RA 7722 vs. Licuanan on CHED’s Power and on Academic Freedom

In the letter of Dr. Patricia Licuanan, Chair of CHED, dated Dec. 12, 2012, to myself as President of PAASCU, in which she essays to explain why the approval of Outcomes-Based and Typology-Based Quality Assurance cannot be postponed, she asserts: “CHED has the statutory power or authority to set standards pursuant to its plenary powers under Republic Act 7722 vis-à-vis the exercise of accreditation authority over academic programs, school, colleges and universities” and refers to Sec. 8 or RA 7722.

I do not want now to go into a detailed discussion of this contentious claim, leaving that for our lawyers, beyond recalling the Declaration of Policy of RA 7722, sec. 2, part of which states: “… The State shall likewise ensure and protect academic freedom, and shall promote its exercise and observance for the continuing intellectual growth, the advancement of learning and research, the development of responsible and effective leadership, the development of high-level and middle-level leadership and the enrichment of our historical and cultural heritage.” A governing policy of CHED is that it must ensure and protect academic freedom.

Throwing light on the relationship it has with State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) as well as with Local Colleges and Universities (LCUs), it says: “State supported institutions of higher learning shall gear their programs to national, regional or local development plans.” A governing policy of CHED is that SUCs and LCUs be harnessed for national development plans on various levels.

Respectful of academic freedom, it does not say this about private schools.

Instead, in Sec. 13, it issues a “Guarantee of Academic Freedom”: “…Nothing in this Act shall be construed as limiting the academic freedom of universities and colleges. In particular, no abridgement of curricular freedom of the individual educational institutions by the Commission shall be made except for (a) minimum requirements for specific academic programs; (b) general education requirements as may be determined by the Commission and (c) specific professional subjects as may be stipulated by the various licensing entities.”

In its own determination of “leveling the playing field,” RA 7722, Sec. 13 states: “No academic or curricular restriction shall be made upon private educational institutions which are not required for chartered state colleges and universities.”

In Sec. 14 on “Accreditation”, recognizing the private and voluntary activities of functioning accreditation agencies in the Philippines, RA 7722 provides, “The Commission shall provide incentives to institutions of higher learning, public and private, whose programs are accredited and whose needs are for accreditation purposes.” Note that RA 7722 does not presume to set minimum standards for accreditation, and confines its activities to providing “incentives” for accreditation.

These provisions considered, it is not apparent to me at all how Chair Licuanan can invoke “plenary powers” afforded CHEd by RA 7722 to issue a policy on Quality Assurance which defines the “mandate” for all HEIs in the Philippines to contribute to “building a quality nation” (CMO 46, s. 2012, Art I, Sec 1), and shall therefore logically base all evaluations of program or institutional outcomes on this “mandate,” without violating academic freedom.

It is not clear to me what “plenary powers” CHED has “vis-à-vis the exercise of accreditation authority over academic programs, schools, colleges and universities” when the accreditation activity and acceptance of accreditation by schools especially above minimum standards are essentially voluntary.

How is it that CHEd exercises this “accreditation authority”? Is it saying it has the plenary power to authorize accreditation agencies to freely enter into the activity of accreditation? Or is it saying that accreditation agencies – which are not HEIs – are not free to exercise their accreditation activities unless authorized by CHEd? Is it saying that accreditation activities are valid if and only if they “voluntarily” follow the accreditation processes that it prescribes?

If RA 7722 wished CHED to have authority over accreditation, would it not have specified this in Sec. 8.? Instead, RA 7722, mentions only that CHEd should provide incentives for accreditation.

Our position is that RA 7722 does not give CHED power over accrediting agencies that are not violating law in their non-mandatory service of education.

Chair Licuanan’s statement, “We would also like to clarify that while higher education bodies are free as citizens and organizations to lobby for a later implementation of a policy that CHED deems urgent, this is not within the purview of the academic freedom of HEIs…,” is not clear. What is not within the purview of academic freedom? Is she saying that it is not within the purview of the academic freedom of HEIs to accept or not to accept CMO 46 s. 2012. I think, that is her meaning. She is saying HEIs are not academically free to to reject CMO 46, s. 2012.

But what if CMO 46, s. 2012 is violating the academic freedom of HEIs – as we contend?

If so, CMO 46, s 2012 is invalidly issued, and it is within the purview of HEIs to reject it.

Dr. Licuanan writes, “Under the constitutional concept of academic freedom, HEIs exercise institutional autonomy in the determination of their systems and operations, and to determine for themselves (1) who may teach, (2) who may be taught, (3) how lessons shall be taught, and (4) who may be admitted to study. CHED has continued to uphold academic freedom….” Here, however, she misses to include a fundamental tenet of academic freedom, namely, the academic freedom of what may be taught.

This may be an error because of the seeming doublet, “(2) who may be taught” and “(4) who may be admitted to study.”

