Review & Assessment of Programs Offered by State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)

8/10/2019 Review & Assessment of Programs Offered by State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)

1/31

Philippine Institute for Development Studies

Rosario G. Manasan and Danileen C. Parel


2 September 2014

Review & Assessment of

Programs Offered by State

Universities and Colleges

(SUCs)


2/31


Overview of presentation

Objectives of the study

Approach and methodology

Findings

Future steps


3/31



Review and assess the different

programs being offered by the majorSUCs in regions not included in the

earlier study vis--vis

their mandates

Program duplication (i.e., courses beingoffered by other SUCs and other SUCs in

the same region)

the quality of graduates produced

Recommend courses of action as well

as an action plan to pursue given thefindings above to improve the

relevance and quality of course

offerings of the SUCs


4/31


Motivation of the study

Why the concern about faithfulness to

mandates? Offering programs outside mandate

increases number of program offerings higher per student cost wastefulness

Offering program outside mandate program duplication

Why the concern about program duplication?

Program duplication crowding out ofprivate sector

Why the concern about quality? Creation of SUCs typically attributed to

the need for access, but access is onlymeaningful if one also gets quality


5/31


Approach & methodology

Coverageall SUCs across all regions

Desk review of program offerings,

enrolment therein and passing rates in

PBEs of individual SUCs

Key informant interviews conducted with

selected SUCs officials, and regional

officials of the Commission on Higher

Education (CHED) and the NationalEconomic and Development Authority

(NEDA)


6/31


Overview of presentation


Approach and methodology

Findings

SUC program offering vis--vis

their mandates

Program duplication

Quality of instruction

Future steps


7/31Philippine Institute for Development Studies

SUCs program offering vis their mandates

50%-90% of programs offered by majority of SUCs are

outside their core mandates

Some 20 SUCs have limited mandates

More than 50% of all SUCs allowed by their charters

to offer programs outside of their core mandates at

the discretion of the Board of Trustees

90%-100% of program offering of a small number ofSUCs are within their core mandates

Some 10 SUCs have remained faithful to their core

mandate

Some 10 SUCs have recently been converted in

recent years from colleges to universities therebyexpanding their mandates

Mandate of some SUCs are broad and all

encompassing to start with



Program duplication

Given prevalence of SUCs with program offerings

outside their core mandates, it is not surprising that

there is duplication in their program offerings relative

to those of other SUCs and PHEIs in the same region

SUCs programs classified into

o programs that are unique to the SUC under

study

o programs that are offered by the given SUCand any one of the other SUCs but are not

offered by PHEIs in the same region

o programs that are offered by the given SUC

and any one of the PHEIs but are not offered

by any one of the other SUCs in the same

region

o programs that are offered by the given SUC

and any one of the other SUCs and any one of

the PHEIs in the same region



Program duplication

On the average, the program duplication rate varies from 73%-75% if computed based

on total number of program offerings and 89%-92% if computed based on total

enrollment

2005/06 2006/07 2007/08 2008/09 2009/10 2010/11

Programs offered

Programs unique to SUC 45.32 44.42 44.38 43.39 44.05 44.15

Programs offerred by SUCs that are also offerred by 54.68 55.58 55.62 56.61 55.95 55.85

any other SUC or PHEIs

Programs common to SUC and PHEIs only 19.99 19.27 19.56 20.18 20.35 19.51

Programs common to SUC and other SUCs only 12.19 13.00 12.37 11.68 12.41 12.70

Programs common to SUC, other SUCs and PHEIs 22.50 23.31 23.68 24.75 23.19 23.64

Enrollment

Programs unique to SUC 10.20 9.51 8.90 9.29 8.55 8.09

Programs offerred by SUCs that are also offerred by 89.80 90.49 91.10 90.71 91.45 91.91

any other SUC or PHEIs

Programs common to SUC and PHEIs only 10.78 10.99 9.77 9.45 9.05 8.84

Programs common to SUC and other SUCs only 16.11 15.48 13.75 11.65 11.75 11.36

Programs common to SUC, other SUCs and PHEIs 62.91 64.02 67.58 69.62 70.65 71.71

Total Enrollment 665062 673964 693776 746620 825513 928850

ALL REGIONS



Program duplication

Over 70% of all the SUCs covered underthis study registered duplication rates

(computed based on number of programs

offered) that are upwards of 75%

Highest Duplication rate: Region VII

86%-90% (total number of programofferings)

96%-99% (based on total enrollment)

Lowest Duplication rate: ARMM

69%-71% (total number of programsoffered)

82%-86% (based on total enrollment)



Program duplication

High rates of program duplication

appeared to be associated with an

increase in the number of programs

offered by SUCs during the period Around 80% of the SUCs covered

have increased the number of

programs they are offering in

2005-2010



Why is program duplication an issue?

