CHED urged to improve implementation of Free Tuition Law

By Merlina Hernando-Malipot, Manila Bulletin, Jan 3, 2019

To improve the chances of achieving the objectives of the Free Tuition Law, the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) was urged to strengthen the monitoring of the quality of higher education institutions (HEIs), both public and private, as well as the quality standards it advocates.

The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) — considered as the country’s foremost think tank and a globally recognized policy research organization — noted in a discussion paper released in December that there is a need to evaluate the implementation of the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (UAQTE) or Republic Act No. 10931, also known as Free Tuition Law.

“Duly recognizing that the law is still in the transition period of implementation, the study raises concerns that emerged from the interviews and quantitative information and presents recommendations to strengthen the law’s implementation and enhance the chances of achieving its desired outcomes,” PIDS said.

Signed into law by President Duterte in 2017, the UAQTEA was implemented starting AY 2018-2019 with a P40-billion allocation in the 2018 General Appropriations Act for its first year implementation. It provides free higher education which will cover tuition, miscellaneous, and other fees in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) and CHED-recognized Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs); a Tertiary Education Subsidy (TES); free Technical-Vocational Education and Training (TVET) for those enrolled in state-run Technical Vocational Institutions, and a Student Loan Program (SLP).

In Discussion Paper (DP) series no. 2019-36 entitled “Process Evaluation of the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931): Status and Prospects for Improved Implementation,” authors Ma. Kristina Ortiz, Kris Ann Melad, Nina Victoria Araos, Aniceto Orbeta Jr., and Celia Reyes noted the main objective of the study is to “assess the program design and objectives, as well as gather and assess initial insights from key stakeholders and implementers on their understanding of the law and its objectives, and their experiences with its implementation.”

The DP noted that although the program objectives “are well-understood” by the respondents, “there is a mixed view of whether these objectives are realistic and achievable.” The authors noted that “some respondents raise concerns regarding the design of the law and IRR [Implementing Rules and Regulations], the implementation of the program components under the law, and the adequacy of resources to maintain these programs.”

The authors cited that the main issue regarding “service delivery and utilization” emerged from the interviews was “lack of timely and clear guidelines.” Other issues raised were challenges in processing of billing requirements – which then resulted in delays in reimbursement.

“However, despite these deficiencies, respondents generally described these challenges as ‘birthing pains’ of the program and acknowledged the tremendous task that UniFAST had to face in the implementation of the law,” the DP noted.

Among the foremost recommendations for “improving the implementation” of the RA 10931 and increase the chances of achieving its stated objectives include the need for CHED to “strengthen the monitoring of the quality of HEIs, both public and private, as well as the quality standards it advocates.”

The authors noted that the “importance of maintaining and improving the quality of education provided by HEIs is frequently stressed in the law and IRR” and that “these documents also specify conditions HEIs must comply with to be allowed to receive program benefits under the law.”

The DP cited that the UniFAST should “strictly implement these rules, and regularly review school quality and performance to ensure the optimal utilization of funds allocated to the programs under the law.” Also, PIDS noted the “need to revisit the quality standards of CHED.”