mindanao university of science and technology

Transcription

MINDANAO UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
THE MUST TEN-YEAR SCHOOL FEES RATIONALIZATION POLICY:
AN EVALUATION
A Thesis
Submitted to the Faculty of the
College of Policy Studies, Education and Management
Mindanao University of Science and Technology
Cagayan de Oro City
In Partial Fulfillment of the
Requirements for the Degree of
Master in Public Administration (MPA)
Vanessa V. Ascaño
April 2014
ii
iii
ACKNOWLEDGMENT
It is a pleasure to thank my advisers, Dr. Montano F. Salvador and Dr. Ricardo E.
Rotoras, who both made available their time in guiding and inspiring me from the initial
phase of the study until its completion. To them I owe my deepest gratitude.
It is an honor for me to have as panel members, Dr. Ruth G. Cabahug, Dr. Juana M.
dela Rama and Prof. Romeo N. Naces, CESO IV. I thank them for their valuable inputs
and insights. I am also indebted to Ms. Ma. Theresa Fajardo and Ms. Rosielyn Mangao
who took down the proceedings during my proposal and final defense, respectively.
Special thanks to Ms. Celerina M. Ongcol who gave insightful views that greatly
helped this study. I am also grateful to Jove, Niezel, Marianne and Cathy who helped in
gathering and putting together data for the study.
To my greatest allies, my loving husband, Long, my affectionate daughters,
Ellianne and Patricia, and my parents, I am forever grateful. This thesis would not have
been possible without their enduring support and encouragement.
And most of all, to the Almighty, who makes all things possible in His time, I
humbly present this work.
Vanessa V. Ascaño
iv
ABSTRACT
In an effort to cushion the impact of dwindling government subsidy, the Mindanao
Polytechnic State College (MPSC), now Mindanao University of Science and Technology
(MUST), adopted a Ten-Year School Fees Rationalization Policy in CY 2000 which
provided for incremental rates of tuition and other fees over the ten-year period, 2000 2010. The goal was to achieve fiscal sufficiency by having at least 50% of the total
operating budget funded from income at the end of the policy period with the objective of
enhancing quality of education. This study found out that by 2007, income comprised 55%
of the operating budget. It was also found out that the rationalized school fees policy did
not have a negative impact on enrolment. On the contrary, enrolment increased as more
students were accommodated with the construction and upgrading of classrooms and
instructional facilities. As of 2011, 70% of total fixed assets were sourced from income.
Institutional quality also elevated, from SUC Level II, MPSC was categorized as Level IV
in 2007, the only state college in the country to do so. And in 2012, the institution was
recognized by CHED as a Leading SUC. Future policy directions on cost sharing that
consider true cost of programs as well as adoption of socialized tuition schemes are
recommended, as well as deeper study into the MUST budget allocation schemes and
leadership styles, for better understanding of how MUST attained its present stature.
Table of Contents
Approval Sheet
Page
ii
Acknowledgment
iii
Abstract
iv
Table of Contents
v
List of Tables
vii
List of Figures
viii
CHAPTER 1 Understanding the Context
1
1.1 Introduction
1
1.2 Conceptual Framework
11
1.3 Objectives of the Study
13
1.4 Significance of the Study
14
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
15
1.6 Definition of Terms
16
Chapter 2 Impact on Resource Generation Efficiency
18
2.1 Introduction
18
2.2 Tuition Policies around the World
19
2.3 Tuition Fee Structure in the Philippines
21
2.4 Subsidy to Philippine State Universities and Colleges
22
2.5 SUCs Income from Tuition and Other Fees
24
2.6 MUST Income from Tuition and Other Fees
27
2.7 MUST Income and Subsidy
31
2.8 Future Policy Directions
33
v
Chapter 3 Impact on Access and Equity
37
3.1 Introduction
37
3.2 Global Trend in Financing Higher Education
38
3.3 Global Trend in Access to Higher Education
41
3.4 Access and Cost Sharing in Philippine State Universities and Colleges
42
3.5 Enrolment in MUST
44
3.6 Policy Formulation
47
3.7 Cost of Programs in MUST
52
56
Chapter 4 Impact on Institutional Quality
58
4.1 Introduction
58
4.2 Measurements of Quality in SUCs
59
4.3 Financing Institutional Development in MUST
61
4.4 The MUST SUC Leveling Experience
76
4.5 MUST as Leading SUC
79
4.6 MUST Accomplishments
81
89
Chapter 5 Looking Back to Move Forward
91
5.1 Introduction
91
5.2 Impact on Resource Generation Efficiency
92
5.3 Impact on Access and Equity
93
5.4 Impact on Institutional Quality
93
5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
94
References
98
Appendix
100
Curriculum Vitae
103
vi
vii
LIST OF TABLES
Table No.
Title
Page
1
2
3
4
5
6
Composition of Internally-generated Income of SUCs (in percent)
Internally-generated Income of SUCs, by Type (in P’000,000)
Composition of MUST Income under the Special Trust Fund
MUST Income and Subsidy, CY 2000 - 2012
Expenditure per Student, Tertiary, as a Percentage of GDP per Capita
Gross Enrollment Ratio, Tertiary, Countries with Moderate Tuition
Fees
Enrollment in Tertiary Level in the Philippines
SUCs Receipts
Rationalized Tuition and Other School Fees, 2000 - 2010
Cost per Student per Program, CY 2002 Financial Data
Cost per Student per Program using Life-cycle Costing Approach
Cost Borne by Student and the Government using Actual Costs in CY
2002
Cost Borne by Student and the Government using Life-cycle Costing
Personal Services Expense Accounts
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses
MUST Capital Outlay from the GAA, 2000 - 2012
Fixed Assets Annual Increase/Decrease and % Share of STF and GF
Current Operating Expenditures
Level I and II SUCs, 1st Round of Evaluation
Level III and IV SUCs, 1st Round of Evaluation
Programs Accredited in CY 2000 - 2002
Programs Accredited in CY 2004
MUST Accomplishments in Research, CY 2000 - 2012
MUST Accomplishments in Extension, CY 2000 - 2012
26
27
30
33
40
42
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
19
20
21
22
23
24
25
26
43
44
51
52
54
55
55
64
65
67
68
75
78
79
83
84
85
86
87
88
viii
LIST OF FIGURES
Figure No.
Title
Page
1
2
Conceptual Framework of the Study
Percentage Share of Income and Subsidy to Total Operating
Budget in 1999
Income of MUST, 1999-2012
MUST Income against average Income of Mindanao SUCs
Subsidy for MUST, 1999 – 2012
Resource Generation Ratios of Income and Subsidy to Total
Operating Budget, 2000 – 2012
Enrolment Trend in MUST
Fixed Assets acquisition against Capital Outlay from the GAA
Fixed Assets of MUST by Fund Source
Research Funding Allocation
Extension Funding Allocation
Average Percentage Increase in Subsidy and Income of Level II
SUCs (1st Round Leveling), CY 2000 - 2007
Mechanical Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
Electronics Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
Electrical Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
Civil Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
Licensure Examination for Teacher Performance
Architecture Licensure Examination Performance
12
28
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
10
11
12
13
14
15
16
17
18
29
31
32
34
45
69
70
76
76
80
81
81
82
82
82
83
Chapter 1
Understanding the Context
1.1 Introduction
Financing public higher education has been the subject of debates in many countries,
particularly in small and developing economies like the Philippines where funding for higher
education is competing with the more basic and fundamental social services. There have
been attempts to define the policy directions of financing public higher education in the
Philippines as contained in the recommendations of various studies commissioned by the
government, most notably the Education Commission (EDCOM) in 1992 and the Presidential
Commission on Educational Reform (PCER) in 2000. While these recommendations suggest
that the burden of funding higher education should be shared both by the government and the
students, there has never been any categorical policy statement to this effect. What is clear,
however, is that funding for the state universities and colleges (SUCs) has been dwindling
since the 90's. Given this trend of funding support to SUCs from the national government,
the quality of education in public higher education is certainly threatened.