Results of Manasan (2011) suggests

number of programs offered tend to

increase per student cost of SUCs

FGDs with private higher education

institutions (PHEIs) indicate that

program duplication is a problem from

their perspective

Crowding out

Uneven playing field



SUC are crowding out PHEIs

PHEIs officials point out that whenSUCs offer programs that PHEIs

traditionally offer PHEIs find it difficult

to compete against SUCs in attracting

students because of the low tuition that

SUCs charged

Although CHED provide

scholarships that allow students to

enroll in school of their choice, the

support value is low relative to

tuition charged by PHEIs

When enrollment in program

declines continuously, faculty

retrenchment cannot be avoided

sometimes



Uneven playing field .

Many PHEIs also decry what they perceived to

be a double standard in regulation/ monitoring

of SUCs and PHEIs by CHED

Some CHED regional officials admit that

CHED has difficulty applying the same

standards on SUCs because of the so-

called autonomy that their Charters veston SUCs

According to PHEIs, SUCs offer courses

despite the fact SUCs do not have the

needed facilities and qualified faculty while

CHED strictly enforces the its Policies,Standards and Guidelines (PSG) on PHEIs

(especially true of satellite campuses)

o With detrimental impact on quality of

instruction and PBE passing rates



Program duplicationa non-issue?

Some SUC officials say that program

duplication among SUCs and PHEIs is a

non-issue

An important goal of SUCs is

providing access and equity

oNeed to consider geographical

characteristic of region;

duplication may be necessary

when you have regions composedof island provinces



Program duplicationwhen the shoe is on the other foot

Some SUC officials think that

branches of national universities (e.g.,

UP, PUP, TUP, PNU) in the regions

tend to give rise to undue

competition to the SUCs in the saidregions

Same is true with respect to the

presence of a branch/ extension class

of a regional SUC in a region that isoutside of its original catchment area


18/31


Median passing rate for 38 PBEs 2005-2011 ranged from 40% to 48%

only 10 out of these 38 PBEs had average passing rates above 60% and

only 6 have passing rates above 70%

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011

Dental Medicine 34.7 35.5 33.1 34.6 43.3 40.1 44.2 96.5

Environmental Planning 46.4 57.4 53.7 52.8 47.3 55.0 62.5 59.5

Geology 57.1 78.0 74.5 74.0 65.5 60.5 56.3 61.5

Mechanical Engg 45.2 45.6 47.7 51.8 56.5 56.0 62.0 63.5Medical Technology 43.4 51.9 46.6 51.6 59.6 51.2 66.0 70.6

Medicine 51.2 53.2 54.1 59.3 57.5 68.0 59.7 66.2

Mining Engg 56.3 75.8 62.5 64.5 72.9 61.1 56.4 71.1

Nutrition and Dietetics 48.9 50.0 52.2 56.4 52.2 67.5 70.4 67.0

Optometry 65.8 72.5 66.2 63.3 59.0 59.9 86.2 85.7Social Work 44.6 50.0 51.6 47.1 51.9 53.2 57.6 64.0

Average Passing Rate- All HEIs


19/31


Quality of instruction in HEIs

On average, SUCs perform better than PHEIs in 84%of the PBEs from 2005-2011

SUCs improve their advantage further duringthe period in about 31% of PBEs - criminology,customs administration, forestry, geology,elementary education, marine engineering,medical technology, midwifery, miningengineering and nursing

However, edge that SUCs used to enjoy in theearly part of the period has eroded in about69% of the PBEsaccountancy, aeronauticalengineering, architecture, chemical engineering,chemistry, civil engineering, dental medicine,electrical engineering, electronics engineering,environmental planning, geodetic engineering,interior design, library science, marinetransportation, mechanical engineering,medicine, nutrition and dietetics, occupationaltherapy, pharmacy, physical therapy, social workand veterinary medicine


