economics and Business Studies De La Salle University

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 1

ROLE OF THE COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION IN PROMOTING QUALITY EDUCATION

Cecilia F. Malolos De La Salle University/Western Philippines University


ces_malolos@yahoo.com/cecilia_malolos@dlsu.edu.ph

Tereso S. Tullao, Jr. Angelo King Institute for Economics and Business Studies De La Salle University

Abstract

Quality education is seen as an important contributor to the country’s economic development. The role
of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) in promoting this quality education is embodied in its
legal mandate. As a government agency mandated to ensure that the delivery of quality education is
observed by schools of higher learning to ultimately attain the national development goals and improve
the economic condition of the Philippines, CHED was given enough authorities to perform its bi-focal
roles of being regulatory or developmental. Acknowledging the significance of accreditation in
promoting quality education, quality assurance activities and the different accrediting bodies recognized
by CHED are also presented in this paper. Further, this study also identified different role indicators that
were used in the development of an instrument that can be used to hasten the classification process of
the policies and guidelines issued by CHED through its CHED Memorandum Orders (CMOs).
Acknowledging the limitation that this paper analyzed only the CMOs issued from 2013 to 2017, this
study recommends further analysis of other CMOs issued in the past or will be issued in the future so
that CHED’s performance can be gauged more appropriately.

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 2

1. Introduction Education is recognized to be a global need. Recognizing its importance in promoting


self-sufficiency and world peace, world leaders saw to it that when they drafted the Universal
Declaration of Human Rights after the World War II, they also declared, once and for all, the basic
human rights that should be accorded to every human being, regardless of economic, social, cultural,
and political circumstances. The member-nations of the United Nations specifically included “the right
to basic education” as part of the 30 Basic Human Rights. As such, the UDHR became an instrument that
compelled all national governments to be responsible in providing what is needed to make sure that
basic education is accorded to all its citizens (UDHR, 1948).

Decades after the historic promulgation of UDHR in 1948, the Global Education for All Meeting (GEM)
was held in 2012, whereby the United Nations Education Services and Children’s Organization (UNESCO)
urged its member states to implement and monitor the Education for All (EFA) program (UNESCO &
DepEd, 2017) . So from a global standpoint, education has the capacity not only to promote self-
sufficiency and world peace, but can also be considered as a factor that can contribute to a country’s
economic development since according to studies, an individual’s level of education significantly affects
his economic status: the higher the level of education, more economic opportunities become available
to the individual.

Similarly, looking through the perspective of industry practitioners, human capital is considered as the
company’s best resource such that the importance of having a quality education prior to employment
cannot be underestimated (Karaboga & Sehitoglu, 2016). This idea that an individual’s level of education
can affect his economic status can be related to human capital theory which emphasizes that education
plays a significant role towards an individual’s personal development and ultimately the country’s
economy. It further states that since an individual is able to achieve its optimum capacity for growth
through proper education, it thereby gives the country’s policymakers an inherent responsibility to
make sure that the country’s educational system is geared towards proper directions (Jin & Jin, 2014;
Symaco, 2013).

In the context of education as a driver of economic development, the aspirations of the Filipinos to
improve the lives of the marginalized sector can be seen through the provision of basic education and
life skills, thereby helping them become more self-sufficient, are embodied in the Philippine Education
for All (EFA) of 2015 program and the Philippine Development Plan (PDP) 2011–2016. The EFA law and
the PDP 2011–2016 are government mechanisms that ensure access to basic education and that life
skills learning are available to Filipinos, both young and old.

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 3

In line with these EFA of 2015 and PDP 2011–2016, economic initiatives were also geared towards the
improvement of the country’s Gross Domestic Product (GDP) from 6.5% in 2014 to 8.5% by the end of
2016, cut down unemployment rate from 7% to 6.5% by 2016 and ultimately bring down the poverty
incidence from 25.2% in 2012 to 18% by the end of 2016 (UNESCO & DepEd, 2017).

