Chapter OneIntroduction

Background of the Study

Education is indeed an indispensable factor in the development of a

sustainable economy. In this regard, every state pursues to equip their people

with the necessary skills to help in building the nation. This can only be done, of

course, by proper training in educational institutions. In order to give every citizen

the opportunity to have education, the state provided it for free with the

establishment of public elementary and also secondary schools. This is in line

with Article XIV, Section I of the 1987 Constitution which requires the State “to

protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels” and

to “take all appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all”.

In adherence to this constitutional mandate, the government has

established state universities to absorb the majority of the Filipino high school

graduates and to give them an opportunity to have a good future. In these state

universities, tuition fees are apparently cheaper than those of private universities

and this is so because the target enrollees of these state-owned universities and

colleges are the have-nots.

Since education is said to be an essential factor in the nation-building,

supposedly, the education sector should be receiving the major share of the

government budget. However, this is not the case. Apparently, the 2011 budget

of the state universities and colleges has been decreased by the government and

now it is under deliberation in congress for scrutiny and approval.

This paper entitled, “The effect of the budget allocation of the government

to state universities and colleges in metro manila, aims to determine the

1

consequences of the insufficient budget allocation to state universities and

colleges.

Brief History

The Philippine Educational System is a clear example of a boat sailing in a

body of changes and challenges. It has in fact followed the same pattern of

education as that of the rest of the world. It has passed through various stages of

development and undergone dramatic changes depicted in the various era of

educational evolution. Its long years of exposure and contact with the Spaniards,

Americans, and Japanese have created a spectrum of educational variations and

lines of emphasis.

The impact of the three colonizers is still reflected on the present-day

educational system’s thinking and practices. The Educational Decree of 1863

made possible the establishment of a complete secondary and collegiate levels

of instruction; the provision for government supervision and control of these

schools; and the establishment of teacher training institutions (Estioko, 1994).

For almost 333 years, the Spaniards were successful enough propagating

Christianity, thus making the country as the only nation in Asia practicing the

Catholic religion. The Americans, for their part, laid down the foundation of a

democratic system of education through Act No. 74. The coming of the

Thomasites not only facilitated the gradual easing of feelings of rancor and

animosity of the Filipinos towards the new colonizers but also has infused in

them the spirit of democracy and progress as well as fair play (Martin, 1980).

More importantly, with academic English Language and Literature as their focus,

the American influence on the Filipino mentality has made the Philippines as the

third largest English speaking nation in the world. The country’s exposure to the

Japanese, though short-lived (1942-1945) has made the people realize the

country’s position as a member of the East-Asia Co-Prosperity Sphere, the true

meaning of establishment of a New Order in the Sphere (Martin, 1980).

2

Higher education in most developed countries and some less developed

countries has undergone considerable transformation. Many of them have

adopted selected aspects of the American model. But, the only country whose

higher education system was modeled almost totally upon the American model is

the Republic of the Philippines.

This was a natural, and indeed perhaps inevitable, consequence of almost

a half century of American presence in the Philippines. During this period,

roughly the first half of the 20th century, American officials there established

public institutions that formed the core of what later became public colleges and

universities.

In structure, organization, degrees, curricula, teaching methods,

governance, faculty roles, and in other ways higher education in the Philippines

resembled that in America as it grew and developed, in private as well as public

institutions. This was further assured when, in 1902, the Americans required

what all teaching in colleges and universities be in the English language including

hat in established institutions which had previously taught in the Spanish

language.

The Spanish, who occupied the Philippines as a colonial power for three

and one-third centuries, established several private colleges and universities but

no tax supported higher education. The Spanish-American War of 1698 centered

on Cuba but it also resulted in the U.S. displacing the Spanish in the Philippines.

As soon as hostilities subsided, the U.S. set about establishing free public

elementary and secondary education and developing plans for self government.