20/31


Worrisome that there is a preponderance of

SUCs/ PHEIs with zero passing rate in manyPBEs

i.e., when SUCs are ranked according

to PBE passing rate and grouped, the

largest number of SUCs fall in zero

passing rate category

True for agriculture, accountancy, criminology,

electrical engineering, electronics engineering,

geodetic engineering, social work, elementary

education, secondary education, library

science, forestry, and environmental planning

This problem not much of a problem for

SUCs in chemical engineering, civil engineering,

and mechanical engineering, and marine

transportation

P A B d


21/31


Passing rate in Accountancy Board

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

50

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[1

0-15)

[1

5-20)

[2

0-25)

[2

5-30)

[3

0-35)

[3

5-40)

[4

0-45)

[4

5-50)

[5

0-55)

[5

5-60)

[6

0-65)

[6

5-70)

[7

0-75)

[7

5-80)

[8

0-85)

[8

5-90)

[9

0-95)

[95

-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2004

SUCs

PHEIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[

10-15)

[

15-20)

[

20-25)

[

25-30)

[

30-35)

[

35-40)

[

40-45)

[

45-50)

[

50-55)

[

55-60)

[

60-65)

[

65-70)

[

70-75)

[

75-80)

[

80-85)

[

85-90)

[

90-95)

[9

5-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2005

SUCs

PHEIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[1

0-15)

[1

5-20)

[2

0-25)

[2

5-30)

[3

0-35)

[3

5-40)

[4

0-45)

[4

5-50)

[5

0-55)

[5

5-60)

[6

0-65)

[6

5-70)

[7

0-75)

[7

5-80)

[8

0-85)

[8

5-90)

[9

0-95)

[95

-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2006

SUCs

PHEIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

45

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[10-15)

[15-20)

[20-25)

[25-30)

[30-35)

[35-40)

[40-45)

[45-50)

[50-55)

[55-60)

[60-65)

[65-70)

[70-75)

[75-80)

[80-85)

[85-90)

[90-95)

[9

5-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2007

SUCs

PHEIs

P A B d


22/31


Passing rate in Accountancy Board

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[1

0-15)

[1

5-20)

[2

0-25)

[2

5-30)

[3

0-35)

[3

5-40)

[4

0-45)

[4

5-50)

[5

0-55)

[5

5-60)

[6

0-65)

[6

5-70)

[7

0-75)

[7

5-80)

[8

0-85)

[8

5-90)

[9

0-95)

[95

-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2008

SUCs

PHEIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

35

40

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[1

0-15)

[1

5-20)

[2

0-25)

[2

5-30)

[3

0-35)

[3

5-40)

[4

0-45)

[4

5-50)

[5

0-55)

[5

5-60)

[6

0-65)

[6

5-70)

[7

0-75)

[7

5-80)

[8

0-85)

[8

5-90)

[9

0-95)

[95

-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2009

SUCs

PHEIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[1

0-15)

[1

5-20)

[2

0-25)

[2

5-30)

[3

0-35)

[3

5-40)

[4

0-45)

[4

5-50)

[5

0-55)

[5

5-60)

[6

0-65)

[6

5-70)

[7

0-75)

[7

5-80)

[8

0-85)

[8

5-90)

[9

0-95)

[95

-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2010

SUCs

PHEIs

0

5

10

15

20

25

30

0

(0-5)

[5-10)

[1

0-15)

[1

5-20)

[2

0-25)

[2

5-30)

[3

0-35)

[3

5-40)

[4

0-45)

[4

5-50)

[5

0-55)

[5

5-60)

[6

0-65)

[6

5-70)

[7

0-75)

[7

5-80)

[8

0-85)

[8

5-90)

[9

0-95)

[95

-100)

100

Percentage

Passing rates

2011

SUCs

PHEIs


23/31


Many SUCs

have zero

passing rate inPBEs in three

years in 2005-

2011

List of SUCswith passing

rates below

national

average is even

longer

PBE Zero passers, 3 consecutive years Zero passers, 3 non-consecutive years

Accountancy Cotabato City State Polyte chnic Colle ge Kal inga-Apayao State Colle ge

N ort hw es t S am ar S tate Un iv ers ity Te ch no lo gi cal Un iv ers ity o f the P hi li pp in es