The then Mindanao Polytechnic State College (MPSC), now the Mindanao University
of Science and Technology (MUST) was definitely not spared from this series of budget cuts.
In these trying times, the budget for the maintenance and other operating expenses (MOOE)
has been decreasing in real terms while capital outlay is nil. In order to address such a
situation, the administration of the then MPSC introduced a paradigm shift in the outlook of
public higher education financing.
Towards the end of the twentieth century, the then Mindanao Polytechnic State
College envisioned itself to become a world-class university.
However, such a vision
2
seemed more of a dream unless it first created alternative sources of income to reduce its
overdependence on the dwindling national budget to support all the components of a
globally-competitive state university. Data and information for this chapter were culled from
secondary sources particularly the “Institutional Development: Lessons from Mindanao
Polytechnic State College”, a terminal report tracing the historical events of the institution
from 1973 to 2006 submitted to the governing board by Dr. Montano F. Salvador at the end
of his second term as President of MPSC, and other files in various offices in the University.
The Emergence of a State College
Before its conversion into a state college status, MPSC was one of the least known
trade schools in the Philippines, named Mindanao School of Arts and Trades located at a fish
pond area in Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City. No wonder the students here were referred to as
“alimpuyao”, tiny crab species crawling in mangrove areas. Towards the end of 1977, the
school administration drafted a bill to convert the school into a polytechnic state college and
submitted the same to Malacañang. “On June 10, 1978, two days before the National
Assembly convened, President Ferdinand E. Marcos signed the Bill into law as PD 1431, the
DMMMPSC Charter, creating the Don Mariano Marcos Memorial Polytechnic State College
of Northern Mindanao (DMMMPSCNM)”. (Terminal Report, p.3).
Looking back, it appears that as early as in 1979, the DMMMPSCNM already had an
idea of a regional university system. When PD 1431 was implemented it organized eight (8)
satellite campuses and one (1) extension Program in Region 10 aside from the main campus
in Cagayan de Oro City, offering courses in various academic programs from elementary to
doctoral levels. This management action was in accordance with Section 1 of PD 1431, the
3
college charter, which says that “SECTION 1. The present Mindanao School of Arts and
Trades located in Cagayan de Oro City, Philippines, is hereby converted into Don Mariano
Marcos Polytechnic State College to take care of human resource development for industry,
agriculture and forestry, and fishery and maritime studies through a network of satellite
institutions throughout the region.” (underscoring supplied).
The problem here was the absence of budgets for these satellite institutions. They
became added financial burden that hampered the development of the main campus. Their
meager appropriations appeared in the Annual Appropriations Acts only as “Key Budgetary
Inclusions”. During the administration of President Corazon C. Aquino this budgetary
inclusions were deleted from the budget of DMMMPSCNM. From a legal point of view, the
insertion of the phrase “…through a network of satellite institutions throughout the region”
was only an expression of intention but the actual establishment each of the said satellite
campus required a separate law. It was also during the term of President Corazon A. Aquino
that the DMMMPSCNM was renamed as Mindanao Polytechnic State College (MPSC) by
virtue of RA 7102 which lapsed into law on August 5, 1991 with accordance to Article VI,
Section 27(1) of the Constitution.
Program Rationalization and First Vision of Fiscal Autonomy
The basis for program rationalization and fiscal autonomy appears on page 10 of the
terminal report submitted by Dr. Salvador as follows: “MSAT was now a state college, but
its curricula as well as its outlook were that of a trade school. It was heavily subsidized by
the national government although LOI 1461 issued by President Ferdinand E. Marcos
required SUCs to rationalize their programs and attain more fiscal autonomy up to
4
40% of its budget to be funded from internally generated income….”
(Underscoring
supplied).
Armed with the aforementioned LOI, MPSC seriously started rationalizing not only
its program offering but including the campuses. Reference for its rationalization was the
original draft of its Charter submitted to Malacanang as reflected in the typology of the
institution itself which is a “polytechnic college”. Programs and campuses which did not
relate to the institutional typology were gradually phased out. Again the “terminal report” on
page 19 said that “Long before the issuance of Memorandum Order No. 27, dated August 14,
1992 calling for rationalization of programs, MPSC had already stated in 1982 to phase out
programs irrelevant to its program thrusts. It was simple executive decision based on logic
and common sense. The word typology which means offering only courses according to the
type or classification of a college, was not yet popularized but MPSC was already practicing
it.” But there is also the positive side of the term rationalization. MPSC also started
upgrading and introducing new relevant academic programs, as well as, strengthening all the
trilogy of functions in instruction, research and extension services.
The College Code
MPSC adopted a college code on June 29, 1994 through BOT Resolution No. 43, s.
1994. pursuant to LOI 1461 dated May 23, 1985, entitled “ESTABLISHING GUIDELINES
FOR PLANNING AND FOR THE IMPROVEMENT IN THE MANAGEMENT OF
STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES”.
Section 127, Article XII entitled
“FINANCIAL MANAGEMENT” of this code provides that “To ensure the above stated
policy is faithfully adhered to, the college shall stick to its mandated mission and shall
5
operate on the basis of a long term goal and medium term development plan reviewed and
rolled annually” (Underscoring supplied). Relative to the academic services, the code
provided “Section 168. Streamlining of Operations. The college shall faithfully implement
streamlining of its operations as approved by the office of the President of the Philippines
and concentrate its operations in its flagship programs in Engineering and Technology.” The
code also contained seven (7) sections on Income Generating Projects.
Corporate Plan for CY 1998-2001
When Dr. Salvador assumed as President of MPSC in January 1998, his first move
was to prepare a corporate plan aimed at eventually converting the college into a model
corporate university that is, above others, more fiscally sufficient.
On May 23-24, 2000, a seminar-workshop was conducted to finalize the abovementioned corporate plan. Output of this activity was an Action Plan for CY 2000-2001
which served as the Terms of Reference (TORs) of the newly designated officials. Included
in the TORs was the transformation of each unit from “cost center” to “income center” and
full support to the newly innovated Institute of Entrepreneurship and Productivity (IEP), the
income generating arm of the college. (Terminal Report, pp. 49- 52). The plan also
envisioned all degree programs to be vertically articulated with 3rd level accreditation status.
(Terminal Report, p. 53).
The Institute of Entrepreneurship and Productivity (IEP)
This is another innovation introduced by MPSC not only to augment its internally
generated income, but also train its students in entrepreneurship. The common version of this
6
in most educational institutions world-wide is “Income Generating Project (IGP)” which only
connotes income generation. No wonder, MPSC’s IEP caught the attention of the NEDA
prompting then Regional Director Raymundo E. Fonollera to submit a proposal to the
Philippine-Australian Governance Facility (PAGF) for the “Setting Up of Operational
System for the Institute of Entrepreneurship and Productivity”. The college then was able to
avail itself of the AUSAID for the training of all the IEP project managers.
For the
entrepreneurship aspect of the IEP, a Canadian couple came over to MPSC to assist the Vice
President for Academic Affairs in preparing the curriculum for the entrepreneurship course.
Later, MPSC signed a Memorandum of Understanding (MOU) with DECS National
Science Instrumentation Center (NSTIC) where MPSC would fabricate and commercialize
the science instruments for elementary and secondary schools in Mindanao.
Production as an Added Function
In CY 2000, MPSC also introduced another innovation to emphasize the importance
of internally generated income by inserting “production” and rearranging the sequence of
the MPSC’s functions, as follows: research, instruction, production and extension
represented by the acronym “RIPE”. (Terminal Report, p. 69).