By 1901, the United States government had established elections of local

municipal officials and a national legislature. In 1934 the American Congress

approved Commonwealth status for the islands with complete independence to

3

come in 1946. In 1935 the Philippines people approved a constitution and

became a Commonwealth and in July 4 1946, the country gained complete

independence.

From the beginning, United States policy emphasized the importance of

literacy. Soldiers who had battled in the Philippines in 1898 become teachers and

later more than 1,000 civilian teachers were brought from the U.S. to the islands

to staff the newly established public elementary schools.

The development of higher education came more slowly. The University of

the Philippines was established in 1908, and in 1909 its College of Agriculture 40

miles southeast of Manila was added. Although teachers from the U.S. staffed

the public schools initially, the American government recognized the need for a

trained cadre of Filipino teachers and in 1901 established Philippine Normal

School (in Manila), which is today the Philippine Normal College. Between 1901

and 1926, eight regional normal schools were established to train teachers for

the public schools, Initially, all nine of the normal school accepted elementary

schools graduate to prepare for teaching. In 1928, the Philippine Normal School

began to accept only secondary school graduates for two years of teacher

preparation and later all of the other eight normal schools followed.

Except for the University of the Philippines, the only baccalaureate degree

granting institutions up until World War II were private institutions. In 1949, the

Philippine Normal College became four-year institutions and began to grant

bachelors’ degrees.

The major emphasis in education during the American presence in the

Philippines was on elementary and secondary education and particularly

occupational preparation. Beginning in 1901, farm schools, technical and trade

schools, rural high schools, and other vocational schools were established

throughout the islands. Most of these included elementary and secondary

4

programs but some also offered post-secondary vocational training of less-than-

college level.

In the Philippines, public higher education developed slowly and late. As

noted, the University of the Philippines was the bachelor’s degree granting public

institution until 1949 when the Philippine Normal College became a four-year

institution. In addition to the private colleges and universities established during

the Spanish reign—all by religious orders—a considerable number of private

colleges was established during the American period (1898-1946). Most of them

closed during the Japanese occupation in World War II but reopened soon after

liberation.

The pent-up demand for college education at the end of the World War II

resulted in the rapid establishment of private colleges. Some of these were

established by religious groups but some were established as non-sectarian

institutions including a number as profit making ventures. As in America, many of

these were business schools and other occupationally oriented schools, but

some of them were liberal arts and general institutions. Many of the general and

liberal arts colleges, universities, medical schools, law schools and other

institutions that make up the higher education system of the country were

established for profit. But the profit-making potential of general and liberal arts

institutions is declining.

Today, the Philippine School system is said to be one of the largest in the

world. The Congressional Commission on Education Study, popularly known as

the EDCOM Report disclosed that enrolment at all levels was 16.5 million as of

1991. Recent statistics from the Department of Education (DepEd) alone reveals

that as of Curriculum Year 2000-2001, the combined enrolment size in the basic

education system 19,138,635 indicating the dramatic increase in and demand for

education in the country. This is the resulting scenario of the country’s Education

for All policy and the explicit provision of the 1987 Philippine Constitution, to wit:

5

“The State shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to

quality education at all levels and shall take appropriate steps to

make such education accessible to all.”

Further, Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the

elementary and high school levels. Without limiting the natural right of parents to

rear their children, elementary education is compulsory for all children of school

age. With only 10 years of pre-university education, the shortest in East Asia (as

compared to the longest, 13, of countries like Japan, Hong Kong, Singapore,

Brunei Darussalam, Malaysia, Sri Lanka, and Cambodia) (Manila Times, 1994),

the Philippines follows the 6-4-4 Plan of education. The 6 years elementary

schooling and the 4 years of secondary education are under the control,

regulation and supervision of the Department of Education (DepEd). The concept

of resource dependency explains why the Education Department exercises

supervision and regulation over 7,444 private schools in the country as compared

to its power to control, regulate and supervise the operations of 40,336 public

elementary and secondary schools (DepEd Fact Sheet, 2001).