However, since EFA’s initiatives are mainly focused on functional literacy, studies had shown that the
employment that may be generated by the beneficiaries of the program maybe focused on subsistence
level only because in the true context of economic development, basic education is insufficient to
address a country’s GDP issues, and this is where higher education plays a very significant role since it is
through higher education that meaningful decision-making skills and better opportunities necessary to
have an impact in the country’s economy are developed and arise from (Browne & Shen, 2017 and
Faruq & Taylor, 2011).

Furthermore, higher education is also seen as an underlying factor that contributes to the individual’s
propensity to engage in entrepreneurial activities especially with the Filipino youths now, since they are
found to have more inclination to become entrepreneurs after they had earned their respective
degrees, which ultimately contribute to the economic development of the country (Gozun & Rivera,
2017).

Having established the importance of education in economic development, it is, therefore, necessary
that it is not just something that is only good on paper. To have a significant impact to the development
of a country, education, therefore, must be of good quality and something that is transformative in
nature so that it can also generate a labor force who is equipped to make a difference. But if these
assumptions are correct, the government needs to do something for this to become a reality, such as
investing in higher and more advanced education.

However, given the very limited financial resources available to a country, prioritizing an increase in
government support will always be a dilemma for governments (Annabi, 2017). Sadly, the belief that
investments made by the government in advanced levels of education or on a very good educational
system will yield high skilled technicians and professionals is somehow seen to be easier said than done
for poor countries such as the Philippines (Tullao & Cabuay, 2013).
But whether it is and will be difficult for the government to finance a very good education system given
its meager financial resource, it still needs to ensure that it provides a mechanism that promotes the
delivery of higher learning and advanced education. It cannot just let higher education institutions
(HEIs), or any institutions for that matter, operate and offer educational programs to the public
according to their whim. HEIs must be monitored, evaluated, and regulated to ensure that their
educational services meet certain standards in relation to the

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 4

global and national development goals. In the Philippines, the government agency mandated to oversee
those tasks is the Commission on Higher Education (CHED).

To be fair in evaluating the performance of an agency, it is of paramount importance that the evaluation
is entrenched to the main purpose why the agency was created in the first place. In the case of CHED, it
is RA 7277.

Republic Act 7277, otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994, created the Commission on
Higher Education. With the passing of this law, CHED was mandated to be the overseer of the
implementation of quality higher education in the Philippines. As such, CHED performs different roles in
exercising the powers and functions through the policies and guidelines it creates. The policies and
guidelines made by CHED are being disseminated to all concerned through the issuance of CHED
Memorandum Orders or CMOs. Respective institutions, organizations, or individuals are being ordered,
advised, or sanctioned through the issuance of a CMO uploaded and presented on the CHED website,
numbered chronologically and on an annual series basis.

With the foregoing, this paper has tried to assess how CHED has been addressing issues relating to the
promotion of quality of higher education. Specifically, it assessed how CHED exercised its mandated
powers and functions in relation to the performance of its regulatory and developmental roles towards
the attainment of quality higher education in the country in the past five years by assessing the CMOs
issued from year 2013–2017.

1.1 Objectives of the Study

This paper will review and evaluate how the CHED has exercised its mandated roles in ensuring the
delivery of quality of higher education in the Philippines. Specifically, it tried: • to identify and assess
the quality assurance mechanisms employed by CHED to ensure a reliable delivery of quality education
in HEIs in the Philippines; • to review and compare the roles of different CHED-recognized quality
assurance agencies in the Philippines; • to identify the CHED Memorandum Orders issued by the
Commission and evaluate whether they were more regulative or developmental; and • to propose an
instrument that can be used to evaluate the CMOs issued in the past or will be issued in the future.