Two Strategic Options
On July 3 to 7, 1995, the SEAMEO INNOTECH in Diliman, Quezon City conducted
a Seminar-Workshop on Dynamic Leadership through Strategic Planning and Vision
Management for Presidents and Senior Officials of PASUC Institutions. Dr. Salvador who
was then Officer-In-Charge of MPSC found it to be an appropriate venue to finalize and
7
present his plan to convert the MPSC into MUST.
He, together with Dr. Juanito J.
Gementiza, Dean of the School of Industrial Technology program of the then MPSC attended
this seminar-workshop. As their workshop output they submitted the “FRAMEWORK OF
STRATEGIC PLAN FOR MINDANAO POLYTECHNIC STATE COLLEGE”.
The vision statement of this framework plan was “To convert the Mindanao
Polytechnic State College that is 97% dependent on government support to a dynamic and
fully autonomous Mindanao University of Science and Technology “MUST” free to
implement non-traditional approaches for the full realization of its mission.”
To attain this vision, a concept paper entitled “MINDANAO UNIVERSITY OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY “MUST” –AN ANSWER TO THE CHALLENGE OF
NON-TRADITIONAL APPROACHES TO SUCs OPERATION IN THE 21st CENTURY”
earlier prepared by Dr. Salvador was appended to the aforementioned Framework Plan. The
concept paper identified two alternative proposals were presented. Alternative “A” labeled
“Traditional Approach” was to remain in the old campus in Cagayan de Or City and in order
to comply with the challenge posed by LOI 1461 that SUCs should put up at least 40% of its
total annual budget from internally-generated sources, must introduce other interventions.
This intervention referred to nothing else but the gradual restructuring of the school fees.
Alternative “B” involved the selling of five hectares of the present seven-hectare
campus to develop the initial infrastructure in the 310-hectare campus and invest the balance
in time deposit to generate annual income to supplement the national subsidy without need to
increase the school fees. This 310 hectare site was already covered by a Presidential
Proclamation issued by then President Gloria M. Arroyo as future university campus of
MPSC.
8
During a general assembly, the MPSC academic community rejected Alternative “B”
of the proposal, signaling the need to go ahead with the preparation of the College Business
Plan 2000-2010, shown on Table 1. The plan assumed that capital outlay and MOOE in the
annual GAA would be gradually reduced leaving only personal services to be fully covered
by the national appropriations.
The MASCU Committee Report
During its meeting held in MPSC on July 8-9, 1998 the Mindanao Association of
State Colleges and Universities (MASCU) resolved to create a committee to conduct formal
survey of the fee structure among its member institutions. The MPSC President was
designated to act as the over-all Chairman of the said committee with the six MASCU
Regional Chairmen as members. The Committee submitted its report entitled “Fee Structure
in State Universities and Colleges in Mindanao: A Committee Report” on October 27, 1998.
The Committee Report came up with nine (9) Insights and Prospects, among them,
the following:
“2. Most of the SUCs in Mindanao were former vocational schools under
DECS. Although they expanded their curricular programs after conversion to
SUCs their rates of tuition ad other school fees remained practically unchanged.
Notwithstanding the gradual shift in the character of an institution after
conversion from more of a secondary and post-secondary institution to a college
or a university, the mentality of a right may lead to the impression that it is
therefore the duty of government to provide this for free.
“4. Graduate programs cater to professionals who can afford to pay for the
privilege of advance education or who are recipients of scholarship/staff
development grants. It is also assumed that professors teaching in the graduate
program are paid higher rates. Many of the courses offered at this level are over
and above the commitments expressed in the college/university charter. It follows
that tuition and other fees in this program shall be closer to the full cost incurred
in offering them.
9
“5. The gap between the fees in the SUCs and their counterparts in the
private sector is very wide at a ratio of 1 to 8.63. It may be wise for SUCs to
narrow this gap to say, 1 to 2 during the next five years in the case of third level
accredited programs; 1 to 3 for second level accredited programs and 1 to 4 for
first level accredited programs. This suggested ratios are illustrative samples only
and should not be taken as a recommendation per se. The recommendation is that
SUC governing boards should consider other alternatives to reduce their
dependence on the national government and gain real fiscal autonomy.
“6. As of now 96% of the Mindanao SUC budgets come from the national
government. How these SUCs can liberate themselves from this overcentralization of their fiscal administration remains the biggest challenge to the
governing boards which are empowered to do so by RA 8292.
“7. The consultations conducted by the SUC Regional Chairmen in their
respective jurisdictions yielded favorable responses to the issue of school fees
restructuring. Although consultation does not necessarily mean obtaining
agreement, there are positive indications that SUCs stakeholders understand the
precarious fiscal conditions under which SUCs operate today and in the
foreseeable future. SUC governing boards may start with this favorable
environment in restructuring their respective school fees”. (Montano F. Salvador,
et. al., Fee Structure in State Universities and Colleges in Mindanao: A
Committee Report, 1998. pp. 63-66).
The Corporate Plan for CY 2002-2005
Another driving force for MPSC to strive harder for fiscal autonomy is contained in
its second Corporate Plan (CORPLAN) covering the period 2002 to 2005. The vision
statement of this plan was stated thus: “MPSC is the Philippine’s showcase for a Corporate
University in the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines-East Asia Growth Area” or the
BIMP-EAGA. This vision is explained as follows: “The vision implies a business-like
orientation in the way that the goods and services of the corporate university are delivered to
its clientele while maintaining the primacy of social services as its function in the Philippine
10
society. MPSC’s role as a state corporate university shall transcend national and cultural
boundaries and will be felt immediately in the BIMP-EAGA.”
The vision had four key components, the second of which states that “2. Operation of
all units of the College as income centers rather than cost centers.” This Corporate Plan
established seven (7) focal points in the pursuit of the vision, as follows: 1) Academic
Programs; 2) Research and Extension; 3) Delivery Systems; 4) Human Resources; 5)
Physical Resources; 6) Financial Resources; and 7) Governance and Management.
Most significant as a dimension of the institutional environment of the policy under
study are the last two focal points. Focal point number 6 states: “6. Financial Resources. The
University shall attain and maintain financial autonomy. It shall explore all alternative
sources of funds to cushion the impact of diminishing fund subsidy by the government on
students. Fiscal discipline shall be institutionalized to optimize internal efficiency.” The last
focal point of the CORPLAN states: “7. Governance and Management. Governance shall be
placed in the hands of people with strong background in public service, science and
technology education and those with business acumen, working in an environment of
liberated bureaucracy”, which was further elucidated that “Management shall be empowered
to run the university in a business-like manner to efficiently and effectively implement the
policies of the governing board ad the flexibility in executive decision making,” This sounds
like Osborn and Taedler’s Reinventing Government but apparently untenable in the
Philippines because of rigid bureaucratic rules and regulations. It may be educational to
mention here that in the first draft (drafted by MPSC) of House Bill 1348 by the House of
Representatives on August 1998 by Congressman Augusto H. Baculio, (Terminal Report, p.
83), contained a provision of allocating the two members of the governing board representing
11
the private sector per RA 8292 to be filled by persons with business acumen, but this was
deleted upon acceptance by the House of Representatives. This House Bill was MPSC’s first
attempt for conversion to MUST.
Four of the five major strategies to be employed in this CORPLAN were significant
to the pursuit of fiscal autonomy by the college. These include: “1. Gradual Adoption of
Service Contracting Scheme; 3. Joint Venture with Private Business Enterprises; 4. Industry
Participation and Collaboration and 5. Internationalization and BIMP Education Trading
Strategy.” Only the second strategy “2. Formation of Core Faculty” did not have direct
bearing on fiscal autonomy.
1.2 Conceptual Framework
This study attempted to evaluate the policy of Mindanao Polytechnic State College
(MPSC), now Mindanao University of Science and Technology (MUST) to attain fiscal
sufficiency by gradually restructuring the school fees during a ten-year period from school
year 1999-2000 to school year 2009-2010.
