Restrictive School Fees Reduce Access To College Education

An in-depth report on the rising cost of education
Commission on Higher Education (CHED) released on Tuesday, June 6, aggregate data regarding tuition increase for 2006 and a 10-yr compilation of national tuition increase data. This is after being nudged by a subpoena duces tecum from the Congress Committee on Higher and Technical Education, in its meeting on June 5, to provide said data. Members of the committee chided CHED for not participating properly to the former’s hearings and requests.

“CHED restricted information perhaps because the data disproves their pronouncement this quarter that they have capped tuition increases to 7.6 percent inflation rate,” said National Union of Students of the Philippines. This school year, out of 1,428 private higher education institutions (PHEIs), 27.31 percent or 390 schools have increased their tuition. (See figure 1)

Of that total number of schools increasing tuition, 194 are increases above the inflation rate while 196 are below or equal to the inflation. Average percentage of increase is 9.53 percent with a peso equivalent of 31.04 pesos increase per unit. Data excludes increases in four medicine schools in NCR: Our Lady of Fatima University Valenzuela, St. Luke’s College of Medicine, University of Sto. Tomas, and UERMMMC.

Up, up and away
“This is something that goes up which students don’t welcome,” said Delos Reyes. In the last ten years, tuition has increased steadily. Average tuition fee per unit in schools that increased tuition has gone up from 257.41 pesos in school year 2001-2002 to 350.27 pesos in 2006-2007.

Total number of private schools in the country has also increased. In 1997, there are 1,008 private schools in the country and this year, there are 1,428. “CHED argues that it was successful in reducing the number of schools increasing tuition. They cited that there are only about one-fourth of the total schools that increase tuition, but that’s a half-truth. They didn’t cite that the number of private schools also increased,” clarified Delos Reyes.

“Another claim of CHED that has been disproved by the facts is the claim that they have reduced the average percent increase in tuition. In 1997, it was 16.33% and only 9.53% in 2006. However, the peso equivalent in 1997 was 28.28 pesos per unit while in 2006, it was 31.04 pesos per unit,” added Delos Reyes.

More fees to come
Aside from tuition, students pay another gamut of school fees. In 2004, CHED issued a list of the ten most common fees charged by schools in a survey conducted in 10 regions and 144 schools. The list includes registration, library, medical/dental, athletics, audio-visual, guidance, laboratory, NSTP, and ID fee.

Law states that tuition fees should be appropriated 70-20-10. Seventy percent must go to salary of personnel of the school, twenty percent go to infrastructure, and only 10 percent must go to return of investment.

However, the miscellaneous fees have unbundled school costs in tuition, and school owners were able to charge additional payments from students for personnel and infrastructure outside of basic tuition fee. Examples are developmental fee, energy fee, faculty development fee, and internet fee. (See figure 3)

“Thus, school fee regulation policies must not only pertain to the ‘how much’ but also to the ‘which’ and ‘why’. Government must also know which school fees are allowable because these fees have become redundant and excessive. School owners have circumvented existing policies,” contended Delos Reyes.

Forced to drop-out
“National statistic trends tell that students are forced to do two things because of the continuing increase in education costs: transfer to state schools or to drop-out,” asserted Delos Reyes.

Since 1997, percentage growth in enrollment has drastically slowed down in both private and public institutions. In that year, the growth in total tertiary enrollment in the country was at 10.22 percent. By 2002, the growth in total enrollment was negative 1.58 percent. Total enrollment further decreased by -0.25 percent in 2003.

This is also the case in private schools. From an enrollment growth of 6.47 percent in 1997, it plunged to negative 2.8 percent. In fact, enrollment figure was reduced by 46,354 in A.Y. 2002-2003 from 1,657,735 in the previous year. This trend runs directly in conflict with the fast expansion of private schools.

Meanwhile, enrollment in state schools continually increased. From 542, 950 student enrollment in 1997, it has increased to 829,181 in 2003. However, public schools also experienced a decline in the growth rate of enrollment. From a growth rate of 20.75 percent, it has slowed down to only 0.9 percent growth in 2002.

Based on The Reform and Development of Higher Education in the Philippines published by the UNESCO National Commission of the Philippines, the overall cohort survival is only 20 to 22 percent from 1st to 4th year college. The CHED, on the other hand, reports that drop out rate for tertiary level is 20.8 percent, with more poor students (30.8 percent) dropping out of school than non-poor students (16.8 percent). The Wallace Report of 2004 even puts a bleaker picture stating that the drop-out rate in tertiary level is 73 percent.

CHED Memo 14 illegal
The House Committee on Higher and Technical Education (CHTE), meanwhile, declared that the CHED Memorandum 14 (CMO 14) is illegal in so far as it is against the very mandate of the Commission. CHTE cited the Supreme Court Resolution Lina vs. Cariño 1993 that gave authority to CHED to set the maximum permissible rate of increase in tuition and other fees.

CMO 14 exempted from consultations with constituents increases that are within or below the declared inflation rate. Likewise, it also exempted from consultations increases imposed to incoming first year students. “In that case, CHED left its responsibility to regulate tuition,” remarked CHTE Vice-Chairperson Rep. Liza Maza.

The June 5 CHTE hearing also revealed the seeming “identity or authority crisis” of CHED as it presented contradictory arguments regarding the scope of its mandate. “On the one hand, they say that they are constrained by Batas Pambansa 232 (Education Act of 1982), and they are already being charged at court by school owners for issuing memoranda on tuition fees. But on the other hand, CHED cites BP 232 and the 1993 Supreme Court resolution as the basis for their policies,” argued Delos Reyes, who sat as the student representative in the hearing.

Education alliance
House committee on Education vowed to continue their hearings upon the resumption of Congress in July. Even though on recess, its members committed to act in response to the urgent calls for education reforms. Senate, meanwhile, also vowed to conduct investigation for long-term policy changes in education.

NUSP, student councils, and various student organizations declared to continue their work started for the protection of the youth’s right to education. An education alliance is being formed to forward accessible education and its prioritization by the government.

“On the whole, it is the general neglect and mispriorities of the government that lead to the decay of the education system,” said Delos Reyes. “The youth must stand and step up efforts for progressive changes in education, knowledge, and consciousness. Access and costs are but a fraction only for areas of change. The general orientation of education should also be looked upon.”

National Office C/o Office of the Student Regent, Vinzons Hall, UP Diliman, QC Telephone 9818500 loc. 4511 Mobile 0921-7263348 Email nusp_national@yahoo.com