The Congressional Commission on Education (EDCOM) Report provided

the impetus for Congress to pass RA 7722 and RA 7796 in 1994 creating the

Commission on Higher Education (CHED) and the Technical Education and

Skills Development Authority (TESDA), respectively. The tri-focalization

approach in the management of the present-day education in the Philippines

refocused the DepEd’s (RA 9155) mandate to basic education which covers

elementary, secondary and non-formal education. TESDA now administers the

post secondary, middle-level manpower training and development while CHED is

responsible for higher education.

6

Related Articles

According to Walfish (2001), 25 percent of the student-age population in

this former American colony is enrolled in higher education, one of the highest

proportions in developing countries in Asia. He stated that educators agree that

even as neighbors like Malaysia, Singapore, and Thailand have strengthened

their economies through investments in higher education over the past two

decades, Philippine colleges are not meeting the needs of students or the

country's economic development and only a handful of universities approach the

best international standards, and they are increasingly off limits to all but the rich.

He commented that higher education is very basic. Students typically

enter college at the age of 16 or 17, having had only 10 years of schooling, not

11 or 12 as in other countries. Additionally, faculty are not well-trained; in the

entire higher-education system, only about 8 percent of instructors have

doctorates, according to government statistics, compared with 67 percent of full-

time faculty members at American postsecondary institutions.

Further, he said that many students--at least 60 percent, judging from

figures from the government's Commission on Higher Education--drop out before

graduating, often because of financial difficulties. Plenty of others graduate, but

don't pass the country's licensing examinations.

Charles B. Currin, lead education specialist with the Asian Development

Bank in Manila, sums up the progress of students through colleges and

universities: "One thousand enter the first year, 300 graduate, 50 take the exam,

20 pass." The result is that while Malaysia and Singapore are building up their

corps of engineers and information-technology professionals, the Philippines is

churning out graduates who wind up doing work far below the level for which they

were supposed to have been trained.

7

In an excerpt from “School Reform in the New World” (1996), Navarro, in

her paper “Educational Reform in the 21st Century” identified the following global

reforms in both the lower and higher education levels. Decisions made by

educational planners and classroom teachers are articulated as curriculum

policies and structure, implementation strategies, evaluation procedures and

research activities. The way these decisions are made and formulated is based

on specific variables operating in the internal and external environments of the

education sector. The so-called internal and external enablers, as used by

Ornstein and Hunkins (1988) have made reforms in the Philippines possible and

have rendered these reforms theoretically grounded. These enablers are

gathered and culled by educational agencies from school records, research

outputs, textbooks and references and other empirically grounded documents

available in the field. External Enablers include legislation, public opinion,

education studies, technological advances, societal demands, and industry

demands. Internal Enablers, on other hand, refer to research findings, national

testing, new leadership, accreditation, cross-country evaluation and available

funds.

According (Bullough et al.,1996) to educational systems face multiple and

diverse problems, among them, that of resources. Schools and school systems

are being challenged to develop new educational paradigms that will ensure

survival and stability and at the same time effect the four pillars of education

(Delors, 1996), namely, learning to know, learning to do, learning to be and

learning to live together. Such a tall order according to Trow (1994), calls for “soft

managerialism”, which refers to the maximum effective use of available

resources. On the other hand, “hard managerialism” involves redirecting program

efforts through the adoption of new management systems, which call for a high

degree of openness in school sectors and a kind of systems thinking

characterized by alignment of delivery and attunement of values and value

systems. In so doing, educational systems become more responsive and resilient

(El-Khawas, 2001); capable of preserving and strengthening quality

8

(Thorens,1996) and effecting reconstruction efforts (Castillo, 1987); and pursuing

quality, equality and equity, institutional diversity, regional development, flexible

curricula, stable financing, evaluation and innovation, governability, social

relevance and internationalization (Gomez, 1999; Holtta & Malkki, 2000).