Section 5(5) Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution provides that “(5) The
State shall assign the highest budgetary priority to education….” Section 2 (2) of the same
Article XIV of the same Constitution provides that the State shall “(2) Establish and maintain
a system of free public education in the elementary and high school levels….” The national
budget of the Philippines simply cannot fully satisfy the need of basic education for the fast
growing population in education, hence the EDCOM later advised the national government
“to put all its money in basic education.” and higher education has to “pay for itself”.
Consequently starting calendar year 2000 the national government started to gradually
12
withdraw financial support to state universities and colleges (SUCS). The MPSC then was
pursuing an ambitious vision to become one of the leading institutions of higher learning in
the Philippines, so in order to be able to pursue such a vision, it had to struggle to be fiscally
autonomous by adopting the aforementioned policy of gradually restructuring its school fees
during a ten-year period. The conceptual framework is illustrated in Figure 1.
CONCEPTUAL FRAMEWORK
POLICY PROBLEM
Gradual withdrawal
of Subsidy to SUCs
POLICY ACTION
RA 8292 – Grant of
Corporate Power to
SUCs
VISION
Fiscal Independence
of SUCs
MACRO-LEVEL SCENARIO
POLICY ACTION
10-Yr School Fees
Restructuring Plan
POLICY OUTPUT
Increasing Fiscal
Sufficiency
POLICY IMPACT
Dependence on
Internally-generated
Income
INSTITUTIONAL LEVEL SCENARIO
Figure 1. Conceptual Framework of the Study
Good public administration practice requires monitoring implementation of the policy to
ensure the attainment of the desired outcomes and finally to evaluate the policy to establish
its performance at the end of the policy cycle. Policy impact analysis and, in general, policy
studies use standard criteria for evaluating a public policy. These criteria consist of
13
measurements of efficiency, effectiveness, growth, stability and equity (Statistical and
Research Training Center, Policy Training Manual, 2005). The study adopted this modality.
In addition, the policy performance is also measured in terms of the impact of the policy on
the organization, its stakeholders and its intended beneficiaries. The organization here refers
to the MUST, but the stakeholders are not only those who affect and those who are affected
by the policy but also similar persons and sectors in other SUCs in Mindanao since the basis
of the policy was the policy analysis report of a committee created by the Mindanao
Association of State Colleges and Universities Foundation (MASCUF). Needless to say, the
intended beneficiaries include the students of these institutions, their parents, as well as the
prospective employers who will benefit from the quality of instruction given by SUCs in
Mindanao. Definitely, this study will benefit not only MUST but also the other SUCs in
Mindanao, if findings hereof will be disseminated to them.
1.3 Objectives of the Study
The main objective of this study was to evaluate and assess the impact of a policy on
tuition fee rationalization on the development of the Mindanao University of Science and
Technology. In particular, this study aimed to determine the level of attainment of the
institution towards fiscal sufficiency; realization of institutional development in the trifocal
functions of the university, as well as in its physical facilities. It is desired that the findings
in this study and the experience of MUST be shared to other public higher education
14
institutions in Mindanao in our common effort to compete, complement and survive
in
today’s globalizing environment.
Quality education demands quality manpower in the university especially the faculty;
quality laboratory facilities; quality infrastructures and other capital intensive requirements.
In other words, ensuring quality education necessitates the availability of funding.
This study attempted to answer the following questions:
1.) What processes were observed in the formulation and enactment of the policy?
2.) What were the reactions of students and faculty during the formulation and enactment
stages of the policy?
3.) What was the budgetary trend of the college prior to the passage of its School Fees
Restructuring Plan by the Board of Trustees?
4.) What problems, if any, were encountered during the ten-year implementation period of
the policy, and how were these problems solved?
5.) Did the restructured school fees affect the enrolment and drop-out rate in the college?
6.) What were the impacts of the policy on the attainment of institutional fiscal sufficiency
and the development of the college?
1.4 Significance of the Study
Results of this study will be significant to stakeholders of public higher education
institutions in the Philippines, particularly to the following sectors:
15
For top officials including the members of the governing boards of developing
state universities and colleges, the result of this study may provide them insights to
take proactive stance in the preparation of strategic plan including the formulation of
resource generation strategies to support the plan implementation.
To the rest of the academic community, lessons from this study may challenge
them to be more participative in the policy making process of their top officials and to
fully support implementation of policies that are aimed at their common welfare,
especially in the case of developing institutions.
This study can also provide critical information to national-policy
makers/legislators to further enhance incentives for SCUs in attaining fiscal
autonomy including the realization of the legislative intention of RA 8292 to finally
grant deserving SUCs full corporate status.
1.5 Scope and Limitation of the Study
This is a policy study which investigated the components of the policy cycle,
including the process involved in policy analysis, policy formulation and adoption, the policy
implementation, and finally the policy outputs, outcomes and impact. This study is
descriptive in nature but involved to some extent, quantitative approaches. The data
requirements for conducting this study were obtained from the MUST financial records,
16
Annual Reports, Annual Audit Reports as well as the General Appropriations Act, the
Budget of Expenditures and Sources of Financing, and CHED statistical data. Discussions
with past university officials including former MPSC president, Dr. Montano F. Salvador and
former Director of the Financial Mgt Services, Ms. Celerina M. Ongcol were conducted.
Documentary analysis en situ were also done. Based on the data aforementioned and
discussions made, the study evaluated the university's financial health in terms of efficiency,
effectiveness, growth, equity and stability. The stages of development of the university are
analyzed vis-a-vis the level of fiscal independence from the national subsidy. The study
argued that the attainment of the university in its mission and goals is a result of prudent
fiscal policies and management of resources.
1.6 Definition of Terms
In order to level-off the discussions on this study, the following definitions are
offered:
Efficiency. Generally defined as the ratio of output to input (or input to output). In
this study, efficiency is taken to mean resource generation efficiency of the
MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees Policy. It is defined as the ratio of
income from school fees over the total operating budget, expressed as a
percentage.
17
Effectiveness. This measure is used to determine how well the rationalized tuition
and other school fees policy had achieved in enhancing institutional quality. In effect,
there should be improvements in quality in the trifocal functions of the university and
those are in instruction, research, and extension, as well as in infrastructure and
facilities development.
Growth. This measure refers to the ability of the policy to stimulate development in
the sector measured in terms of increase in enrollment or enhancing access to quality
education.
Equity. Equity is measured in terms of fairness by which the policy is implemented
as perceived by the students and their parents, supported by the notion that those who
benefit should at least share in the cost.
Stability. This refers to the degree of certainty or predictability of forecasts of
income arising from the implementation of the policy.
18
Chapter 2
Impact on Resource Generation Efficiency
2.1 Introduction
This chapter of the study aimed to assess the impact of the MUST Ten-Year
Rationalized School Fees Policy on the resource generation efforts of the University. The
main objective is to find out if the policy attained its goal of generating at least 50% of
annual total operating budget from internally-generated income at the end of the policy
period or in the year 2010, to support institutional development.
Thus, in this study,
efficiency is taken to mean resource generation efficiency of the MUST Ten-Year
Rationalized School Fees Policy. It is defined as the ratio of income from school fees over
the total operating budget, expressed as a percentage. The target efficiency ratio of the policy
is 50%.
Additionally, this chapter will present the budget trend of MUST prior to and during
enactment of the policy. Lessons drawn from this part of the study bear significance to
national policy-makers, to administration officials and governing boards of Philippine public
higher education institutions in the formulation of resource generation policies to support
institutional development.
This study found out that the MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees Policy was
able to generate at least 50% of total operating budget from internally generated income
before the end of the policy cycle, that is, in 2007. By 2012, income from school fees
comprised about 60% of the total operating budget, the other 40% coming from the national
government subsidy.
