MANILA, Philippines - Economic managers are opposing proposals to fully subsidize tuition in state universities and colleges (SUCs), saying it would not be beneficial to the poor and would be a financial drain for the government.
In a position paper submitted to President Duterte, economic managers recommended as an alternative fully funding the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST), an existing program that rationalizes the allocation, utilization and targeting of recipients of assistance.
The paper was signed by Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III and Budget Secretary Bejamin Diokno.
They argued that providing free tuition in all SUCs would benefit households with greater resources more than poor households as tuition is only a fraction of the total cost of higher education. As such, households that have more income would benefit more from the proposal because they have the resources to finance the rest of the expenses.
In 2014, the economic managers said only 12 percent of the students attending SUCs belonged to the bottom 20 percent based on Annual Poverty Indicators Survey or the country’s family income classification.
An untargeted tuition subsidy, therefore, will mostly benefit those who belong to the upper 80 percent who can otherwise pay for college education.
“While we commit to the constitutional provision mandating the state to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and to make such education available to all, we do not agree that providing an across-the board free tuition for all undergraduates in all SUCs is the best way to achieve this mandate,” the economic managers said.
“The bigger chunk of college education cost is for living expenses and instructional materials. Accordingly, with the government’s provision of free tuition to all SUC students, poor students would still be unable to pay for the remaining two-thirds balance of college education cost, thereby still preventing them from sending their children to college,” they added.
This position is aligned with that of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, which is contained in a recently-published policy note titled: “Who benefits from an Untargeted Tuition Subsidy for Students in SUCs?”
Several bills for the provision of free tuition in SUCs have been filed in Congress. These include House Bill 5905, Senate Bills 1304, 158, 177, 198 and 962 – all of which cite the constitutional provision mandating the state to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels.”
This year’s national budget includes an P8.3-billion budget for SUCs that have been barred from collecting tuition in the coming school year.
Private higher educational institutions (HEIs) have also opposed this proposal, citing a massive migration of students to SUCs due to the reduction of price of education. The drop in enrollment would result in faculty entrenchment and difficulty sustaining operations of private HEIs.
“The government should not allow this to happen because the overall quality of graduates would suffer, given that a number of private HEIs perform better than SUCs,” stated the position paper.
Economic managers also pointed out that the state may be unable to sustain financing the increase in demand for an artificially inexpensive college education.
“The budgetary support for free tuition will be difficult to sustain,” they said.
Fully funding the UniFAST program, they said, would be a more viable alternative to fully subsidizing tuition in SUCs as this program is targeted and provides not only tuition but also other college-related expenses such as cost of living allowance and other instructional expenses.
The grants-in-aid component of the program provides poor but capable students access to higher education.
Students receiving assistance under the program can choose to attend public or private schools.
“The government should implement its mandate of promoting quality and accessible education within the limits of fiscal prudence, and with the use of appropriate tools and targeting mechanism. The UniFAST is better designed to ensure a more efficient and effective use of government funds,” the economic managers said.
Earlier, Commission on Higher Education chair Patricia Licuanan was criticized after issuing a similar statement in a television interview.
“The poorest of the poor are not yet in college. They have been knocked out long ago and enrollment of the poorest quintile in higher education is only eight percent. So it’s not going to benefit the poor,” she said.
In the said interview, the CHED chair stressed her support for any policy that will expand access to quality education, but noted that they have to address concerns over the implementation of the free tuition policy.
CHED has already transmitted to the budget department the implementing rules that it crafted for the utilization of the P8.3-billion allocation in the current budget to SUCs to cover tuition of students.
Not ‘anti-poor’
Despite the mounting opposition, various groups maintained that institutionalizing the free tuition policy is a right step forward toward achieving President Duterte’s campaign promise to provide free education for all.
“Despite the limitations and vulnerability to corrupt practices and political patronage in the educational system, we view the proposed free tuition as a necessary first step to liberate it from the shackles imposed by educator-capitalists and steer away from public-private partnership schemes,” the Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan said in a statement.
The group asserted that the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF)’s contention is “fallacious,” noting that the pending proposals do not automatically mean that higher-income students will benefit solely from a free tuition policy.
“The data (presented by FEF) merely established the current and dismal state of public tertiary education in the country and will only further worsen unless meaningful reforms such as free tuition are enacted,” said the youth group.
“This is precisely what the proposed free tuition needs to rectify since it will encourage poor students to avail of free tuition and will also discourage poor college students from dropping out of school,” they added.
League of Filipino Students spokesman JP Rosos said FEF ignored the fact that sky-rocketing tuition is among the reasons why only a handful of poor students are in college.