Apparently, in the recent news concerning the SUCs budget, An estimated

1,200 students walked out of their classes on Friday from various schools in

Metro Manila to protest the “inadequate state subsidy" for state colleges and

universities (SUCs), denouncing the Aquino administration for its “abandonment

of the education sector."

Meanwhile, simultaneous actions also took place in other schools outside

Metro Manila, organized by the National Union of Students of the Philippines

(NUSP), against “the state’s abandonment of its responsibility to ensure quality

and accessible education for the youth."

Several hundred students walked out of their classes in Ilocos, Baguio,

Bicol, Cebu, Iloilo, and Davao, among others, to join the nationwide protest

action, according to NUSP.

In his August 24 address to Congress, Aquino stated that P23.4 billion had

been allocated for the country’s 112 state universities and colleges (SUCs) in

2011, a figure 1.7 percent lower than the P23.8 billion budget for 2010.

“We are gradually reducing the subsidy to SUCs to push them toward

becoming self-sufficient and financially independent, given their ability to raise

their income and to utilize it for their programs and projects," said Aquino in his

2011 budget message.

But in a Thursday press release, the Department of Budget and

Management (DBM) said that the budget for SUCs is actually “higher by P2.4

billion or 11.3% as compared to its budget in 2010, primarily due to the

implementation of the Salary Standardization Law III."

9

Still, the budget allotted for SUCs is clearly inadequate for their

operations, said Kabataan party list (KPL) Rep. Raymond “Mong" Palatino, who

also joined the rally. Students gathered at the University of Santo Tomas (UST)

in the early afternoon and marched across Chino Roces bridge to Mendiola,

where a police barricade was waiting. A brief scuffle ensued as students pushed

down barbed-wire barricades, although they didn’t go beyond the closed gates of

the Mendiola peace arc, which blocked the road to Malacañang. At least 20

policemen were deployed to the rally, which culminated with the burning by

protesters of an effigy of President Benigno Aquino III. Overall, the demonstration

was largely peaceful, said the organizers. Students from the University of the

Philippines (UP) Diliman, UP Manila, the Philippine Normal University (PNU), and

the Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) took the lead in the Metro

Manila action, along with militant youth organizations such as the League of

Filipino Students and Anakbayan. UP and PNU are among the top five SUCs set

to receive the largest budget cuts. The budgets for UP and PNU will be reduced

by P1.39 billion, a decrease of 20.11 percent from 2010 to 2011; and P91.35

million, a 23.59 percent decrease, respectively. The other three schools in the list

are Aurora State College of Technology, with a 22.21 percent budget decrease;

Cerilles State College, with its budget slashed by 21.95 percent, and the

University of Southeastern Philippines, with a budget cut of 20.03

percent. Dwindling state subsidy

The United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization

(UNESCO) recommends that six percent of a country’s gross domestic product

(GDP) be allotted to the education sector. Based on the UNESCO standard, and

measured against the Philippines’ GDP for 2009, the budget for the education

sector should be around P460 billion. However, the Aquino administration has

allocated P207.3 billion for the Department of Education and P23.4 billion for

SUCs, a total of only P230.7 billion. Also, according to KPL data, the “real value"

of state subsidy for education has dwindled steadily over the past decade, based

on the 2000 consumer price index. Conversely, the total revenue generated by

SUCs from tuition and other student fees has sharply risen, from P1.16 billion in

10

2000 to P7.78 billion in 2010, according to KPL. The party list’s figures show that

a decade ago, only 6.6 percent of SUC’s budget came from the students; today,

the tuition and other fees paid by students account for 22.1 percent of the budget

of SUCs. These measures by school administrations to internally generate their

own income are a “betrayal" of students, UP Student Regent Cori Co said.

Aquino throws around euphemisms like ‘self-sufficiency’ and ‘financial

independence’ to cloak the government’s shortcomings in passing on its

responsibility to private entities, at the risk of limiting public access to quality

education," stated the Philippine Collegian, UP’s official publication, in an

editorial distributed during the rally. Tertiary education as a right

Budget secretary Florencio Abad explained in a statement however that

“with scarce public funds available, the government had to prioritize closing the

resource gaps in basic education, among others." He further added that in as

much as they want to add more subsidies for SUCs, however, the government is

compelled to fund other important needs such as the basic education.

