On tuition and other fee increases
Some notes on CHEd Memoranda Nos. 13, 14, & 21
CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
February|2009
“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.” [Art. XIV Sec.1, 1987 Philippine Constitution]
Education as an important, all-encompassing element for the progress of any given society, is guaranteed as one of our basic birth rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. Our very own Constitution emphasizes this, as well, in recognizance of the youth’s indispensable role in nation-building. But in a country where the economy is encumbered with foreign monopoly, education has become an extension for further political-economic domination and cultural aggression. Not only has education in our country been tailored to fit to foreign labor demands, it has also become highly commercialized as a commodity, market-driven, and profit-oriented in utter contempt of the Constitutional provisions.
In the last two years there has been an average of 15% tuition fee increase nationwide excluding increases on miscellaneous and other fees. With this rate, it is not surprising that many schools are among the top-listed corporations in terms of income generation. The government claims to be moving mountains to regulate this widespread trend and has commissioned its agencies to address the issue. Yet just as in the case of the phony CARP, the government’s sincerity to address this problem is seemingly dubious.
The Commission on Higher Education, in accordance with the Higher Education Act of 1994, promulgated and adopted several measures to “regulate” the rampant fees increases in the tertiary level. In its Memorandum Order No.13 series of 1998 concerning the guidelines and procedures to be followed by Higher Education Institutions (HEI) intending to increase their tuition fees, CHEd mandates: “…to conduct consultations with the student councils/government, faculty, alumni, and non-teaching personnel associations...”
It also provided for the creation of a Multi-Sectoral Committee on Tuition Fee (composed of CHEd, DepEd, DSWD, SRC-Youth Sectoral Representative, COCOPEA, PASUC, National Faculty Associations, and National Student Organizations), and outlined the consultation requirements, consultation process, and its procedures. Consultations as defined in the memorandum are “actual meetings and/or discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed tuition fee increase wherein the participants will have an opportunity to air their objections, sentiments and the like, without fear, and under a free and candid atmosphere.”
These, however, have all but remained rhetoric. The National Union of Students of the Philippines reports that many of their complaints and petitions on violations of school administrators with regards to the consultation process netted a cynical response from CHEd officials that “quality education is expensive.”
Still to the advantage of business interests, CHEd released its Memorandum No.14 series of 2005 which gave further leeway for schools to impose tuition fee increases without having to consult the students, provided that the increases would not exceed the prevailing national inflation rate as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority. This covered fee increases for incoming freshmen. Under this clause, schools can raise their fees virtually every year! Instead of making an allowance for the consumers who directly take the impacts of inflation and are already suffering from low wages and salaries, the program evidently serves to the interest of school owners, insulating them from inflation setbacks.
In 2006, CHEd memo 14 was withdrawn, resurrecting the memorandum no.13 which all the more gives school owners the legal right to raise the fees as high as they want although they are still required to “consult” the students––a process that is most often violated. This was reinforced by CHEd memorandum no.21 which gives freedom to the Office of Student Affairs to impose jurisdiction over student governments and student publications. The school administration may and can also establish a student council and/or publication, hence, jeopardizing the autonomy and independence of these two major student institutions, and depriving genuine student representation in the school’s highest policy-making body.
Fee increases can then practically be imposed hassle-free. During the last five years, Higher Education Institutions have continued to grow in number parallel to the growing rate of increases on tuition and other fees. Miscellaneous fee increase and other unexplained “fixed charges” have also added to this perennial burden. Students, therefore, have been shouldering the capitalization, expansion, and financing of new projects! Education commercialization is undoubtedly profiteering at its best.
Beyond declarations to provide accessible and quality education, we have yet to see a program that truly advances the protection of this basic right. Although there have been efforts in this regard, policies such as the Higher Education Modernization Act ironically undermine the very essence of this principle. Token actions and government intervention such as the student tuition moratorium does not also provide real and long-term solutions.
We thus call on our educators and the government to review their educational policies and sincerely address this issue. Concrete and serious actions must also be taken to address other issues concerning the education sector such as state subsidy and budget alloca-We thus call on our educators and the government to review their educational policies and sincerely address this issue. Concrete and serious actions must also be taken to address other issues concerning the education sector such as state subsidy and budget allocation, lack of classrooms and instruction materials, and teachers’ salaries among others.
Unless the government adopts an educational program and policy that is prostudents and nationalist-oriented, the Filipino youth will remain a reserved army of docile labor force, waiting in line to serve under foreign lordship.