Or it may be because in in Art. 1. Sec. 1 of CMO 46, in its mandate to all HEIs to “contribute to building the quality nation,” she has already virtually predetermined all of what can be taught. It is on the basis of this predetermination that all “outcomes” in a outcomes-based QA system shall necessarily be evaluated.

So if the outcome, “able to do the work of a call-center agent,” is an acceptable outcome for the “quality nation”, it is evaluated as good; however, if the outcome, “able to expound on the Philosophy of Spirit of Georg Wilhelm Friedrich Hegel (which eschews the nation),” is irrelevant for the “quality nation,” it is evaluated as not good. This truncation of academic freedom seriously harms higher education.

Dr. Licuanan states, “In fact, it is pursuing QA reforms in support of academic freedom because the exercise of HEIs of their constitutionally guaranteed academic freedom will flourish only in an atmosphere where the hallmarks of quality assurance are ensured.”

It may be true that the exercise of academic freedom will flourish in the context of quality programs and institutions of higher education. But is is extremely dubious that this context is served through a government-imposed CMO 46 s. 2012. It is our contention that it is harmed.

Advertisements

About Joel Tabora, S.J.

Jesuit. Educator
This entry was posted in Personal Views and tagged , , , . Bookmark the permalink.

5 Responses to RA 7722 vs. Licuanan on CHED’s Power and on Academic Freedom

  1. I agree to some points. But the engineering educators are now actively preparing for the implemention of OBE. Some schools in Davao Region are silently preparing. Its now a norm.

  2. Outcomes based education (OBE) is a process that involves the restructuring of curriculum, assessment and reporting practices in education to reflect the achievement of high order learning and mastery rather than the accumulation of course credits” (Tucker, 2004). Thus the primary aim of OBE is to facilitate desired changes within the learners, by increasing knowledge, developing skills and/or positively influencing attitudes, values and judgment. OBE embodies the idea that the best way to learn is to first determine what needs to be achieved. Once the end goal (product or outcome) has been determined the strategies, processes, techniques, and other ways and means can be put into place to achieve the goal. (from http://www.kfshrc.edu.sa/…/Outcomes%20Based%2...)

    Accredited Professional Organizations (APOs) are now embracing OBE. As a matter of fact, we were already informed and consulted about this since 1998. Several technical fora were organized to bring out several arguments. I was part of some of those activities since 2004. Last year 2012, technical panels were created to draft the said CMO 46, s. 2012. Stakeholders were consulted.

    Many schools are now preparing to implement OBE because they believed that it promotes international mobility of engineers and technical people, it will give recognition to the undergraduates that they are technically qualified, it prepares the students for life and work, it fosters more authentic forms of assessment, it promotes greater learning than the traditional ones, and it encourages decision making regarding curriculum, teaching methods, and school structure.

    A lot of studies were conducted regarding OBE. The advantages outweigh the disadvantages. We are promoting this in order for our undergraduates to be more globally competitive with the rest of the world.

    Postponing the Outcomes-Based and Typology-Based Quality Assurance system will be detrimental to some professions. OBE is now a ‘norm.’ We need to accept and embraced it for our benefits.

  3. There was a study conducted in 2003 entitled “Towards a Typology of Philippine Higher Education Institutions” by Allan Bernardo of the Lasallian Institute of Development and Educational Research. This study was one of the bases of the CHED memorandum orders relating to OBE and Typology. (from http://www.scribd.com/doc/50759057/Towards-a-Classification-of-Philippine-Higher-Education-Institutions)

    • Thank you for your thoughtful comments, Albert! We are one with CHED in desiring an improvement in quality higher education in the Philippines. However, even after the many consultations CHED has conducted in this regard, many issues are unresolved. In PAASCU, with the recent experience of many countries that have junked OBE for QA, we are still unconvinced that this is the way to go for ALL disciplines, even though it may be appropriate for some, like engineering, nursing, and the like. We are also unconvinced that this is an appropriate function for CHED which by RA7722 is mandated to ensure and protect academic freedom. Here, is where I believe the CMO 46 is fatally flawed. It “mandates” PH higher education to “contributing to a quality nation” (Sec 2). However laudable that may seem, it usurps the academic freedom of PH HEIs under the Constitution to do this. This is a truncation of our mandate to be a Jesuit, Catholic and Filipino university. I would be happy to discuss this with you personally. Meanwhile, I have posted the official PAASCU response to CHED on this matter.

      • Dear Fr. Joel,

        Thank you.   Dr. ALBERT B. JUBILO Ateneo De Davao University Jacinto St., Davao City 8000 Philippines CEL. NO. +639193639644 +639324943435

        ________________________________

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out / Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out / Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out / Change )

Google+ photo

You are commenting using your Google+ account. Log Out / Change )

Connecting to %s