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 5

1.2 Significance of the Study

Taking into consideration the level of authorities and powers the CHED has in improving the education
system of the country in pursuance of quality higher education, CHED must see to it that they
recommend and implement regulatory policies which are not “anti-developmental and
counterproductive” (Tullao, 2001). Thus, it is vital to know what constitutes regulative policies. In the
same manner, CHED is not only mandated to regulate HEIs operations, but it is also mandated to ensure
that HEI’s delivery of educational services are in consonance with the national development agenda and
will redound to the development of the nation as a whole. Therefore, it becomes important for CHED to
perform two roles sensibly: one that is regulative in nature and the other one that is developmental.

But how do we know that CHED is more keen on being regulative or developmental? As for any
evaluation process, there must be an instrument that will be used to assess something, in this case, the
CHED’s regulatory and developmental roles. Unfortunately, during the conduct of this research, the
researcher was not able to find an instrument that will do just that. And with no such mechanism, it
would be difficult to qualify CHED’s performance in relation to its regulatory and developmental roles.

The task of identifying whether CHED’s activities were geared more on the performance of its regulatory
or developmental role, therefore, becomes the main objective of this paper. With the opening of
economic portals brought about by the ASEAN integration, this paper can provide insights on how CHED
and the country’s policymakers can reconsider their future actions so that CHED’s activities are more in-
sync with regional and national development goals. 2. Review of Related Literature

Quality of Education In the exigency of performing its mandate to oversee the Philippine HEIs’ delivery
of quality education, CHED may perform measures to guarantee that their identified standards are being
met by the HEIs. But what actually is meant by quality of education?

Quality of education is defined differently depending on how it is being used. Some may relate it to
quality of educational programs, facilities, and teachers that help students acquire the necessary
academic skills; but for some authors, it is an element that significantly influences economic growth and
development (van der Bij, Geijsel, & ten Dam, 2016; and Asiyai, 2015).
In the context of the Philippines, CHED defined quality of education in its CMO No. 46, series of 2012,
otherwise known as the “Policy Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance in Philippine Higher Education
through an Outcomes-based and Typology-based Quality

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 6

Assurance” as a fitness for purpose, as evidenced by excellence or distinction, and as a concept that is
transformative in nature.

In terms of quality as a fitness for purpose, CHED emphasized that HEIs should be able to show evidence
of vertical articulation in terms of how they translate their visions, missions, and goals into their overall
academic performance. Similarly, quality, as evidenced by excellence or distinction, has something to do
with the HEIs capacity to deliver and perform beyond the minimum standards set by the CHED. And last
but not the least, quality as a concept that is transformative basically pertains to the HEIs’ culture of
excellence. Meaning, quality of education should not only be seen on papers but must be demonstrated
by how the HEIs operate as an academic institution and ultimately being able to produce the quality of
graduates that can actually compete globally (Licuanan, 2016; RA 7722, CMO 46, s.2012).

Consequently, if CHED wants to assess the quality of education in the Philippines, the adage “what gets
measured, gets done” seems to prove a point. Although there are countless ways that governments can
use to measure the quality of education, accreditation is apparently one of the most recognized and
effective mechanisms that can be adapted in addressing this issue.

To do this, instruments with pre-identified indicators and criteria are used to measure the quality of
education (Sumskaite & Juknyte-Petreikiene, 2016). For example, the European Association for Quality
Assurance in Higher Education (ENQA) has the Standards and Guidelines for Quality Assurance in the
European Higher Education Area which serves as its basis in evaluating HEIs. Under these standards, the
following indicators are observed: quality inside an education system (efficiency & effectiveness),
quality of subjective character, and equality of access to higher education (Petrovskiy & Agapova, 2016).

Quality Assurance

Recognizing that the graduates of HEIs will eventually form part of the country’s labor force,
accreditation serves as a means of quantifying the HEIs delivery of quality of education because it serves
as a measuring rod of how efficient and effective an institution is in the delivery of its services to its
clientele. With issues of globalization, steep competition among institutions, and socio-political changes
looming on the horizon of HEIs all over the world, accreditation bodies see to it that HEIs under their
jurisdiction are able to meet these changes through updated and high-quality education to assure its
students and other stakeholders that their graduates will be at par with the graduates of other
institutions of higher learning (Hou, 2011).