Incidentally, the present administration has increased the DepEd budget from

P185.5 billion in 2010 to P207.3 billion in 2011. On the other hand, students

disagree saying that there should be no distinction between basic and tertiary

education because both are for public good. Moreover, they said that higher

education should not be merely a privilege for those who can afford it, but should

be “accessible to the poor”.

11

Chapter TwoPresentation of Data

In Metro Manila, there are eight state universities and colleges namely

Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute of Science and Technology (EARIST),

Marikina Polytechnic College (MPC), Philippine Normal University (PNU),

Philippine State College of Aeronautics (PSCA), Rizal Technological University

(RTU), Technological University of the Philippines (TUP), Polytechnic University

of the Philippines (PUP), and the University of the Philippines System (UP).

The researchers purposely limited its scope to SUCs in Metro Manila

because SUCs in Metro Manila are experiencing substantially the same situation

with those of SUCs outside Metro Manila.

Table 1

EARIST

85,000,000

90,000,000

95,000,000

100,000,000

105,000,000

110,000,000

115,000,000

120,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

EARIST

Table 1 shows the budget allocation of Eulogio Amang Rodriguez Institute

Science of Technology. In 2008, the budget was P 96, 7555, 000. 00. In 2009, it

was increased to P 114, 651, 000.00. However, in 2010, the budget was

decreased by P 1, 757, 000.00 and currently, the budget allocated is P 112, 894,

000.00.

12

Table 2

MPC

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

MPC

Table 2 shows that the budget allocation for Marikina Polytechnic College

from 2008 to 2010. In 2008, the budget allocated was P 51, 518, 000. 00. In

2009, it was increased to P57, 340, 000.00. In 2010, it was increased again to P

65, 694, 000. 00.

Table 3

PNU

0

10,000,000

20,000,000

30,000,000

40,000,000

50,000,000

60,000,000

70,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

PNU

Table 3 shows the budget allocated from year 2008 to 2010 in Philippine

Normal University. In 2008 the budget allocated was P 277, 959, 000. 00. In

13

2008, it slightly increased to P 284, 931, 000. 00. From the budget allocated in

year 2009, it was increased again to P 378, 233, 000.00.

Table 4

PSCA

54,000,000

55,000,000

56,000,000

57,000,000

58,000,000

59,000,000

60,000,000

61,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

PSCA

Table 4 shows the budget allocated to PSCA. In the year 2008, the budget

allocated was P 60, 181, 000. 00. It was decreased to P 57, 375, 000. 00 in the

year 2009. In 2010, the budget was decreased again to P 56, 462, 000. 00.

Table 5

RTU

140,000,000142,000,000144,000,000146,000,000148,000,000150,000,000152,000,000154,000,000156,000,000158,000,000160,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

RTU

Table 5 shows how the budget decreased from 2008 to 2010. It started

with a budget of P 157, 644, 000. 00 in 2008. It was decreased to P 148, 939,

14

000. 00 in 2009. In 2010, the budget was decreased again to P 146, 665, 000.

00.

Table 6

TUP

050,000,000

100,000,000

150,000,000200,000,000250,000,000300,000,000

350,000,000400,000,000450,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

TUP

This table shows the budget allocated in Technological University of the

Philippines from 2008 to 2010. The budget allocated in 2008 was P 319, 459,

000. 00. In 2009, it was increased to P 384, 265, 000. In 2010, the budget

allocated slightly decreased to P 6, 916, 801, 000. 00

Table 7

UP

5,800,000,000

6,000,000,000

6,200,000,000

6,400,000,000

6,600,000,000

6,800,000,000

7,000,000,000

7,200,000,000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

UP

This table shows the budget allocated to the University of The Philippines

from year 2008 to 2010. The budget allocated in 2008 was P 6, 232, 649, 000.