19
2.2 Tuition Policies around the World
Marcucci and Johnstone (2007) posited that the immediate issue addressed in a
country’s tuition fee policy is the division of the burden of higher education’s instructional
costs between the student and his/her family and the government, or taxpayer, as well as the
accompanying financial assistance policies/programs that are adopted to ensure that the
implementation of tuition fees does not reduce access to higher education for students from
lower socio-economic backgrounds. Thus, the policies by which tuition fees are established
(or opposed or rejected) are critical both for the very considerable revenue at stake as well as
for the potential impact on higher education accessibility and the implications to equity and
social justice.
The distinction between such a tuition fee and other kinds of fees is imprecise and is
sometimes even deliberately intended to hide what could just as well be termed a tuition or a
tuition fee because of either legal obstacles or political opposition to the very idea of such a
fee. However, a tuition fee generally refers to a mandatory charge levied upon all students
(and/or their parents) covering some portion of the general underlying costs of instruction. A
fee, on the other hand, generally refers to a charge levied to recover all or most of the
expenses associated with a particular institutionally-provided good or service that is
frequently (although not always) partaken of by some but not all student and that might, in
other circumstances, be privately provided. Thus, charges to cover some or all of the costs of
food and lodging, or of health and transportation services, would normally fall under the
category of fees, as might the charges to cover some special expenses associated with
instruction such as consumable supplies in an art class or transportation associated with a
special internship experience. Less precisely distinct from a tuition fee because they are
20
usually levied on all students but are nonetheless based on the actual expense of the
particular institutionally-provided good or service – and which therefore might be referred to
as fees as opposed to tuition or tuition fees – could be charges levied to cover the cost of
processing admission applications or of providing student Internet access or recreational
programs. Finally, charges levied on all students that are associated with non-instructional
programs or services and that the students themselves have a major hand in allocating among
competing programs and services (usually through an elected student government) are
generally referred to as fees.(Marcucci and Johnstone 2007)
The tuition policy of a country is generally dependent on a law or other type of legal
instrument that provides the basis for charging or for prohibiting tuition fees. The United
States, Canada, Japan, India, South Korea, the Philippines and some of the Anglophone
nations in Africa have national and/or state policies requiring moderate tuition fees in most or
all public higher educational institutions. (Johnstone 1992). In China, the 1998 Higher
Education Law calls for the charging of tuition fees to all students. (Marcucci and Johnstone
2007).
Other countries have laws that prohibit the charging of tuition fees. In Central and
Eastern Europe, Russia and the other countries of the former Soviet Union, free higher
education is frequently guaranteed by their constitutions or framework laws. In Nigeria, the
government announced in May 2002 that the 24 Federal universities were forbidden to
charge tuition or other academic fees. In Ireland, government efforts to reinstate tuition fees,
abolished in 1996, met with failure in the summer of 2003. In Germany, until recently, the
federal framework law (HRG: Hochschulrahmengesetz) imposed restrictions on the
individual Länder’s (state’s) authority to charge tuition fees, and the Social Democratic
21
government banned tuition fees for the first degree outright (Ziegele 2003). Certain
exceptions were made, and several states (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Saxony, Berlin,
Lower Saxony and Brandenburg) implemented the special forms of fees that were allowed,
such as tuition fees for students who exceeded the normal duration of a certain program plus
4 semesters and tuition fees for students enrolled in a second degree. In January of 2005,
after several years of emotional debate, the country’s supreme court overturned the ban in a
case brought by six Länder and ruled that individual Länder could introduce tuition fees. As
of 2005, several Länder plan to pass enabling legislation and impose fees of about 500 Euros
per semester in the next couple of years, while others have no intention of changing their
tuition policies. The legal status of tuition fees is less clear in other countries. In Mexico,
where public universities have charged, albeit inconsistently, very low tuition fees for the
past 30 years, the Constitution is ambiguous as to whether higher education is the sole
responsibility of the state. The very public student protests in the late 1990s that
accompanied the first (and fairly modest) increase in tuition fees at the Universidad Nacional
Autónoma de México since 1948 illustrated the volatility and uncertainty surrounding this
issue..(Marcucci and Johnstone, 2007)
2.3 Tuition Fee Structure in the Philippines
The Philippines has a highly complex tuition fee structure. Citing 2001 figures, Tan
(2003) observed that tuition fees vary widely across Philippine private colleges or
universities almost in continuous fashion, ranging from P4,000 to more than P100,000 per
year while in state universities and colleges (SUCs), fees range from less than P500 to
P11,000 per year.
22
Fee increases also differ across schools and appear to be adjusted to inflation in an
unpredictable manner. In general, colleges and universities charge a common tuition fee per
unit and extra for miscellaneous expenses, including laboratory, sports and other expenses.
These may differ from field to field. Private colleges and universities are fully financed by
school fees since minimal grants are obtainable from philanthropic works and from the
government. In 2000-01 school-year, tuition fee per unit ranges from P100 to P1,442 across
all private colleges and universities. Translated into a 20-units-per-semester load (or 40 units
per school year), the tuition fee for a school ranges from Php4,000 to Php57,580. Additional
fees for laboratory and other charges substantially increase total fees. In general,
miscellaneous fees are a fraction of the total tuition fees but in many cases, they exceed
tuition fees. The program cost, which includes tuition plus miscellaneous fees for the full
duration of a degree program is Php20,000 to Php321,000 (Tan, 2003).
In the case of SUCs, tuition fees and other school charges are approved by each of its
governing board and thus it is not surprising that fee structures vary across SUCs. Tan (2003)
observed that in 2000-01 school-year, SUCs charges tuition fees that ranged from Php4 to
Php300 per unit of Php144 to Phph10,800 per fulltime school-year (where full load is 18
units per semester or 36 units per year). Like their private counterparts, SUCs charge a
variety of other fees which may either be for a specific purpose (e.i., Library Fee) or nonspecific (i.e., Matriculation Fee). What is clear is that in RA 8292 or the Higher Education
Modernization Act, all fiduciary fees are to be disbursed for the specific purpose for which
they were collected. Data from CHED on SUCs tuition fee per unit for school-year 20102011 reveal that rates range from a low of Php12 per unit (Polytechnic University of the
Philippines) to a high of Php1,000 per unit (University of the Philippines).
23
2.4 Subsidy to Philippine State Universities and Colleges
Financing public higher education has been the subject of debates in many countries,
particularly in small and developing economies like the Philippines where funding for higher
education is competing with the more basic and fundamental social services.
Section 1 of Article XIV of the 1987 Philippine Constitution mandates the State to
protect the right of “all citizens to quality education at all levels” and to “take appropriate
steps to make such education accessible to all.”
However, Section 2(2) of the same
Constitution seems to guarantee full financial support only to basic education, which is
quoted in part as follows: “(2) Establish and maintain a system of free public education in the
elementary and high school levels….”
Manasan (2012) observed that during the period 1995 - 2009, the education sector
received the biggest expenditure allocation (16.6% of total NG expenditures on the average)
next to debt service (22.9% on the average) in 1995-2009. However, the expenditure share of
the education sector contracted from a peak of 19.7% in 1998 to a low of 14.2% in 20052006 largely because of the expansion in debt service between 1998 and 2006 following the
large fiscal deficits registered by the national government in earlier years. Moreover, the
national government spending pie also became smaller from 20.2% of GDP in 1998 to 17.3%
of GDP in 2006 as the national government cut back on non-mandatory expenditures as part
of its efforts to achieve fiscal consolidation. Thus, NG expenditures on education exhibited a
well-defined downward trend between 1999 and 2006, going down from 4.0% of GDP in
1998 to 2.5% in 2006. However, NG spending on education recovered somewhat to 2.6% of
GDP in 2007-2008 and 2.8% in 2009 following some improvement in the revenue effort of
24
the NG in 2006-2007 and as debt service started to taper off in 2006 as a result of the lower
fiscal deficit levels in 2005-2008.
