The problems of mass access to higher education
In recent years, the Philippines has been attempting to subscribe to a hybrid form of higher education governance. For instance, post-Edsa administrations have enabled the return of the elites who were displaced by the Marcos regime.
This paved the way for the top 1 percent to expand their corporate empires from agri-business and manufacturing, to services such as tourism and travel, education, and food and beverage, among others. In turn, this allowed private education to thrive even more as it has been seen as producing better students than its public counterpart.
But recent policies have provided universal access to tertiary education, among them Republic Act No. 10931 which enabled the implementation of Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education.
This led to mass access to higher education that was previously seen as a privilege reserved mainly for those belonging to the middle and upper classes.
Two factors are behind the precedents of these recent changes: (1) As a developing nation, the Philippines is subservient to the mandate of intergovernmental organizations such as the United Nations Development Programme, United Nations Educational, Scientific, and Cultural Organization (Unesco), United Nations Children’s Fund (Unicef), and the World Bank, among others. And (2), the contemporary attitude of policymakers in the education sector (namely the Department of Education, the Commission on Higher Education, and the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority) and the legislature tends to lean toward policies implemented in other countries.
As an example, the K-12 curriculum (which precedes the newly launched “Matatag” curriculum) was a product of collaboration between the Philippines and the Australian government. In the process, the curriculum became highly influenced by the Australian education system.
The convolution of policies led to a hybrid system where private schools thrive amid massive and universal access to higher education.
Serious questions however remain. Does wider access to private higher education support the idea that human capital development can be achieved by all? How can quality education be maintained in this mass setting? Will this hybridization form a new superstructure that could widen the divide between socioeconomic classes?
The questions are relevant, considering similar trends overseas that have led to unintended results. In Chile, the universal access to higher education created a systemic conflict, with many prospective university students failing college entrance examinations, which points to the effects of low-quality instruction in basic education.
The Philippines similarly faces such prospect. In 2022, reports from the World Bank, Unesco, and Unicef indicated that nine out of 10 Filipino children aged 10 are unable to read and comprehend simple sentences, which shows the country’s learning poverty.
With senior high school graduates unable to find employment because employers prefer applicants with a bachelor’s degree, these rejected graduates have had no choice but to pursue higher education, an example of how the K-12 curriculum has failed in its promise.
The path to quality universal education should be assured. This is where the Second Congressional Commission on Education comes in, where policymakers are urged to look into alternative forms of educational development and consider all factors that will either make or break the structure of education.
Juniesy Estanislao,