15

00. In 2009, the budget allocated was increased to P 7, 058, 087, 000. 00.

However, in 2010, the budget was slightly decreased to P 6, 916, 801. 000. 00.

Table 8

Table 8 shows the budget allocated from year 2008 to 2010. In 2008 the

budget allocated was P 544, 560, 000. 00. In 2009, it was increased to P 665,

391, 000.00. However, this year, it slightly decreased to P 640, 447, 000. 00.

In sum, there are only two state universities who have an increased

budget in 2010: the Marikina Polytechnic College and Philippine Normal

University. The rest had their budget decreased.

16

Table 9

7000000000

7200000000

7400000000

7600000000

7800000000

8000000000

8200000000

8400000000

8600000000

8800000000

9000000000

2008 2009 2010

Bu

dg

et A

llo

cati

on

Budget

This table shows the budget allocation of the government to state

universities and colleges from 2008-2010. Based from this, there was a sudden

increase in the budget during 2009 and afterwards, it slightly decreased in 2010.

However, apparently, the 2011 budget for state universities and colleges

is being cut. Consequently, it has been receiving strong opposition from public

school students from the different state universities.

Economic Issues

The economic issue involved in this study is the effect of the insufficient

budget of the university to the quality of education of state universities. There is

no problem if public tertiary schools are being funded well just like in the United

States. But the reality is that their budget is not enough and as a consequence,

the quality of education that public school students need is being compromised.

17

Relevance of the Topic

Our topic aims to assess if the appropriation of budget to State

Universities and Colleges is sufficient to the needs of the SUCs especially the

scholars of our country. It will determine the effects of an insufficient budget

allotted to state universities and colleges to the quality of education that they

provide to students.

Our study can be used by the Executive branch, legislators and

administrative officials of SUCs if the allocated budget of the national government

is sufficient.

The executive branch is the one who proposes the budget for the SUCs.

The legislators/lawmakers are the one who deliberate and approve the

budget for its scrutinization.

The administrative officials are the one who manages for its use and

disbursement.

Our study is relevant in today’s issue, the 2011 budget of the SUCs has

been decreased by the executive branch and is now subject to the approval of

Congress.

Problems and Solutions

While the Philippine Constitution upholds the right of every citizen to have

free access to education, such constitutional provision is becoming a mere “text”

not having any truthfulness. The Philippine government is supposed to provide

free education to all Filipinos especially to the poor but at the same time, not

compromising its quality. However, the apparent situation of state universities

18

and colleges suggest that the government overlooks what their needs really are.

And this can be seen by the budget appropriations for them.

As presented above, in year 2010, the budget of state universities in Metro

Manila has decreased and in year 2011, the budget is still being cut to the point

of dismay of many students. This decreasing budget for SUCs creates a negative

impact.

For purposes of this study, the researchers have determined five facets

that are being affected by the low budget allocated to SUCs.

Facilities

An insufficient budget results to poor facilities. In state universities and

colleges, their facilities are not at par with those of private universities. A typical

SUC has substandard comfort rooms and relatively small class rooms with no

proper ventilation. In the University of the Philippines, the undergraduate

chemistry laboratories have filthy-looking sinks and chipped tables; paint peels in

dimly lit halls. Titos Anacleto O. Quibuyen, the chairman of the Institute of

Chemistry expressed his frustration saying that while they are teaching largely

theoretically, they do not have the kit or the facilities to do their experiments. He

added that UP is short of research equipment although it is the country’s best

research university. He lamented that their equipment is good only for ten

students. Further, some of the instruments for determining a substance's

chemical structure are so scarce that researchers have to line up to use them,

and others, like nuclear magnetic resonance spectrometers, which most

professional organic chemists would use several times a day, are absent.

19

Faculty

It is said that if you want to be the best, you need to be taught by the best.

This suggests that the importance of a competent faculty is undeniable.

