Is free public education destroying private schools?

The Philippine Institute for Development Studies (PIDS) recently presented a study concluding that while the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education or Free Higher Education law led to a surge in enrolment in public universities, it has exacerbated the decline of private institutions, a sector which they say still forms the majority of the country’s academic landscape.

The study called for a voucher system to replace the free tuition model that would give students more choices and promote healthy competition between public and private HEIs.

The study claims that close to 200 private HEIs have closed down, and about 53 percent of institutions in the country enrol fewer than 1,000 students.

PIDS senior research fellow Dr. Bayudan-Dacuycuy stated that from 2009 to 2019, enrolment in public HEIs grew by four percent annually, while private HEIs saw a meagre 0.8 percent increase, and that the share of private HEIs declined from 79 percent in 2009 to 72 percent in 2019.

According to the speakers, these trends indicate a growing imbalance. While free tuition has made education more accessible, it has also redirected enrolment away from private HEIs, putting their financial viability at risk.

I have serious concerns about the conclusions and recommendations.

First, who are these 200 private HEIs, where are they located and what are their characteristics (student enrolment, faculty profile, degree programs offered, licensure results, employability of graduates)?

Second, when did they close and why?

These questions are crucial because concluding that the closure of 200 HEIs is all due to one government policy – free higher education (FHE) – is a serious accusation.

The study also fails to note that more than 200,000 poor students in private schools are already receiving a voucher through the Tertiary Education Subsidy and Tulong Dunong program.

Let me provide the context.

Historically, government has primarily financed primary and secondary education, and outside of the land-grant and polytechnic colleges established by Americans, the establishment of higher education institutions was generally left to the private sector. The number of private HEIs grew over time, and they now make up 1,619 of the 1,892 HEIs nationwide.

Public universities expanded after the post-war period, when polytechnic and agricultural schools were converted into state colleges and universities in response to public demand for more affordable education.

The increase in public universities meant more students could go to university. As a result, the previously skewed enrolment ratio between private and public HEIs moved from 70 percent-30 percent during the post-war period to the current 50 percent-50 percent.

Yes, there has been a significant increase in the number and percentage of students enrolled in public universities due to FHE.

But concluding that FHE is killing private higher education institutions is too simplistic. Here are some facts:

• More than 1,000 of the close to 1,619 private HEIs are tuition-dependent small colleges with student enrolment from 500 to 1,500.

• Many of these small private HEIs were hit badly by the COVID-19 pandemic.

• Most cannot compete with public HEIs in terms of faculty salary (due to the salary standardization law), security of tenure, benefits (GSIS pension is much higher than SSS pension) and working conditions.

• Only 20-30 percent of private HEIs subject themselves to accreditation by CHED-recognized entities.

• Small private schools cannot compete with public HEIs in terms of providing quality education because the CHED, DBM and CSC have tightened standards for faculty recruitment and promotion.

I am assuming that the 200 private HEIs that the study claimed closed due to FHE are part of this cohort.

If they closed before 2018, then FHE is not the culprit.

If these private HEIs closed during the COVID-19 pandemic, then the primary reason is that many families could not send their children to school.

If it’s after the pandemic, then PIDS should review the quality of education provided by the private HEIs and see if this is correlated to their closure.

Most students apply to public universities because of free tuition and quality education. It is because Job Street says employers prefer hiring Polytechnic University of the Philippines (PUP) graduates that propels 200,000 applicants to contest the 15,000 slots available in the various campuses. More than 17,000 applicants compete for the 4,216 freshman slots at West Visayas State University, as their graduates consistently top the licensure examinations for medicine, nursing and teacher education.

Most SUCs now accept less than 50 percent of applicants simply because they have reached their carrying capacity.

So what happens to those who are not accepted into public universities? They will enroll in private universities that provide affordable tuition and cutting-edge degree programs.

Should the government be obligated to help struggling private HEIs financially by amending the FHE law through a voucher system? My answer is no.

The government has no business funding private schools that offer poor quality education.

Vouchers may compensate for lost tuition, but not necessarily improve the quality of education. There are many interrelated government policies that affect the competitiveness of private universities and their ability to provide quality education.

What is required is a serious effort by the government, through CHED, to strategically assist small private HEIs on how to become better institutions. Without the assurance of quality education, letting students go to these schools at government expense is a false promise of a better life.