In a position paper submitted to President Duterte, economic managers recommended as an alternative fully funding the Unified Student Financial Assistance System for Tertiary Education (UniFAST), an existing program that rationalizes the allocation, utilization and targeting of recipients of assistance.
The paper was signed by Socioeconomic Planning Secretary Ernesto Pernia, Finance Secretary Carlos Dominguez III and Budget Secretary Bejamin Diokno.
They argued that providing free tuition in all SUCs would benefit households with greater resources more than poor households as tuition is only a fraction of the total cost of higher education. As such, households that have more income would benefit more from the proposal because they have the resources to finance the rest of the expenses.
In 2014, the economic managers said only 12 percent of the students attending SUCs belonged to the bottom 20 percent based on Annual Poverty Indicators Survey or the country’s family income classification.
An untargeted tuition subsidy, therefore, will mostly benefit those who belong to the upper 80 percent who can otherwise pay for college education.
“While we commit to the constitutional provision mandating the state to protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education and to make such education available to all, we do not agree that providing an across-the board free tuition for all undergraduates in all SUCs is the best way to achieve this mandate,” the economic managers said.
“The bigger chunk of college education cost is for living expenses and instructional materials. Accordingly, with the government’s provision of free tuition to all SUC students, poor students would still be unable to pay for the remaining two-thirds balance of college education cost, thereby still preventing them from sending their children to college,” they added.
This position is aligned with that of the Philippine Institute for Development Studies, which is contained in a recently-published policy note titled: “Who benefits from an Untargeted Tuition Subsidy for Students in SUCs?”
Several bills for the provision of free tuition in SUCs have been filed in Congress. These include House Bill 5905, Senate Bills 1304, 158, 177, 198 and 962 – all of which cite the constitutional provision mandating the state to “protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at all levels.”
This year’s national budget includes an P8.3-billion budget for SUCs that have been barred from collecting tuition in the coming school year.
Private higher educational institutions (HEIs) have also opposed this proposal, citing a massive migration of students to SUCs due to the reduction of price of education. The drop in enrollment would result in faculty entrenchment and difficulty sustaining operations of private HEIs.
“The government should not allow this to happen because the overall quality of graduates would suffer, given that a number of private HEIs perform better than SUCs,” stated the position paper.
Economic managers also pointed out that the state may be unable to sustain financing the increase in demand for an artificially inexpensive college education.
“The budgetary support for free tuition will be difficult to sustain,” they said.
Fully funding the UniFAST program, they said, would be a more viable alternative to fully subsidizing tuition in SUCs as this program is targeted and provides not only tuition but also other college-related expenses such as cost of living allowance and other instructional expenses.
The grants-in-aid component of the program provides poor but capable students access to higher education.
Students receiving assistance under the program can choose to attend public or private schools.
“The government should implement its mandate of promoting quality and accessible education within the limits of fiscal prudence, and with the use of appropriate tools and targeting mechanism. The UniFAST is better designed to ensure a more efficient and effective use of government funds,” the economic managers said.
Earlier, Commission on Higher Education chair Patricia Licuanan was criticized after issuing a similar statement in a television interview.
“The poorest of the poor are not yet in college. They have been knocked out long ago and enrollment of the poorest quintile in higher education is only eight percent. So it’s not going to benefit the poor,” she said.
In the said interview, the CHED chair stressed her support for any policy that will expand access to quality education, but noted that they have to address concerns over the implementation of the free tuition policy.
CHED has already transmitted to the budget department the implementing rules that it crafted for the utilization of the P8.3-billion allocation in the current budget to SUCs to cover tuition of students.
Not ‘anti-poor’
Despite the mounting opposition, various groups maintained that institutionalizing the free tuition policy is a right step forward toward achieving President Duterte’s campaign promise to provide free education for all.
“Despite the limitations and vulnerability to corrupt practices and political patronage in the educational system, we view the proposed free tuition as a necessary first step to liberate it from the shackles imposed by educator-capitalists and steer away from public-private partnership schemes,” the Samahan ng Progresibong Kabataan said in a statement.
The group asserted that the Foundation for Economic Freedom (FEF)’s contention is “fallacious,” noting that the pending proposals do not automatically mean that higher-income students will benefit solely from a free tuition policy.
“The data (presented by FEF) merely established the current and dismal state of public tertiary education in the country and will only further worsen unless meaningful reforms such as free tuition are enacted,” said the youth group.
“This is precisely what the proposed free tuition needs to rectify since it will encourage poor students to avail of free tuition and will also discourage poor college students from dropping out of school,” they added.
League of Filipino Students spokesman JP Rosos said FEF ignored the fact that sky-rocketing tuition is among the reasons why only a handful of poor students are in college.