Some notes on CHEd Memoranda Nos. 13, 14, & 21
CHRISTIAN LLOYD M. ESPINOZA
February|2009
“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.” [Art. XIV Sec.1, 1987 Philippine Constitution]
Education as an important, all-encompassing element for the progress of any given society, is guaranteed as one of our basic birth rights in the Universal Declaration of Human Rights to which the Philippines is a signatory. Our very own Constitution emphasizes this, as well, in recognizance of the youth’s indispensable role in nation-building. But in a country where the economy is encumbered with foreign monopoly, education has become an extension for further political-economic domination and cultural aggression. Not only has education in our country been tailored to fit to foreign labor demands, it has also become highly commercialized as a commodity, market-driven, and profit-oriented in utter contempt of the Constitutional provisions.
In the last two years there has been an average of 15% tuition fee increase nationwide excluding increases on miscellaneous and other fees. With this rate, it is not surprising that many schools are among the top-listed corporations in terms of income generation. The government claims to be moving mountains to regulate this widespread trend and has commissioned its agencies to address the issue. Yet just as in the case of the phony CARP, the government’s sincerity to address this problem is seemingly dubious.
The Commission on Higher Education, in accordance with the Higher Education Act of 1994, promulgated and adopted several measures to “regulate” the rampant fees increases in the tertiary level. In its Memorandum Order No.13 series of 1998 concerning the guidelines and procedures to be followed by Higher Education Institutions (HEI) intending to increase their tuition fees, CHEd mandates: “…to conduct consultations with the student councils/government, faculty, alumni, and non-teaching personnel associations...”
It also provided for the creation of a Multi-Sectoral Committee on Tuition Fee (composed of CHEd, DepEd, DSWD, SRC-Youth Sectoral Representative, COCOPEA, PASUC, National Faculty Associations, and National Student Organizations), and outlined the consultation requirements, consultation process, and its procedures. Consultations as defined in the memorandum are “actual meetings and/or discussions on the advantages and disadvantages of the proposed tuition fee increase wherein the participants will have an opportunity to air their objections, sentiments and the like, without fear, and under a free and candid atmosphere.”
These, however, have all but remained rhetoric. The National Union of Students of the Philippines reports that many of their complaints and petitions on violations of school administrators with regards to the consultation process netted a cynical response from CHEd officials that “quality education is expensive.”
Still to the advantage of business interests, CHEd released its Memorandum No.14 series of 2005 which gave further leeway for schools to impose tuition fee increases without having to consult the students, provided that the increases would not exceed the prevailing national inflation rate as determined by the National Economic and Development Authority. This covered fee increases for incoming freshmen. Under this clause, schools can raise their fees virtually every year! Instead of making an allowance for the consumers who directly take the impacts of inflation and are already suffering from low wages and salaries, the program evidently serves to the interest of school owners, insulating them from inflation setbacks.
In 2006, CHEd memo 14 was withdrawn, resurrecting the memorandum no.13 which all the more gives school owners the legal right to raise the fees as high as they want although they are still required to “consult” the students––a process that is most often violated. This was reinforced by CHEd memorandum no.21 which gives freedom to the Office of Student Affairs to impose jurisdiction over student governments and student publications. The school administration may and can also establish a student council and/or publication, hence, jeopardizing the autonomy and independence of these two major student institutions, and depriving genuine student representation in the school’s highest policy-making body.
Fee increases can then practically be imposed hassle-free. During the last five years, Higher Education Institutions have continued to grow in number parallel to the growing rate of increases on tuition and other fees. Miscellaneous fee increase and other unexplained “fixed charges” have also added to this perennial burden. Students, therefore, have been shouldering the capitalization, expansion, and financing of new projects! Education commercialization is undoubtedly profiteering at its best.
Beyond declarations to provide accessible and quality education, we have yet to see a program that truly advances the protection of this basic right. Although there have been efforts in this regard, policies such as the Higher Education Modernization Act ironically undermine the very essence of this principle. Token actions and government intervention such as the student tuition moratorium does not also provide real and long-term solutions.
We thus call on our educators and the government to review their educational policies and sincerely address this issue. Concrete and serious actions must also be taken to address other issues concerning the education sector such as state subsidy and budget alloca-We thus call on our educators and the government to review their educational policies and sincerely address this issue. Concrete and serious actions must also be taken to address other issues concerning the education sector such as state subsidy and budget allocation, lack of classrooms and instruction materials, and teachers’ salaries among others.
Unless the government adopts an educational program and policy that is prostudents and nationalist-oriented, the Filipino youth will remain a reserved army of docile labor force, waiting in line to serve under foreign lordship.
No comments:
Post a Comment