However, the support from the government is apparently lacking as to the

teacher’s welfare. One of the biggest complaints in public tertiary education:

Government-assigned faculty salaries are not competitive; so many teachers

must supplement their income by moonlighting. When what faculty members can

earn at a consulting job is three times what they can earn at the university, the

result is to neglect their teaching. And this situation greatly affects the students.

Low salaries also prompt competent faculty members to transfer to private

schools; worse, they opt to have teaching stints abroad in search of a greener

pasture.

Tuition fees

With the rising cost of education in private schools, students look forward

to enrolling at the state-run universities and colleges, but with the budget cut,

these SUCs have no other recourse but to also increase tuition to compensate

for its meager budget.  This means higher cost of education in public schools.

To augment its meager budget, the University of the Philippines has

increased fees in graduate courses; laboratory fees from P50 to P600 in specific

colleges (departments); and imposed exorbitant fees like late registration fee and

change of matriculation fee. After 13 years of implementation of the Socialized

Tuition and Financial Assistance Program (STFAP), tuition in UP increased from

P17 to P300 per unit with 83.6 percent of the students ending up paying full

tuition.  With this scheme, the university has generated P340.767 million in 2003

and P341.226 million in 2004.

A primer from the Office of the Student Regent-University of the

Philippines and the Katipunan ng mga Mag-aaral sa UP (KASAMA sa UP)

20

reveals proposals to increase laboratory fees in UP’s units in Diliman, Manila and

Mindanao. At the College of Mass Communications in UP Diliman, there are

plans to increase laboratory fees in Film subjects from P100 to P400, but in one

particular subject the increase is P2,000.  In UP Manila, the dental laboratory fee

is seen to increase from P2,500 to P11,000.

In this regard, they say that “The Iskolar ng Bayan has now become a

paying scholar”.

Academic Programs

A meager budget results to closure of degree programs being offered to

students. Such a situation is tantamount to depriving Filipino students of their

right to achieve their chosen profession.

Student Enrollment

Public schools tend to have a bigger student population than private

universities due to cheaper tuition fee rate. However, because of the budget cut

of SUCs, enrollment in public schools seem to become smaller. Since there is

insufficient budget for SUCs, the result is the imposition of higher tuition fee rate

and with this, poor students tend to just drop out and not pursue their education

anymore. This, of course, reduces the number of expected enrollees of state

universities and colleges. Also, a meager budget would prompt SUC

administrators to limit their enrollment in order to ensure that each student will

get a slice of the budget.

21

Solution

The only way to solve the problems presented above is to increase the

budget allocated to state universities and colleges. There shall be no distinction

to SUCs and public secondary and elementary schools. If SUCs budget is not

higher than public secondary and elementary schools, then it shall be equal to

them.

Chapter Three

Summary and Conclusion

Indeed, education is an indispensable factor in the growth of the nation.

Consequently, it needs full support from the government through appropriate

budget allocation. This is the ideal set-up. On the contrary, the reality is that

public schools particularly state universities and colleges are lacking full support

from the government as they experience cuts from their budget. Such results to

dismal problems in their facilities, faculty, tuition fees, academic programs and

student enrollment and these problems affect, of course, no other than the poor

Filipino students who are eagerly hoping for a brighter future.

22

Chapter FourBibliography

Cardozier, V., & Texas Univ., A. (1985). Philippine Higher Education:Expansion in the Public Sector. Higher Education Series Topical Paper8501. Retrieved from ERIC database.

United Nations Educational, S. (2006). Higher Education in South-EastAsia. Online Submission, Retrieved from ERIC database.

de Guzman, A. (2003). The Dynamics of Educational Reforms in thePhilippine Basic and Higher Education Sectors. Asia Pacific EducationReview, 4(1), 39-50. Retrieved from ERIC database.

Walfish, D. (2001). Higher Education in the Philippines: Lots of Access,Little Quality. Chronicle of Higher Education, 48 (2), A60. Retrievedfrom Academic Source Complete database.

23