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 7

Towards this end, Philippine HEIs are encouraged to undergo accreditation so that quality of program
offerings may be measured if it is at par with other HEIs offering the same program in the country.
Adriano (2003) stated that it is through accreditation that HEIs are evaluated based on identified
indicators. Benefits of being accredited by an accrediting body may be seen as a means of improving the
present level of academic standards offered by the HEI. Its benefits also transcend to other stakeholders
such that accreditation status of HEIs serves as a guide for parents in choosing their children’s school
because graduates of HEIs that have high accreditation status are seen to have better job opportunities
since companies would rather hire graduates who are from schools of reputable record in terms of its
adherence to high quality standards. Another significance of accreditation is giving the HEI more
capacity to source out funds from benefactors who considers the level of accreditation before they give
their support. Ultimately, those HEIs who has shown consistent adherence to standards and have
acquired the highest accreditation level benefit from deregulations and enjoy autonomy in operating
their institutions.

Aside from rules which prove to be restrictive at times, the CHED also sees to it that standards in terms
of quality of education are met by HEIs by subjecting themselves to voluntary accreditation procedures
(Tullao, 2001). This process of continuous self-improvement and evaluation of HEIs against certain
standards set by accrediting bodies is aptly termed as quality assurance.

Quality assurance is defined as “an ongoing process of evaluating and enhancing the quality of a higher
education system, institution, or program to assure stakeholders that acceptable standards of
education, scholarships, and resources for delivery are being maintained. Quality assurance is about
ensuring that there are mechanisms, procedures and processes in place to ensure that the desired
quality is delivered” (Licuanan, 2016, p. #).

As part of its quality assurance activities, CHED does not only implement projects and programs to
enforce the policies, standards, and guidelines (PSGs) for academic programs and conduct monitoring of
compliance and phase out/closure of non-compliant programs offered by HEIs, but it also implements
Institutional Quality Assurance Monitoring and Evaluation (IQuAME) accreditation and compliance with
international standards.

Historically speaking, quality assurance activities such as accreditation of programs and HEIs was
inexistent before. Adriano (2003) noted that, in the Philippines, voluntary accreditation was first
conceived in the late 1950s by private educators who believed that quality of education must be
measured, monitored, and developed through a system of standards. Seen as an effective mechanism of
quality assurance, the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities (PAASCU);
the Philippine Association of Colleges and Universities– Commission on Accreditation (PACU-COA); and
the Association of Christian Schools, Colleges

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 8

and Universities–Accrediting Agency (ACSCU-AA) paved the way for the implementation of voluntary
accreditation in the country.

There are two umbrella organizations which are recognized by CHED, the Federation of Accrediting
Agencies in the Philippines (FAAP) and the National Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, Inc.
(NNQAA).

The FAAP serves as the country’s umbrella organization of accrediting agencies coordinating body of
other accrediting associations in the Philippines such as the PAASCU, the PACU-COA, and the ACSCU-
AAI. The PAASCU accredits Catholic schools, the PACU-COA accredits the non-sectarian schools, and
ACSCU-AAI accredits the Protestant schools (Adriano, 2003; and CHED, 2014).

Under the umbrella of the NNQAA are the Accrediting Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities in
the Philippines, Inc. (AACCUP) and the Association of Local Colleges and Universities Commission on
Accreditation, Inc. (ALCU-COA) (CHED, 2014).

These accreditation organizations basically accredit institutions by program offerings to assess how they
fair with the minimum requirements of the CHED for each accreditation levels. Although of varying
jurisdictions and quality, four levels of accreditation are used in evaluating institutions and passing each
level of accreditation signifies that the HEI benefits specific administrative autonomy and access to
incentive funds. Consequently, the higher the accreditation level, the higher the benefits that the HEI
gets (Adriano, 2003).

