What’s the plan for the SUCs? (2)

Conclusion

Besides businesses, successful, well-run and financially strong HEIs, both public and private, can be tapped to provide guidance and expertise to institutions under strain. Fund raising, asset management, operational efficiency, faculty and facilities development are among areas of advice and assistance. Notably, Catholic universities like Ateneo, Assumption, La Salle and San Beda, have been setting up new campuses and affiliates. Lending their knowhow to SUCs will also advance their mission of education for the least of our brethren, maybe even more than expanding their elite schools.

Collaboration among HEIs may also involve the sharing of facilities, faculty and course offerings, with better economies of scale, wider spread of overhead expenses and productive assets, not to mention prodding partner institutions to raise their standards to the level of superior academes. The same partnering can be done between SUCs and voctech institutes, particularly in ladderized courses offering credit in both university and vocational curricula.

The tough question in SUC reform, of course, is whether certain institutions should downsize, merge, or even close down, given their performance and the actual demand for higher education in their areas. Privatization is another option. Notably, at least two mega-tycoons have invested in leading universities: Lucio Tan in the University of the East and recently the Sy family in National University. They and others may be interested in some SUCs.

The first step in considering these and other options is to do an objective, expert and factual evaluation of every university’s performance, needs and costs, and the demand for its instruction and other activities in its area and in the country. Given the vested interest of every college or university to justify its existence perhaps with little change, the evaluation is best done by, or with an outside body, like CHED or a professional consultant with a mandate to tell it like it is.

The report will look at the institution’s academic and material resources, its student enrollment and results, including grades and placings in professional licensing exams; plus the ratio of students to faculty and facilities, and its research output, including work for outside entities. Low rates of use may suggest limited demand for certain offered courses or activities. The various ratings should then be benchmarked with institutions of similar size, location and capabilities.

HEIs that have ratios and results below the average or minimum standard for their particular class of SUCs would need to factor that reality into their reform planning. They should consider perhaps sharing faculty, facilities and courses, or merging with other institutions, while maintaining certain identities to mollify politicians and local governments keen to keep the school in existence for prestige reasons. But whatever is done or planned, the comprehensive and objective assessment of the institution is imperative, and must be fully considered by those deciding its fate.

Government incentives should be offered for cost management and revenue generation, including outside donations. There could be state grants amounting to 50 percent of non-tuition earnings or of cost savings based on average annual expenditures in the past three years. Major restructuring like mergers or department and campus closures could also be rewarded, assuming the plans are sound and do not compromise academic quality or service.

Business scholarships and other assistance may be granted full or partial tax deductions for the funding provided. And there could be tax breaks to lure investors into taking over some SUCs. But more important for academic reform is to revitalize and utilize the industry-academe linkages. They would not only help align higher education with the needs and job offerings of industry. The regular dialogues could also harness ideas and, whenever available, resources of the corporate sector for academic reform and enhancement.

One failing of the government in proposing the SUCs budget adjustments in the 2011 GAA is the absence of a comprehensive and doable reform plan done in close consultation with SUCs and other stakeholders. It is perhaps understandable that this five-month old administration has not yet come up with such plan. But now that all sides know how contentious the financial issues can be, the President or CHED should create a version of the PTFE with the mandate of conducting studies and dialogues to draw up and recommend reform programs for government HEIs, including incentives.

If that is done, then this time next year, the SUCs budget proposal would be supported even by the SUCs themselves. And those that don’t would have to justify their opposition with hard facts and data about their performance and needs, not just to legislators but also to faculty, students and parents. Plainly, education is too crucial to both national development and personal lives for its institutions and policies to be decided based on protest numbers and partisan politics.

So CHED and SUCs, that’s your assignment for the coming year. It’s okay to copy good ideas from one another and even from outside sectors and overseas institutions. The implementation of the plan can be staggered, starting with a few pilot universities as quick wins to encourage others to follow. But there must be a plan, not just sums buried in the thick national budget. For those numbers, like most figures in the GAA, represent not just pesos and centavos, but the lives, livelihoods, dreams and futures of millions of Filipinos.

Let’s not cut them out just to make the government’s bottom line look good.

Ricardo Saludo heads the Center for Strategy, Enterprise and Intelligence ( ric.saludo@censeisolutions.com This e-mail address is being protected from spambots. You need JavaScript enabled to view it ). He is completing postgraduate studies in strategy and innovation at Oxford’s Said Business School. –Ricardo Saludo, Manila Times