Manasan (2012) also pointed out that on the average, more than four-fifths of total
NG spending on education accrues to basic education in 1995-2009. On the other hand, 14%
of total NG education spending is allocated to higher education while 2% goes to technical/
vocational education and training (TVET). Some slight reallocation within the education
spending pie is evident over time. In particular, the share of basic education in total NG
education spending increased from 80.0% in 1999 to an average of 82.7% in 2001-2009.
Likewise, the spending share of TVET rose from 1.5% 1998 to 3.7% in 2009. Conversely,
the share of higher education in total NG education spending contracted from a high of
16.9% in 1996 to a low of 12.2% in 2009. Thus, NG spending on higher education shrank
from 0.6% of GDP in 1998 to 0.3% of GDP in 2005-2009. About 92% of NG spending on
higher education in 1995-2009 accrues to SUCs and the remaining 8% to the Commission on
Higher Education (CHED). NG spending on SUCs as well as that on CHED dipped during
the period. To wit, NG spending on SUCs contracted from 0.5% of GDP in 1996 to an
average of 0.3% in 2006-2009 while NG allocation for the CHED went down from 0.1% of
GDP in 1998 to 0.02% in 2002-2009. As a result, per student NG spending on SUCs (in 2000
prices) decreased from PhP32,620 in 1997 to PhP16,416 in 2009. While SUCs supplemented
the NG subsidy with their own internally generated income by some PhP7,834 per student in
2006-2009, the trajectory of total SUC spending per student is still downward during the
period.
25
2.5 SUCs Income from Tuition and Other Fees
The EDCOM recommendation to put all the money in basic education and let tertiary
education pay for itself clearly implies that the national government shall gradually withdraw
financial support to SUCs, which it actually did. To mitigate the effect of this gradual
withdrawal of financial support, Congress passed RA No. 8292, known as the” Higher
Education Modernization Act of 1997” recomposing the SUC governing board and granting
it among others “all the powers granted to the board of directors of a corporation under
Section 36 of Batas Pambansa Blg. 68, otherwise known as the “Corporation Code of the
Philippines” under Section 4 of said Act. Section 4(d) of this Act provides:
“d) to fix tuition and other necessary school charges, such as but not
limited to matriculation fees, graduation fees and laboratory fees, as their
reso respective boards may deem proper to impose after due consultation
with the involved sectors.
Such fees and charges, including government subsidies and other
income generated by the university or college, shall constitute special trust
funds and shall be deposited in any authorized government depository bank,
and all interests that shall accrue therefrom shall form part of the same fund
for use of the university or college: Provided, That income derived from
university hospitals shall be exclusively earmarked for the operating
expenses of the hospitals.
Any provision of existing laws and regulations to the contrary
notwithstanding, any income generated by the university or college from
tuition fees and other charges, as well as from the operation of auxiliary
services and land grants, shall be retained by the university or college, and
may be disbursed by the Board of Regents/Trustees for instruction,
research, extension, or other programs/projects of the university or college:
Provided, That all fees shall be disbursed for the specific purposes for which
they are collected.”
26
This specific provision of RA 8292 clearly hints that SUCs must generate income and
that the national government will only give them subsidy. Both by specific provision of law
and by implication, RA 8292 intended to convert SUCs into government corporations or at
least quasi-government corporations. The high expectations placed on these public tertiary
educational institutions on one hand and the withdrawal of financial support give them no
other alternative but to increase internally-generated income.
Some 45% of total internally generated SUCs income of SUCs came from tuition fees
while another 20% is from other income collected from students in 2003-2009 (Table 1). In
other words, close to 65% of total internally generated SUCs income were collected from
students during the period. On the other hand, 24% of total internally generated SUCs
income was contributed by income generating projects (i.e., income accruing their revolving
fund) and other SUCs income.
Table 1
Composition of Internally - generated Income of SUCs (in percent)
Year
Tuition
Fees
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
average
43.3
47.3
46.0
47.2
43.5
41.4
44.8
Other
Income
Collected
from
Students
19.8
19.0
17.8
17.8
20.5
22.0
19.5
Income
from
Other
Sources
Income
from
Revolving
Fund
Grants
and
Donations
Others
Total
11.7
10.2
12.6
13.0
13.1
13.8
12.4
12/4
11.8
11.4
12.9
10.5
10.5
11.6
3.2
1.3
2.9
2.4
3.0
3.0
2.6
9.5
10.4
9.3
6.6
9.5
9.2
9.1
100
100
100
100
100
100
100
Source of basic data: DBM
27
The growth in receipts from tuition fees and other income from students were fairly
significant at a yearly average of 22% and 15%, respectively, in 2003-2006 (Table 2).
However, while receipts from other income from students registered better growth in 20062009 relative to the earlier period, the opposite is true of receipts from tuition fees.
Consequently, there has been a reduction in the share of tuition fees in total internally
generated SUCs income (from 47% in 2005 to 41% in 2009) and a concomitant increase in
the share of other income collected from students from 18% in 2006 to 22% in 2009 (Table
1). These opposing movements combined have resulted in a fairly stable share of total SUCs
income from students (64%) in total internally generated SUCs income during the period.
Table 2
Internally-generated Income of SUCs, by Type (in P’000,000)
Year
Tuition
Fees
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
1,692
2,683
3.048
3,770
4,199
4,461
Other
Income
Collected
from
Students
774
1,079
1,178
1,426
1,980
2,371
2003-2006
2006-2009
Average
21.7
13.5
17.5
15.0
26.3
20.5
Income
from
Other
Sources
Income
from
Revolving
Fund
455
485
576
669
837
756
1,042
1,034
1,263
1,010
1,488
1,131
Growth rate (%)
22.5
16.0
21.2
14.4
21.8
15.2
Grants
and
Donations
Others
Total
125
73
190
194
286
327
373
589
616
529
912
992
3,903
5,668
6,625
7,995
9,650
10,771
14.9
19.8
17.3
18.3
17.2
17.7
19.3
17.6
18.4
Source of basic data: DBM
28
2.6 MUST Income from Tuition and Other Fees
In 1999, prior to the implementation of the MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School
Fees Policy, income generated was Php14.6M. This amount comprised about 17% of the
total operating budget as subsidy in 1999 was Php80.8M (Figure 2). Total operating budget
in 1999 amounted to Php88.2M.
Tuition fee per unit in SY 1999-2000 was P25, which rate was implemented
beginning SY 1997-98. Available records reveal that in SY 1996-97, tuition was P80 per year
for engineering and technology programs while for education programs it was P200 per year.
Although the stated policy period covers only school years 2000-2001 until 20092010, when the freshmen were to pay a new rate at the time they enroll in a course and
maintain same rate until they graduate1, the effect of the policy can be felt until 2015
considering that the engineering student who enrolled in school year 2009-2010 would
graduate from their course in 2015. However, for purposes of this study, only data until 2012
will be gathered since these are the only data actually available for practical purposes.
17%
Total:
Php88.2M
Income
Subsidy
83%
Source: MPSC Annual Audit Report, CY 1999
Figure 2. Percentage Share of Income and Subsidy to Total Operating Budget in 1999
1
As long as the student graduates within the period of study (i.e., within 5 years for Eng’g and Architecture
programs and 4 years for all other programs)
29
As mentioned, income in 1999 was posted at Php14.6M. By 2004, income had more
than doubled in the amount of Php31.6M. It tripled in 2006 or an amount of Php52.6M. At
the end of the policy period or 2010, income reached Php137.6M. In 2012, income had
increased 12 times more than the 1999 level at Php184M (Figure 3). Income considered here
excludes income from income generating projects of the university.
200000000
150000000
100000000
50000000
0
1999
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Source: MPSC Annual Audit Reports
Figure 3. Income of MUST, 1999 - 2012
Income from tuition comprised a significant portion of total income, comprising
about 59% to 68% of the total income from 2002 to 2007 (Table 3), while other income
collected from students comprised about 23% to 39% of total income for the same period.