Occidental Mindoro State College

A gri cu ltural En gi ne eri ng I lo co s S ur Po ly te ch ni c S tate Col le ge Cap iz State Un iv ers ity

Lag un a S tate P ol ytech ni c Un iv ers ity Mi nd oro State Col le ge of Ag ri an d Te ch

Romblon State University University of Rizal System

Western Philippines University

Criminology Isabela State University Leyte Normal University

Partido State University Pangasinan State University

S uri gao St ate Col le ge of Te ch no lo gy Un iv ers ity o f S ou th eas te rn Ph il ip pi ne sUniversity of Southern Mindanao

Electrical Engineering Mountain Province State Polytechnic College

University of Antique

Electronics Engineering Agusan Del Sur State College of Agric and Tech Camiguin Polytechnic State College

Caraga State University

Jose Rizal Memorial State University

Forestry Cotabato City State Polytechnic College Apayao State College

I lo co s Su r Po ly te ch ni c St ate Col le ge Batangas State Uni ve rs ity

Kal inga-Apayao State Col le ge Cotabato Foundation Colle ge of Scie nce and Tech

Mountain Province State Polytechnic College Pampanga Agricultural College

Naval State University Siquijor State College

N egros Orie ntal State Unive rsi ty Suri gao Del Sur State Uni versity

Tawi-Tawi Regional Agricultural College

University of Rizal System

LET- Se con dary A di on g Me mori al Po ly te chn ic State Co ll ege Batane s State Co ll ege

Sulu State College


LET-Elementary Rizal Technological University Marikina Polytechnic College

Mindoro State College of Agri and Tech

Misamis Oriental State College of Agri and Tech

Southern Phils. Agri., Bus., Marine & Aquatic School of Tech.


Library Science Bataan Peninsula State University Bicol University

Batangas State University Eastern Samar State University

Cavite State University Laguna State Polytechnic University

Central Mindanao University University of Eastern Philippines

Cotabato Foundation College of Sci and Tech West Visayas State University

Leyte Normal University

Mariano Marcos State Unive rsity

Negros Oriental State University

Pangasinan State University

Romblon State University

University of Northern Philippines

Marine Engineering Batangas State University University of the Philippines

Palawan State University

Surigao State College of Technology

Mechanical Engineering Northern Iloilo Polytechnic State CollegeNursing University of Southern Mindanao Cebu Technological University


24/31


Quality of instruction in HEIs

An average SUC passing rate that is

above that national average does

not guarantee that satellite

campuses are performing as well

There are cases where the main

campus of the SUC does not

perform as well as its satellite

campuses


25/31


R d


26/31


Recommendations

To help rationalize program offerings of SUCs

and improve quality

CHED to close existing programs where

SUCs performance in PBEs is under par;

CHED has CMO to this effect

o Closer scrutiny of passing rates in PBEs

show that many SUCs passing rates in

PBEs are below national average year

after year

o Given persistent poor performance of

some satellite campuses, consider

applying rule to satellite campuses

independently of main campus

R d i


27/31


Recommendations

Improve CHEDs ability to ensure that SUCs

program offerings comply with its Policies,Standards and Guidelines (PSGs) for these

programs

CHED to strictly apply standards on SUCs

proposing to open new programs

Through CHED chairman in Board of

Trustees but this does not happen all the

time at present

Through supervision of CHED regional

offices but ability of CHED regional offices

to do so patchy at present

R d i


28/31


Recommendations

SUCs may be allowed to offer popular

programs provided they meet CHED

standards and provided they do not expect

NG subsidy for enrollment in these

programs One of the SUCs in the Visayas did this

when it was pressured to offer Nursing

Need to tweak normative financing

formula to put this into effect

R d i


29/31


Recommendations

Many of measures that SUCs putin place to improve quality of

instruction (e.g., review classes,

administration of pre-board exams

where non-passers not given

certification needed to take PBE)

are illusory

Manasan (2011) indicates that

qualification of faculty is key

R d i


30/31


Recommendations

CHED should enforce morevigorously its policy of closing existing

programs of SUCs and PHEIs alike

where these HEIs performance is

under par

CHED should also consider

applying this rule to satellite campuses

independently of main campuses


31/31

Phili i I tit t f D l t St d i

Documents

Review & Assessment of Programs Offered by State Universities and Colleges (SUCs)