Industry Analysis

Introduction
• Philippines, One of the most highly educated developing countries*.
• Still, lagging behind Thailand, Malaysia and Vietnam*
 The Education Reform Movement
 Failed Recommendations of PESS and PCER
 ensure adequate financing and improve the quality of basic education;
 slow and reverse the haphazard expansion of low-quality tertiary institutions;
 provide equitable access at all levels so that deserving poor households and
communities can benefit from public education provision; and
 improve overall sector management through greater local participation and
accountability.

 Led to
 Uneven Distribution of Schools across the Geography
 Mushrooming of low quality schools across the country
 Deteriorated Output of Skilled Labour and Workforce

*PHILIPPINES -- EDUCATION POLICY REFORMS IN ACTION: A REVIEW OF PROGRESS SINCE PESS AND PCER, Human Development
Sector Unit East Asia and the Pacific Region, The World Bank, May 2004.
 Higher Education Sub-sector under CHED
• Objectives
 Rationalisation of creation and conversion of new SUCs
 Private Institutions to meet demand
 Targeted programme of scholarships
 Faculty Development
 Self Financing of SUCs

• Gaps
 The creation of new SUCS under political pressure
 No change in the targeting of scholarships;
 Little progress has been made on teacher development
 Inability of SUCs to generate significant levels of self-financing
 Relevant Macro Analysis for
Higher Education System
 Political Factors :
• Creation of Presidential Task Force
on Education
• De-regulation of tuition fees
• Autonomy of accrediting agencies
• Limited budget for Education
• Misallocation of resources across
sectors of education
Social and Demographic Factors :
• Population concentration in
urbanized areas
• Large families in C, D and E socio-
economic classes
• Lack of equitable access at all
levels of education
• Education as the social status
 Economic Factors :
• Growing economy, with
slow pace
• Stable inflation rate
• Increased reliance in
remittances from OFWs
Technological Factors :
• Penetration of Internet and
Telephony
• Increased availability of alternative
and cutting edge learning
methodologies because of
globalization
•Greater demand for IT-related
programs because of boom in BPO
sector
 HIGHER EDUCATION:
Philippine Accreditation Timeline
 HIGHER EDUCATION: Bologna Accord

Bologna Accord

aims to facilitate mobility by providing common tools to ensure

that periods of study abroad are recognized. This can be
achieved by adopting the following measures:

1. Adoption of a system of easily readable and comparable

degrees
2. Adoption of a system essentially based on two cycles
3. Establishment of a system of credits
4. Promotion of mobility
 HIGHER EDUCATION: Washington Accord

Washington Accord

recognizes the substantial equivalency of programs accredited by

those bodies and recommends that graduates of programs
accredited by any of the signatory bodies be recognized by the
other bodies as having met the academic requirements for entry
to the practice of engineering.

For our graduates to be globally competitive, our degrees must

comply with the Bologna and Washington Accord.
Logic of the Higher Education Industry
• Program Demand
• Brand Equity
• Tuition Fee and its Relation to Family Income
per Capita
• Location of the Institution
• Quality of Facilities
• Institutional Continuity
• Program/Institution Accreditation
 Key Success Factors
• Established brand equity
• Completeness of facilities catering to
programs offered
• Affordability of fees
• Proximity of institution
• High level of program or institutional
accreditation
 PACUCOA  Accrediting CEU,
TIP and UB
• Strengths
– Accreditation adds to brand equity
– Ensures institutions continually upgrade the quality of education they
provide to students
– Reinforces stability of institutions
– Means of granting autonomous status to deserving institutions
• Weaknesses
– Accreditation is input-based
– No substantial increase in # of institutions accredited
– Voluntary
– Existence of PACUCOA in the midst of two other accrediting bodies for
PUCs
– Slow process
– Lack of linkage with industry
 PACUCOA  Accrediting CEU,
TIP and UB
• Opportunities
– Increasing demand for higher quality education by
stakeholders
– Only 20% of the higher education institutions are
undergoing accreditation
• Threats
– Political influence
– No legislation enforcing institutions to undergo
accreditation
– Lack of financial support
– Presence of other Quality Management Systems and
specialized professional associations
 CONCLUSION

1. Accreditation does not help in influencing the

output from HEIs.
2. Accreditation does not work at ultimate
measure of quality education
3. Accreditation has resulted in increase of tuition
fees and not the quality of education
3. PACUCOA on its own can not improve the
quality of higher education, as it is only a
complement of the regulatory system.
 RECOMMENDATIONS
• Output-based Accreditation
• Institutional Accreditation
• Diss-incentivise non participation to
accreditation procedure
• Accreditation should be a less expensive affair
for the institute.