For the period 2008 to 2011, income from tuition comprised about 50% to 54% of total
income, showing a decrease compared to the earlier years. Correspondingly, other income
collected from students increased from 23% in 2006 to 41% in 2011.
30
Table 3
Composition of MUST Income under the Special Trust Fund
Year
Tuition Fee
2002
0.68
2003
0.60
2004
0.59
2005
0.66
2006
0.60
2007
0.59
2008
0.51
2009
0.54
2010
0.50
2011
0.52
Othe
Income
Collected
from
Students
0.30
0.39
0.36
0.24
0.23
0.34
0.41
0.35
0.40
0.41
Income
from Other
Sources
0.02
0.01
0.05
0.10
0.17
0.07
0.08
0.11
0.10
0.07
TOTAL
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
1.0
Source of basic data: Financial Statements of MUST
The MUST trend of income collection from tuition and from other fees is similar to
the national picture presented earlier. There has been a reduction in the share of tuition fees
in total internally generated income and a concomitant increase in the share of other income
collected from students both in the institutional (MUST) and the national level.
In order to better serve the students, other fees were also introduced during the policy
implementation period. Fees that were introduced in the coming years were: E-Library Fee
of Php400 introduced in 2005, ICT Development Fee of Php600 implemented in 2008 and
Socio-Cultural Fee of Php200 in 2009.
(see Appendix A for Table of Fees Actually
Implemented).
To soften the impact of the introduction of a new fee, the E-Lib Fee of P400 per
semester in 2005, management decided to defer implementation of the tuition rate as
scheduled in SY 2006-07. Thus, the tuition rate the previous year, SY 2005-06 was carried
over in the following school year. The implementation of the rates in the succeeding years
31
was consequently affected. From SY 2008-09 up to this writing, tuition rates remained at the
same level. This decision was in consideration of the introduction of new fees: the ICT
Development Fee in 2008 and the Socio-Cultural Fee in 2009.
Additionally, curricular offerings considered as special programs in the graduate2 and
undergraduate3 level were charged with slightly higher tuition than “regular” programs
commencing school-year 2004-05 and 2005-06, respectively.(see Appendix A for Table of
In Millions
Fees Actually Implemented).
200
180
160
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
MUST
Mindanao SUCs
2005
2007
2008
2010
2012
Source: MUST: Towards an Internationally Competitive University
Figure 4. MUST Income against Average Income of Mindanao SUCs
When comparing the income of MUST against average income of Mindanao SUCs,
income of MUST grew at a much faster pace (Figure 4). By 2012, MUST’s income is higher
by over Php100M than the average income of Mindanao SUCs.
2
Master in Engineering Program, MA in Teaching (SpEd), MS in Environmental Science and Technology, MS
in Technology and Communications Mgt, Master in Public Ad, Master in EPM and Ph.D. in EPM
3
Bachelor in Public Administration, Bachelor in Elementary Education (SpEd), Bachelor in Environmental
Science and Technology, Bachelor in Technology and Communications Mgt
32
2.7 MUST Income and Subsidy
Subsidy from the national government was Php73.7M in 1999. It increased by 6.9%
and 10% annually in 2000 and 2002, respectively. From 2004 to 2007, subsidy increase
ranged from 3% to 11% annually. In 2008, subsidy was P91.8M, P120.5 in 2010 and P122M
in 2012 (Figure 5).
140
120
100
80
60
40
20
0
1999
2000
2002
2004
2006
2008
2010
2012
Source: MPSC Annual Audit Reports
Figure 5. Subsidy for MUST, 1999 - 2012
It is recalled that the goal was to generate income comprising 50% of the total budget
by the end of the policy period or by CY 2010. It may be noted that under LOI 1461
(Establishing Guidelines for Planning and for the Improvement in the Management of State
Universities and Colleges) which required SUCs to rationalize their programs and attain
more fiscal autonomy, the target is forty percent (40%) of the budget to be funded from
internally-generated income. MPSC set the bar higher by targeting 50%.
33
In 2000, income comprised 16% of the total operating budget. Thereafter, percentage
share of income to the total operating budget steadily increased (Figure 6). Four year after or
in 2004, income comprised 28% of total operating budget, rising to 56% in 2008 and
reaching 60% by 2012. Eight years into the implementation of the policy or in CY 2007,
MPSC reached its target of at least 50% share of income to total budget.
Income generated in 2007 amounted to P100.4M or about fifty five percent (55%) of
the total operating budget, exceeding the policy target by five percent (5%) and the
mandatory requirement in LOI 1461 by fifteen percent (15%) (Table 4).
Table 4
MUST Income and Subsidy, CY 2000 - 2012
Year
2000
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
STF
14,805,604.00
16,034,247.24
23,343,232.71
31,617,960.30
41,341,848.24
52,600,607.76
100,477,496.80
118,232,471.84
142,399,266.90
137,603,543.52
163,891,015.78
184,762,499.46
GF
78,792,200.00
81,172,507.96
72,437,814.99
80,076,452.08
75,904,374.03
81,484,641.80
81,452,989.00
91,826,139.45
108,789,715.32
120,516,827.59
144,132,954.72
122,457,998.21
TOTAL
93,597,804.00
97,206,755.20
95,781,047.70
111,694,412.38
117,246,222.27
134,085,249.56
181,930,485.80
210,058,611.29
251,188,982.22
258,120,371.11
308,023,970.50
307,220,497.67
% Share to Total
STF
GF
16%
84%
16%
84%
24%
76%
28%
72%
35%
65%
39%
61%
55%
45%
56%
44%
57%
43%
53%
47%
53%
47%
60%
40%
34
Income
16%
Subsidy
2000
84%
28%
2004
72%
44%
56%
2008
40%
2012
60%
Figure 6. Resource Generation Ratios of Income and Subsidy to Total Operating Budget
35
Throughout the last decade, the world witnessed a global trend in higher educationthe shifting of cost burden from the public to the individual (Altbach, 2007). The shift,
generally, is coupled with decreasing government funding support. In the Philippines in
particular, national government spending on higher education shrank from 0.6% of GDP in
1998 to 0.3% of GDP in 2005-2009. On the other hand, internally-generated income of
Philippine public higher education showed stable annual increases averaging 18% within the
period 2003-2009.
With the trend of decreasing government funding support, state universities and colleges in
the Philippines have to turn to internally-generated income to fund institutional development
concerns. In MUST, the Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees Policy has made it possible to generate
more than 50% of total operating budget from internally-generated income. Thus, the policy goal - to
generate at least 50% of total operating budget from internally-generated income, was attained and
realized. The goal was to achieve 50-50 budget by the end of the policy implementation period, or
2010. The goal was actually achieved in 2007 when the ratio of internally-generated income reached
55% to the total operating budget of MUST, or three years earlier.
A notable feature of the policy is the gradual increase of fees. The increments, which are
relatively low, have contributed appreciably to the steady increase in income in the last decade.
The experience of MUST suggests that the charging of tuition fees is an effective
approach in generating vital financial resources. It can be recalled that income in 1999 was posted
at Php14.6M. By 2004, income had more than doubled in the amount of Php31.6M. It tripled in 2006
or an amount of Php52.6M. At the end of the policy period or 2010, income reached Php137.6M. In
2012, income had increased 12 times more than the 1999 level at Php184M.
36
With this in mind, the charging of tuition and other fees in MUST is recommended to be
continued in the coming years. While the Ten-year School Fees Policy sets a uniform rate to all
students regardless of program, a differentiated school fees structure could be developed to capture
differences in program costs. Some programs are evidently more capital-intensive than others.
Another way to differentiate school fees is to consider income background of students.
Republic Act 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act enjoins SUCs to implement a
socialized tuition fee scheme. However, this is easier said than done. The difficulty in determining
household income is a major obstacle. The conventional documentary indicator of income - the
income tax return - is, for the most part, unreliable and inaccurate. The challenge is really in finding
the appropriate indicator of household income.
