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