According to CHED data (Table 1), as of 2017, there are 671 HEIs with accredited programs which
accounts for 28.01% of the total number of CHED recognized HEIs. On a program level, there are 6,830
programs that have passed accreditation on different levels. The first level of accreditation is the
Candidate status, followed by Levels I, II, III, and IV.
Based on the CHED consolidated data for the 2016-2017 period, there are 1,222 programs that
underwent and passed the Candidate status, 2,188 for Level I status, 2,711 for Level II status, 1,675 for
Level III status, and only 256 programs were given a Level IV status.

Although consistently increasing in number, the percentage of HEIs with accredited programs—less than
30% of the total HEIs in the country and an annual average rate of less than 2% from 2012-2013 to 2016-
2017—remains low. This is probably because although accreditation is recognized as a very good
mechanism towards quality assurance, the process itself entails a lot of documentation and record
keeping capabilities on the part of the HEI. This could be seen as one major concern on the part of most
institutions who lack internal systems for maintaining data on the

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 9

various quality performance indicators such that they are obliged to get additional manpower to comply
with the accreditation requirements, which of course, entails additional expenses (Bernardo, 2017).

Table 1. Licensure Performance and Accreditation Status of Higher Education Institutions in the
Philippines

Source: CHED, OPRKM-Knowledge Management Division

Centers of excellence and/or Centers of Development

Similar to the accreditation process, CHED adopted quality assurance measures—quality improvement
projects—to promote quality education aimed at improving institutional capacities and capabilities of
HEIs for providing quality education. Quality improvement projects include faculty development; HEI
management development; and the establishment of R&D Centers, COEs/CODs, and National
Agriculture and Fisheries Education System (NAFES) (CHED, 2016).

Higher status than being identified as COEs/CODs are the “Autonomous status” and the “Deregulated
status”. The CHED’s Handbook on typology, outcomes-based education, and institutional sustainability
assessment presented a rather clear distinction among “Autonomous,” “Deregulated,” and “Regulated”
statuses. After due evaluation and the HEI has demonstrated “exceptional institutional quality and
enhancement through internal QA systems, and has demonstrated excellent program outcomes through
high proportion of accredited programs, presence of Centers of Excellence (COE) and/or Development
(COD), and/or international certification”, the HEI may be granted an “Autonomous” status. Similarly,
those HEIs that had “demonstrated very good performance in all indicators” may be granted a
“Deregulated” status. On the other hand, those who were not able to get either an excellent or very
good performance rating and still demonstrates good performance outcomes will be treated as
“Regulated” HEIs.

R&D: Access and Development

Another facet of quality higher education is its strong connection to information and communications
technology (ICT) and research and development (R&D) activities of HEIs. In

Indicator 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Accreditation

No. of HEIs with Accredited Programs 515 566 606 636 671

% of HEIs with Accredited Programs 22.4 24.47 25.38 26.63 28.01

No. of Accredited Programs by Level:

Candidate Status 984 1,195 1,356 1,266 1,222

Level I 1,173 1,345 1,641 1,962 2,188

Level II 1,343 1,644 1,835 2,307 2,711

Level III 725 851 1,199 1,353 1,675

Level IV 110 152 181 189 256 Total (Excluding Candidate Status) 3,351 3,992 4,856 5,811 6,830

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 10

the Philippines, HEI programs are aligned to the national development goals. Aside from encouraging
HEIs to offer programs that are in demand and responsive to the needs of industry, both domestic and
international, CHED supports relevant and responsive research, development and extension (RDE) and
gender and development programs of HEIs (CHED, 2016).

