Effective monitoring and evaluation

First of two parts

Adisclosure notice. As I am an official of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), I must inform readers of this column that all the issues, statements and information written in this space are my personal opinions and do not necessarily reflect the position of the Office of Programs and Standards (OPS) in particular and the CHED in general except those that pertain to policies, standards, guidelines and other information issued by CHED, Executive Orders issued by the Office of the President and other policies, rules and regulations of other government and nongovernment institutions.

Legal basis and policy statement

Monitoring and evaluating the performance of programs and institutions of higher learning (tertiary education) is one of the mandates of the Republic Act 7722, or the Higher Education Act of 1994, the law that created the CHED on May 18, 1994. The purpose of monitoring and evaluating is clear in Article XIV, Section 1 of the 1987 Philippine Constitution. It states that “the state shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels . . . ”

In fact, R.A. 7722 empowers the CHED “to give appropriate incentives as well as the imposition of sanctions such as but not limited to, diminution or withdrawal if accreditation, program termination or school closure.”

Monitoring and evaluation objectives

For effective monitoring and evaluation of programs, CHED Memorandum Order Number 16, series 2005 enumerated the following objectives:

1. To ensure that programs offered by the institutions are compliant with the policies and standards required by CHED;

2. To identify areas of weakness and strength in the performance of individual programs based on cohort survival rate, achievement of learning outcomes, performance in licensure/board examinations and employability of graduates;

3. To gather accurate, up-to-date data and accessible information on performance of higher education programs and institution upon which judgment maybe based; and

4. To provide the commission with bases for policy options on higher education and informed decisions for development assistance and incentives to HEIs.

Definition of terms

This was taken from CHED Memorandum Order Number 16, series 2005 on the subject “Implementing Rules and Regulations of CMO Number 15, series 2005” entitled “Institutional Monitoring and Evaluation for Quality Assurance of All Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines” and by the virtue of CEB Resolution Number 201-2005 dated April 25, 2005.

1. Higher Education Institutions. All public and private institutions providing and delivering higher education programs and services.

2. Institutional Quality Assurance Management Systems. Arrangement procedures or mechanisms developed by an institution to enable it to institute, effectively govern and efficiently manage quality programs and services.

3. Institutional Monitoring and Evaluation. An outcome-based and qualitative assessment of the over-all strategic and operational management of institution.

4. Policies, Standards and Guidelines (PSGs). These are CHED orders that set the minimum requirement in offering a curricular program. This includes administration, faculty and staff, curriculum, laboratory including audio-visual facilities, library and learning resource centers including manuals, site, buildings and physical plant and student services facilities.

5. Program Monitoring and Evaluation. An outcome-based and qualitative assessment of programs starting from program approval, program monitoring and review and actions to strengthen program. This is usually conducted after the government recognition is issued and usually done by education supervisors in the region to determine compliance beyond the minimum requirement.

6. Outcomes-based Evaluation. Evaluation of the learning outcomes intended for students to achieve.

7. Monitoring and Evaluation Framework. This is the framework for monitoring and evaluating performance of institutions based on five key result areas. These include Governance and Management, Quality of Teaching and Learning, Support for Students, Relations with Community and Management of Resources.

8. Quality Assurance System. A system whereby an institution is assured that its structure and mechanisms fulfill its mission, vision and objectives. It is a system that employs flexibility for continuous improvement and regular monitoring on the effectiveness of internal academic management procedures and institutional arrangements.

Why monitor?

As mentioned earlier, CHED monitors and evaluates programs and institutions of higher learning as part of its mandate. Monitoring and evaluation is necessary for CHED to make judgments about the effectiveness of the institution’s programs and in their entirety. CHED has to monitor and evaluate institutional systems.

Monitoring and evaluation and accreditation

CHED’s role is different from but complimentary to accreditation carried out by accrediting bodies. Program accreditation is concerned with the outcomes of individual programs while monitoring and evaluation of institutional systems is concerned with the over-all strategic and operational management by an institution of its academic affairs.

Program accreditation remains important because of the current state of development in higher education in the Philippines; performance at program level provides a part of the evidence needed to evaluate institutional systems and program accreditation will be needed.

On the other hand, monitoring and evaluation of programs and institutions is a direct responsibility of CHED, acting mainly through its CHED Regional Offices (CHEDROs). –Felizardo Y. Francisco, Manila Times

Concluded on Friday, October 2