CHED chairperson identifies priority key result areas

The new Chairperson of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Dr. Patricia B. Licuanan, presented her priority areas for the first 100 days of her term during the 1st Consultation Meeting held at the HEDC CHED Auditorium on September 1, 2010. She appointed Chairpersons of the Technical Panels.

Chairperson P. B. Licuanan’s priority Key Result Areas are:
1. Rationalization

Under rationalization, she focused on the following:

• The need to have rational typology. Not all HEIs should aspire to became University

• Tackling the huge number of almost 2000 public and private HEIs, proliferation of State Universities and Colleges campuses and increasing number of Local Colleges and Universities

• Level the playing field between public and private HEIs

• Improve employment of gradautes (jobs, tech-voc-college)

2. Quality and Standards

• Prolifiration of sub-standard and oversubscribed programs

• Review the policies, and the implementation Rules and Regulations and the criteria in the identification of centers of excellence and centers of development, granting of autonomous and deregulated institutions, university status and categorization of HEIs using the IQUAME instrument

3. Access

• Opening of new local colleges and universities (LCUs) may offer access to higher education and this is good but establishment and operation of LCUs must be rationalized

• Promote and disseminately widely Expanded Tertiary Education Equivalency and Accreditation Program (ETEEAP) giving credits to prior learning and experiences

4. Effectiveness and Transparency at CHED

• Effect change at CHED by doing much more to counter act the perception of some people in the academe in CHED who are +gsleeping on the job+h and are doing bad image to CHED

• Role modeling as strategy shall be her way and can’t tolerate corruption in the job

Chairperson P. Licuanan emphasized that she is advocating President Benigno C. Aquino 3rd’s campaign platform of +gChange+h and his present motto of +gkung walang corrupt walang mahirap.+h

She explained the purpose of the Consultative Meeting and presented four (4) issues.

The four issues and the guide questions under each are as follows:

Issue 1. On CHED being too prescriptive and Regulatory in including sample curriculum in the policies, standards and guidelines (PSGs) for the different program.

a. In your perception, are the PSGs promulgated and implemented by CHED prescriptive and regulatory?

b. Does it encroach on the academic freedom of Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)

c. What about new and developing schools that effect guidance and directions from CHED?
Issue 2. On organization of the Technical Panel

a. What are your comments and suggestion on the current organization of the Technical Panels

b. How should CHED select Chairs and members of the TPs?
Issue 3. On structure or system to be set up to meet the goal of integrity and transparency in CHED

a. What can you suggest for the CHED to be able to meet the goal of integrity and transparency in its operation as well as in its program implementation? e.g. Autonomous and Deregulated Status, IQUAME, University Status, Monitoring and Evaluation, PSG etc.

Issue 4. On the possible declaration of moratorium on the opening of undergraduate and graduate programs that performance in the Board Examination being conducted by PRC.

a. How do you feel about the possible declaration of moratorium as an appropriate measure to address programs proliferation and poor performance in Board Examination.

The Technical Panel Chairs numbering more than 70were grouped into seven the individual group the different issues giving them comments, suggestions, identify critical areas and come up with recommendation in aid of policy formulation.

For one how, they had workshop sessions led by the Chair they appointed and assisted by a rapporteur assigned by OPS, CHED the Chairman on his deregulated member shall render the report of the group during the plenary session. This is followed by an open forum, which lasted for 45 minutes.

Some of the important comments and suggestion of the groups are:

1. Majority believed there is a need to have policies, standards and guidelines that prescribed the minimum standards to assist new developing higher education institutions particularly in the curriculum structure. Universities and autonomous institutions are assured of their academic freedom as embodied in RA 7722 and BP 232.

2. The groups where divided on whether or not to retain the old structure of the Technical Panels with Technical Committees under then or the present structure where there are no technical committees. During the open forum, however, majority of the comments were inclined to returning to the old structure for purposes of expanded sharing of experience

3. On meeting the goal of integrity and transparency in CHED some of the suggestion are:

1. CHED must have an effective feed back mechanism

2. Transparency be extended first in CHED Regional offices. The performance of CHEDROs must be evaluated by a separate body.

3. Strict monitoring and evaluation and ensure there is only one interpretation of PSGs by CHEDROs

On the possible declaration of moratorium on the openning of oversubscribed undergraduate and graduate programs and with poor performance in the Board Licensure Examination. The TP s for Engineering, Science and Mathematics the programs assigned to them are not over subscribed. There is however acceptance from the Teacher Education group that Bachelor of Elementary Education and Bachelor of Secondary Education are oversubscribed or substandard they agree to CHED declaring moratorium.

The seven groups also agreed to have selective moratorium of programs and or strict monitoring of programs and there found not compliant/too many defeciens be gradually phase out.

The Chairperson thanked the Technical Panel Chair for their presence and unselfish contributing they have made vis-a-vis the issues presented. She opened to the group that this is just the beginning of our continuous cooperation, coordination and collaboration as partners all for empowering quality higher education sector. –Felizardo Y. Francisco, Manila Times

dirfyf@yahoo.com