However, in the global research field, the Filipinos’ research talent was observed by other nations as
“less strong” compared to other ASEAN countries, especially in terms of research outputs. However,
citation impact of Filipino researchers seems to be a little higher compared to the world average, which
is believed to have been affected by international collaborations that Filipinos are known to be good at
(Killingley & Ilieva, 2015). In fact, based on CHED data, out of the 777 Philippine scholarly journals, only
28 of the country’s scientific journals made it to the Thomson Reuters and Elsevier’s Scopus database,
19 of which had an impact factor of zero, and the remaining 9 had an impact factor of less than 1
(Tecson-Mendoza, 2015).
To address this issue and encourage further research activities, CHED issued Memorandum Order (CMO)
No. 53, Series of 2016 and Resolution No. 549-2017, which indicated the guidelines for its Journal
Incentive Program (CHEDJIP) and identification of the recognized research journals (Batch 2 grantees)
for 2017-2019. To further strengthen the research capabilities of the Philippine universities, the CHEDJIP
grantees were given financial support to further enhance their publication capacities and other activities
to encourage the conduct and publication of quality researches (CHED CM0 No. 66, 2017; CHED CMO
No. 50, 2017 ).

Based on CMO Nos. 53 and 66, series of 2017, there are two batches of CHEDJIP grantees for the 2017-
2019 period. Each batch has two categories, the Journal Challenge (JC) and Journal Incubators (JI). Below
are the grantees of the program:

Batch 1 Grantees for the CHEDJIP Journal Challenge are: 1. Asia-Pacific Social Science Review – De La
Salle University 2. DLSU Business & Economics Review - De La Salle University 3. Philosophia – Philippine
National Philosophical Research Society 4. The Philippine Journal of Systematic Biology – Association of
Philippine Taxonomists, Inc. 5. Philippine Studies: Historical and Ethnographic Viewpoints – Ateneo de
Manila University 6. Philippine Journal of Veterinary Medicine – College of Veterinary Medicine,
University of the Philippines-Los Baños

Batch 2 Grantees for the CHEDJIP Journal Incubation are: 1. The Normal Lights – Philippine Normal
University

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 11

2. Asia Pacific Journal of Multidisciplinary Research (APJMR) – Lyceum of the Philippines-Batangas 3.


PRISM – Negros Oriental State University 4. Mindanao Journal of Science and Technology – University of
Science and Technology of Southern Philippines/MUST 5. Philippine Journal of Public Administration –
National College of Public Administration and Public Governance, University of the Philippines-Diliman 6.
Philippine Journal of Otolaryngology Head and Neck Surgery – Philippine Society of Otolaryngology-Head
and Neck Surgery 7. Philippine Journal of Medicine – Our Lady of Fatima University 8. Bicol University
R&D Journal – Bicol University

Batch 2 Grantees for the CHEDJIP Journal Challenge are: 1. Humanities Diliman: A Philippine Journal of
Humanities – University of the Philippines-Diliman; 2. Acta Medica Philippina – University of the
Philippines-Manila; 3. Kritike: An Online Journal of Philosophy – University of Santo Tomas; 4. Journal
of Environmental Science and Management – University of the PhilippinesLos Banos; 5. Kritika Kultura –
Ateneo de Manila University;
Batch 2 Grantees for the CHEDJIP Journal Incubation are: 1. The Palawan Scientist – Western Philippines
University 2. Recoletos Multidisciplinary Research Journal – University of San Jose Recoletos 3.
Kasarinlan: Philippine Journal of Third World Studies – University of the PhilippinesDiliman 4. Journal of
Science and Engineering and Technology – Southern Leyte State University 5. Journal of Educational and
Human Resource Development – Southern Leyte State University 6. Science Diliman: A Philippine
Journal of Pure and Applied Sciences – University of the Philippines-Diliman 7. Social Science and
Development Review – Polytechnic University of the Philippines 8. Social Science Diliman – University of
the Philippines-Diliman

Roles of the Commission on Higher Education Towards Quality Education

Through the years, the country’s educational system has gotten complicated due to the proliferation of
both public and private HEIs, such that the government needs to give more attention to the quality of its
educational system through specialized managing and monitoring activities (Fielden, 2008). In the
Philippines, this specialized managing and monitoring activities are being done by CHED.

