What is the problem with local colleges and universities?

My last article, “Are local colleges and universities unstable institutions?” appears to have lit a fuse among education leaders and generated an interesting list of needed reforms to make LCUs viable change agents for educational reform.

UPLB Chancellor Dong Camacho, CHED director Lily Milla and former Mabalacat City College president Mich Ong pushed for the imposition of quality assurance standards. PanPacific University Prof. Engelbert Pasag called for a return to their community roots and proposed reforms to: 1) realign LCUs with their original mission; 2) ensure performance-based funding tied to community impact; 3) govern through an independent oversight board with multi-sectoral representation; 4) enforce carrying capacity limits; 5) make sure DILG and CHED exercise their mandates.

But before we start discussing the merits of these recommendations, let’s pause and ask the question – why, when and how were LCUs created? And why did they become the institutions they are today?

Historically, all public universities were established by national law, except for the Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila (PLM), which was created by national law (R.A. 4196) but funded by the city government.

The framers of the Local Government Code (RA 7160) in 1992 did not contemplate local governments establishing and running public universities. RA 7160 only empowered city, municipal and provincial legislative bodies to “establish and provide for the operation of vocational and technical schools and similar post-secondary institutions.”

But once given autonomy and with increased funding, most local governments started creating public universities through provincial, city and municipal ordinances.

So, from one LCU created by national law (PLM), there are now 173 LCUs (compared to the 114 SUCs) handling the education of more than 500,000 students in the country.

The Commission on Higher Education (CHED) may have been caught flat-footed when faced with the increasing number of LCUs. For more than a decade, the relationship between LCUs and the CHED vacillated between open defiance and lukewarm recognition. Their logic was simple – we were created and funded by local governments, we do not receive national government funding, so why should CHED be telling us what to do?

Many LCUs openly questioned CHED’s jurisdiction, and a Department of Justice opinion (DOJ Opinion 72, series of 2008) in 2008 was necessary to assert the Commission’s powers over LCU programs and governance. The DILG subsequently issued Department Order 2009-067 on the establishment of LCUs and operation of higher education programs consistent with the DOJ opinion.

One of my first acts when I joined CHED in 2016 was to invite University of Makati president Tomas Lopez to bring several LCU presidents to meet with me and explore win-win solutions to the festering animosity between CHED and their universities.

Under my watch in CHED, LCUs were included in all commission programs. More than a hundred LCU officials completed the AIM Global Academic Leadership training in 2022. LCU officials have been attending internationalization benchmarking exercises in the US and Canada since 2019; their faculty are pursuing graduate studies under the SIKAP program and several local universities received financial grants for upgrading tourism management facilities and IT systems.

The passage of the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education law (RA 10931) in 2017 reframed the governance and quality assurance in LCUs by requiring them to comply with CHED standards to get government subsidy.

But it also emboldened more local governments to establish LCUs due to the prospect of government subsidy.

The requirements for inclusion in the Free Higher Education (FHE) were not easy for many local universities. Nineteen LCUs lost their FHE status in 2021 because of unqualified presidents, lack of full-time faculty and poor student services (libraries, laboratories, guidance counsellors, librarians).

Some local governments decided to postpone the opening of their local colleges when confronted with the strict requirements. Others established their LCUs with programs that can easily pass compliance requirements.

The good news is that 107 of the 173 LCUs are fully compliant with CHED standards and are part of the FHE program. The bad news is that 58 LCUs continue to offer degree programs and graduate students without fully complying with CHED requirements.

In summary:

• Many local governments established local colleges and universities in response to public demand for affordable education.

• The temptation to establish LCUs is difficult to resist due to the high political returns of providing free higher education.

• The lack of a clear legal framework and development paradigm for local colleges and universities has resulted in the establishment of LUCs of all sizes and shapes, from large comprehensive higher education institutions in cities to small institutions in municipalities offering very few degree programs.

• While CHED has tried to impose its regulatory powers late in the game, the memorandum orders it has issued still tend to view LCUs as SUCs. This perpetuates the practice of new LCUs copying SUCs in their area in terms of program offerings, faculty recruitment and admission policies. Unfortunately, the proposed bills in Congress also follow this line of thinking.

• Regrettably, even the CHED-authorized accreditation bodies for local universities use evaluation instruments similar to those used in SUCs and have not incorporated practices in community colleges abroad.

• Many LCUs offer graduate programs without a clear sense of purpose.

So is there hope for LCU reforms to make them viable change agents for access and equity in higher education? I will discuss the recommended reforms in my next column.