You are on page 1of 31

Roadmap for

Public Higher
Education Reform
(RPHER)
Before anything else
EXPECTATIONS from the discussion
YOUR BRIEF EXPLANATION on the
importance of State Universities and
Colleges
RPHER defined
RPHER aims to maximize the systems
contribution towards developing competent and
high level human resources and generating
knowledge and technologies needed for advancing
the countrys national development and
competitiveness.
RPHER goals
To rationalize higher education, improve is internal and
external efficiency, optimize resource utilization and
maximize resource generation
To improve quality and standards of education, raise the
level of educational outcomes and increase the social
relevance of its development functions
To expand access to quality higher education among
lower income and disadvantaged
RPHER Vision
State universities and colleges (SUCs) are
made more accountable and capable to the
State through public investments
The Implementation of
RPHER and its effects
A. RATIONALIZE
SUCs
Program Offering
B. AMALGAMATE
SUC Distribution per region
C. REDUCE
State Subsidy
R
A
R
A. RATIONALIZING the number,
distribution and growth of SUCs
and LUCs
Tier System - performance & skills
19
CO: 15 M 1B
Leading
SUCs
37
CO: 7 M 15 M
Tier 1
51
CO: 4M
and below
Tier 2
The higher the placement in
the pyramid, the greater the
budget. Budget allocation is
shared by all SUCs within the
tier, not per SUCs.
*CO: Capital Outlay
Used for building new
infrastructure and facilities.
RATIONALIZING the number,
distribution and growth of SUCs
and LUCs
NOT THE SOLUTION TO THE PROBLEM
Rather, poor performance and skills
roots from the insufficient subsidy from
the government
Instead of helping for the survival, SUCs
resort to unnecessary competition
Rationalization and Budget
Cut
The budget proposed of each SUCs are not fully
given
- Selling or renting of idle assets to
private corporations
- Imposition of various unnecessary
fees
- Increase in tuition from 50%-1000%
- Implementation of student financial
assistance program through
socializing tuition
Rationalization and Budget
Cut
2014 Budget for SUCs
President Aquino on his SONA:
Increase in Education Budget by
6% for 110 SUCs
However, 79 of these will receive cuts specifically on
the allocation for their utility expenses and
infrastructure projects (MOOE and/or Capital Outlay).
UP Budget Cut: 1.43!!
(1.43 Billion Budget Cut)
UP System
Proposal
DBM-approved Govt Approved
(GAA)
2011 P18.54B P5.75B P6.8B (36.82%)
2012 P17.07B P5.75B P7.5B (44.10%)
2013 P18.04B P9.5B P8.6B (46.89%)
2014 P17.1B P8.1B
P 8.098 (47.31)
UP System Budget Under Pnoy
(Source: Philippine Collegian/DBM/Office of the VP for Planning and Finance)
UP Budget breakdown
Proposed DBM-approved
Personal Services P7.74 B P6.02 B
MOOE P5.62 B P2.07 B
Capital Outlay P3.18 B P 9.09 M ***
*** rough estimate
Sen. Pia Cayetano gave P1 Billion to 110
SUCs. Figures above is the rough estimate if
given that P1B is equally distributed to 110
SUCs.
Mechanisms to cover up with
the insufficient budget
STFAP: 2007, implementation of 300% tuition increase
Rationale: Tuition revenues will be allocated to building of new
infrastructures and purchasing of new facilities across UP System
Renting of idle assets
UPD: Ayala Technohub, UP Town Center, Virata School of
Business, etc.
UPLB: Lucio Tan Heritage Park
UPM: Private hospital within UP-PGH
UP Visayas: Love Nature! Park
On UPs budget allocation
and IGP
B. AMALGAMATE SUC
Distribution
MERGING of SUCs and LUCs to one SUC per
region
TIER System
- poor performing SUCs within the
region will be dissolved
Region 7 SUCs
UP Cebu
Cebu Normal University
Leading
SUCs
Cebu Technological University
Negros Oriental State University Tier 1
Negros State College of
Agriculture
Bohol Island State
University
Siquijor State College
Tier 2
Source: Commission on Higher Education (CHED) Resolution Nos. 010-2012 and 069-2012
SUC Distribution
RATIONALIZATION:
The implementation
-- for efficiency CHED and RPHER
This implementation has been piloted in REGION
XI:
University of Southeastern Philippines
Region 11
AMALGAMATION SUC
Distribution
NOT THE SOLUTION problem
Amalgamation::lesser SUCs::lesser budget
allocation
lack of state subsidy
Limits public education access