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 12

CHED was created under RA 7722 in 1994. It is mandated with the responsibility of overseeing the
Philippines’ higher education system. All tertiary programs offered by State universities and colleges
(SUCs), CHED-supervised higher education institutions (CHEIs), private higher education institutions
(PHEIs), and community college (CCs) are under the supervision of the CHED (Musa & Ziatdinov, 2012;
RA 7722, 1994).

As stipulated in RA 7722, below are the powers and functions of the Commission: a. Formulate and
recommend development plans, policies, priorities, and programs on higher education and research; b.
Recommend to the executive and legislative branches priorities and grants on higher education and
research; c. Set minimum standards for programs and institutions of higher learning recommended by
panel of experts in the field and subject to public hearing, and enforce the same; d. Monitor and
evaluate the performance of programs and institutions of higher learning for appropriate incentives as
well as the imposition of sanctions such as, but not limited to, diminution or withdrawal of subsidy,
recommendation on the downgrading or withdrawal of accreditation, program termination or school
closure; e. Identify, support, and develop potential centers of excellence in program areas needed for
the development of world-class scholarship, nation building, and national development; f. Recommend
to the DBM the budgets of public institutions of higher learnings as well as general guidelines for the use
of their income; g. Rationalize programs and institutions of higher learning and set standards, policies,
and guidelines for the creation of new ones as well as the conversion or elevation of schools to
institutions of higher learning, subject to budgetary limitations and the number of institutions of higher
learning in the province or region where creation, conversion, or elevation is sought to be made; h.
Develop criteria for allocating additional resources such as research and program development grants,
scholarships, and other similar programs; provided, that these shall not detract from the fiscal
autonomy already enjoyed by colleges and universities; i. Direct or redirect purposive research by
institutions of higher learning to meet the needs of agro-industrialization and development; j. Devise
and implement resource development schemes; k. Administer the Higher Education Development Fund,
as described in Section 10, which will promote the purposes of higher education; l. Review the charters
of institutions of higher learning and SUCs including chairmanship and membership of their governing
bodies and recommend appropriate measures as basis for necessary action; m. Promulgate such rules
and regulations and exercise such other powers and functions as may be necessary to carry out
effectively the purpose and objectives of this Act; and

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 13

n. Perform such other functions and duties as may be necessary for its effective operations and for the
continued enhancement, growth or development of higher education.

Having these inherent mandates, CHED is authorized to set policies, standards, and guidelines on how
an HEI should be managed to make sure that enhanced competitiveness of graduates is achieved.

Consequently, as a government agency, CHED is mandated to monitor and oversee the operations of all
HEIs (Table 2) in the country. This task is humungous considering that as of the first half of 2017, the
Philippines has 2,396 HEIs, including State Universities and Colleges’ Satellite campuses. Out of that
figure, 1,710 are private HEIs and only 233 are SUCs. Interestingly, among the almost 2,000 private HEIs
in the country, there are only 75 of them that were granted with either Autonomous/Deregulated
status.

Table 2. List of Public, Private, and Autonomous/Deregulated Higher Education Institutions in the
Philippines as of June, 2017

Source: http://web.ched.gov.ph/higher-education-indicators/

In the face of the ASEAN integration and globalization of the economies, the significance of the role of
higher education and HEIs in the Philippines cannot be underestimated. More than it being the primary
overseeing government body, CHED has a bi-focal role that can be categorized as either developmental
and regulatory (Tullao, 2001). To adapt to the changing times, and in the context of internationalization
of education, CHED’s Chairwoman, Dr. Patricia Licuanan, also asserts that CHED needs to perform both
its regulatory and developmental role.

But what does “regulation” means? According to OECD (2002), regulation refers to the “impositions of
rules of government, backed by the use of penalties that are intended specifically to modify […] behavior
of individuals and firms in the private sector”.

INDICATORS 2012-13 2013-14 2014-15 2015-16 2016-17

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

Total HEIs (excluding SUCs Sattelite campuses) 1,871 1,923 1,935 1,934 1,943

Total HEIs (including SUCs Sattelite campuses) 2,313 2,374 2,388 2,388 2,396

Public 219 224 227 228 233

State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) 111 112 112 112 112

SUCs Satellite Campuses 442 451 453 454 453

Local Colleges and Universities (LCUs) 95 98 101 102 107

Others (include OGS, CSI, Special HEI) 13 14 14 14 14

Private 1,652 1,699 1,708 1,706 1,710

Sectarian 345 359 360 359 351

Non-Sectarian 1,307 1,340 1,348 1,347 1,359

Autonomous/Deregulated Private HEIs 64 64 64 75 75

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 14

In the context of higher education, (Licuanan, 2016, p. #) stated that given its mandates, CHED’s
regulatory role “consists of promulgating policies and standards for various types of internationalization
arrangements to ensure compliance with existing laws, the effective delivery of intended outcomes.”
Having mentioned its legal mandates above, CHED’s regulatory roles ensure that the minimum
standards and guidelines prescribed by CHED on the establishment of an HEI and the operation of its
programs in terms of curriculum, qualified dean and faculty, laboratory facilities and equipment, library
facilities, and other support services are in order. In short, CHED enforces and regulates PSGs, regulates
HEI permits to operate, and issues government authorization to operate to HEIs. Issues on the
establishment or closure of private HEIs, course offerings, curricular development, building
specifications, and tuition fees are also regulated by the CHED.
On the other hand, CHED’s developmental role “includes the provision of advisory and technical
assistance in the development and design of internationalization programs, training and capacity
building, and information to guide choices and safeguard the legitimate interest of all stakeholders”
(Licuanan, 2016, p. #).

Obviously, those programs and activities related to research and development, either of human
resource or of other non-human resources such as “Identification of Centers of Excellence/Centers of
Development, voluntary accreditation, faculty development in priority disciplines, financial assistance to
promote and support Research and Development (R & D) Projects of HEIs” are considered as
developmental.

Also, the granting of University Status to deserving HEIs that have proven their excellence in the areas of
instruction, research and extension with highly qualified faculty complement, and very adequate site
and building facilities, library and laboratory equipment, and outstanding achievements of students in
licensure examinations” are deemed as part of the developmental roles of the CHED (SEAMEO
Innovation Technology Report, 2015; Go, 2015).

3. Results and Discussion

The main objective of this paper is to review and evaluate how the CHED has exercised its mandated
roles in ensuring the delivery of quality of higher education in the Philippines. Towards the attainment
of this objective, indicators were used to assess and classify all CMOs issued from 2013 to 2017 which
were available on CHED’s website during the data gathering period.

MALOLOS, C.F. Role of the Commission on Higher Education in Promoting Quality Education 15

CMO Classification Process

With the above literature, CMOs were then classified based on the indicators of roles stipulated in RA
7722 (1994), SEAMEO Innovation Technology Report (2015), Go (2015), and Licuanan (2016). A checklist
(Appendix A) with the identified CHED role indicators was made. The classification process was divided
into two stages; the detailed classification first before the general classification. This means that each
CMO for a given year is assessed based on the detailed indicators on the checklist.
Each CMO was analyzed using the checklist of CHED roles indicators. Those CMOs which did not qualify
to specific indicator were analyzed based on the content of the CMO and are placed on the “Other
Regulatory Policies” or “Other Developmental Policies” column depending on their general
classifications.

It was only after all of the CMOs had been evaluated that the general classification of whether the CMOs
for that year are regulatory or developmental in nature is rendered. The result of this classification
process is then utilized as the basis for assessing whether CHED is keen on performing more its
regulatory or developmental roles.

You might also like

pFad - Phonifier reborn

Pfad - The Proxy pFad of © 2024 Garber Painting. All rights reserved.

Note: This service is not intended for secure transactions such as banking, social media, email, or purchasing. Use at your own risk. We assume no liability whatsoever for broken pages.


Alternative Proxies:

Alternative Proxy

pFad Proxy

pFad v3 Proxy

pFad v4 Proxy