SUCs not fulfilling its mandate to cater
quality and accessible education to the
Filipino youth
C. RATIONALIZATION of
SUCs/LUCs Program Offerings
1. Closure of inefficient and duplicative
programs particularly those that tend to
crowd out private provision
Crowding out refers to when government must
finance its spending with taxes and/or with
deficit spending, leaving businesses with less
money and effectively "crowding them out.
Source:
http://www.investopedia.com/terms/c/crowdingouteffect.asp
2. Replace the dissolved programs to new programs that
are responsive to industry needs in the governments
five priority areas
job generation
Development of semi-conductor and electronics
Business process outsourcing
Agriculture and fisheries
General infrastructures
USC
BS Nursing
B Gen.
Education
BA Political
Science
BA Tourism
CNU
BS Nursing
B Gen.
Education
BA Political
Science
BA Tourism
For as long as CHED and
the Aquino administration
see the programs offered
by SUCs as duplicative
and inefficient for the
basis of its capacity to
crowd out private
provisions, it will
definitely rationalize
these programs.
Favorable for Private
Schools
RATIONALIZATION of
SUCs/LUCs Program Offerings
NOT THE SOLUTION problem
lack of state subsidy
Limits public education access
SUCs could no longer provide education to students who
desire to take up programs that were dissolved;
students enroll in programs outside of interest
students enroll in private institution and have to suffer
the burden of high tuition
Disadvantageous to non-marketable programs
according to the five priority areas of the
government
REDUCE the State Subsidy
1. NORMATIVE FUNDING FORMULA (NFF)
- It takes into account quality indicators (low quality
programs receive less funding), and government
priorities for national development.
- As an effect, it has been applied in the allocation of
small percentage of the MOOE
D. REDUCE the State Subsidy
2. ADOPTION OF SOCIALIZED TUITION FEE
SCHEME (STFS)
- Financially capable families pay a larger share of
tuition
- A part of their tuition payment shall be used to
support students who come from low income
families
REDUCE the State Subsidy
3. MAKE USE OF IDLE ASSETS AND LANDS IN
PARTNERSHIP WITH PRIVATE SECTORS
- The objective is to enable SUCs to become
more self reliant financially and less
dependent on government subsidy.
(Yes guys, verbatim ni nga naa sa RPHER.)
REDUCTION of State subsidy
NOT THE SOLUTION problem
On NFF: Its the job and the mandate of the State to
make sure that there is enough facilities to ensure quality
education
On STFS: It is not the burden of rich families to pay for
the tuition of students from poor families. It would
instead limit access to poor but deserving students since
SUCs would rather accommodate rich students for it to
become self sufficient. It beats its purpose of enacting
education as a RIGHT.
On usage of idle lands and assets: the State is veering
away from its responsibility to provide greater state
subsidy through passing the burden of survival to the
administration of SUCs
Roadmap to Public Higher
Education Reform (RPHER)
A. RATIONALIZATION of number, distribution
and growth of SUCs and LUCs
B. AMALGAMATION SUC Distribution
C. RATIONALIZATION of SUCs/LUCs Program
Offerings
D. REDUCE the State Subsidy
OUR TASK
1. Rich students pay higher tuition rate to support the poor
students.
Our contention on this logic:
Instead of condemning students to pay for the tuition rates
they have to pay based on income or liabilities, we should
rather urge the government to provide greater state
subsidy.
2. Amalgamation of SUCs and rationalization of program
offerings do not answer the deteriorating quality of education.
Assert for the preservation of SUCs and the programs it
offer, whether marketable or non-marketable.
3. Assert for quality and accessible, even free, education.
Fight for a University of the
People!
Fight for Greater State Subsidy!
SOURCES:
Roadmap for Public Higher Education Reform, 2010-
2016.
Philippine Collegian
[http://www.scribd.com/doc/158365298/Philippine-
Collegian-Tomo-91-Issue-7]
UP Budget Breakdown. Department of Budget and
Management. [http://www.dbm.gov.ph/wp-
content/uploads/Details/DETAILS2014/SUCS/NCR/A8.pd
f]
UP Budget Critique. 2013.

You might also like