Still another alternative is to charge fees based on academic performance of students.
Students garnering low general point average may be charged higher than those with better grades. A
variant to this scheme is presently implemented at MUST. Students who exceeded their period of
study (four or five years) are charged the new or higher rate of tuition. This is somewhat similar to
what is being implemented in several states in Germany (Baden-Württemberg, Bavaria, Saxony,
Berlin, Lower Saxony and Brandenburg) where tuition fees for students who exceeded the normal
duration of a certain programs are charged as opposed to no tuition fees for those who are within the
normal duration.
In sum, with declining government subsidy to public higher education institutions, the
charging of reasonable tuition and other fees is an effective approach in generating financial resources
for state universities and colleges. The MUST experience has shown that it can be done.
37
Chapter 3
Impact on Access and Equity
3.1 Introduction
This chapter of the study is aimed at finding out the impact of the MUST Ten-Year
Rationalized School Fees Policy on access and equity. Policy analysis involves assessing
whether or not a policy has the ability to stimulate growth in a sector. In this study, growth is
taken within the context of improved access to higher education or, in other words,
increasing enrolments. Moreover, policy analysis also involves assessing equity, which in
this study, is measured in terms of fairness by which the policy is implemented as perceived
by the students and their parents, supported by the notion that those who benefit should at
least share in the cost. In addition, the following queries are answered in this study: What
processes were observed in the formulation and enactment of the policy? What were the
reactions of the students and faculty during the formulation and enactment stages of the
policy? Did the restructured school fees affect the enrolment and drop-out rate in the college?
When the policy was first implemented, enrolment in MUST increased by 26% or
996 headcount over the previous school-year (1998-1999), making it the biggest increase
ever in terms of percentage. The second biggest increase came in 2007 when enrolment
increased by 1,171 students or an equivalent or 19%. The slight decrease in the enrolment in
school years 2001 to 2002 was attributed to the closure of some programs (MPSC Annual
Report 2001 and 2002). By 2011, enrolment in MUST surged to 8,691 students or an
increase of 153% over the 1998 level. This trend reflects the global picture where there is a
38
marked increase in enrolments in higher education against declining government spending
(Salmi and Hauptman 2006).
Also, this study found out that the student trustee moved for the approval of the
policy, seconded by the faculty trustee, after having been assigned by the Chairman of the
Board to make a comparative study on the tuition fees charged by universities and colleges
within the city. It is argued that policy is perceived as fair and supports the notion of equity,
where those who benefit should share in the cost.
Recommended future policy directions include identifying special programs,
programs that are potential for resource generation and which should be borne full cost by
the students. Alternatively, apportioning program costs between students and the government
would address concerns on considering actual program costs and setting standard cost
metrics for each program. It is however conceded that determining program cost is difficult
and research along this line is recommended for better understanding of cost behavior
patterns in higher education.
3.2 Global Trend in Financing Higher Education
Historically, the development of many higher education systems (particularly in
Western Europe, Central and Eastern Europe, Russia and the nations of the former-Soviet
Union and Francophone Africa) were developed based on an ideology of free tertiary
education for qualified students. The argument for free higher education is based on several
rationales:
•
The returns to society from an educated population are very high.
•
Education is (or should be) a fundamental right.
39
•
Tuition fees may discourage the participation of students from low-income families,
rural areas or ethnic minorities with negative impacts in terms of social equality and
social benefits.
•
The costs of student maintenance are high and already beyond the reach of many
families especially when coupled with the costs of foregone student earnings
(Johnstone and Marcucci 2007)
Altbach (2007) also observed that significant changes in attitude on the funding of
higher education have evolved since the 1980s. In most countries a consensus existed that
higher education was a “public good” contributing significantly to society by imparting
knowledge and skills to those who were educated at universities and other postsecondary
institutions. Since higher education was considered a public good, it was agreed that society
should bear a large part of the cost. In the 1980s, with the World Bank and extending to
many governments, higher education began to be viewed as mainly a “private good,”
benefiting the individual more than society as a whole (World Bank 1994). The logic of this
change in thinking places more of the burden for financing higher education on the “users”—
students and their families. In many countries, policies require students to pay a growing
proportion of the cost of postsecondary education. Even in countries where we find top
ranking universities4, like the United States, United Kingdom, Canada, Australia and Hong
Kong, there is a decline in higher education government expenditure per student as a
percentage of GDP per capita (Table 5). Only South Korea and Switzerland showed increases
in higher education expenditure per student as a percentage of GDP per capita. The
4
Quacquarelli Symonds University Rankings, 2011
40
Philippines showed very minimal spending at 14.09% in 2003 while the US, UK and
Australia posted spending of 26.68%, 28.06% and 22.48%, respectively. Hong Kong and
Switzerland posted much higher spending at 65.48% and 64.75%, respectively, in 2003.
South Korea recorded the lowest spending at 9.34%, lower than the Philippines.
Table 5
Expenditure per Student, Tertiary, as a Percentage of GDP per Capita
Country
USA
UK
Australia
Canada
Hong Kong
1998
27.45%
32.77%
26.98%
South Korea
Switzerland
7.02%
Philippines
1999
27.01%
26.27%
26.54%
49.04%
8.37%
54.52%
2000
2001
31.38%
23.65%
25.54%
50.40%
2002
25.71%
29.13%
22.62%
44.64%
53.97%
15.01%
5.05%
60.09%
14.46%
56.46%
13.94%
2003
26.68%
28.06%
22.48%
2004
65.48% 68.49%
9.34%
64.75%
14.09%
2005
60.15%
Source: www.nationmaster.com
In 2011, funding cuts were experienced around the world, including the Philippines
and were especially heavy in Brazil, Italy, Pakistan and the Ukraine, but also occurred in
Japan, the Netherlands, South Korea, Spain, Thailand, the United Kingdom and the United
States. Some countries, such as Germany, Malaysia and Mexico saw funding levels increase
to match inflation, and others, including Chile, China, and Singapore, even managed to
significantly increase funding. (Marcucci and Usher 2012)
In light of the decreased government spending, national systems and institutions
nearly everywhere in the world are turning to some "cost sharing," or "revenue
41
supplementation," from students and parents in the form of tuition fees and more nearly fullcost recovery from the provision of room, board, and other non-instructional services.
3.3 Global Trend in Access to Higher Education
The worldwide trend in higher education enrolment is moving upwards. In countries
which have laws or policies that allow moderate charging of tuition fees in most or all public
education institutions like the United States, Japan, India, China and the Philippines
(Marcucci and Johnstone 2007), enrolment in the tertiary level have grown. Gross enrolment
ratios5 in aforementioned countries have shown an upward trend (Table 6). The Unites States
jumped from 53 percentage points in 1980 to 88 in 2009. Japan registered 31 percentage
points in 1980 steadily increasing to 47 in 1999 and making it to 58 percentage points in
2009. India also showed considerable growth, with a low 5 percentage points in 1980, rising
to 11 in 2003 and a registering 16 percentage points in 2009. China registered a very low
gross enrollment ration in 1980 at 1 percentage point but by the 2009 it ended up with 22
percentage points, higher than India. The Philippines showed a rather stable enrollment rate
beginning with a somewhat high percentage points in 1980 at 24 and ended up with 28 in
2009. The Philippines did not register any considerable increase in higher education
enrolment, unlike the other countries so mentioned. Note that Philippines had a much higher
enrolment ratio than China and India in 1980 (Philippines has 24 while China and India
posted 1 and 5, respectively) but by 2009 the gap has narrowed considerably.
5
Gross enrolment ratio. Tertiary. Total is the total enrollment in tertiary education with reference to
International Standard Classification of Education (ISCED) 5 and 6, regardless of age, expressed as a
percentage of the total population of the five-year age group following on from secondary school leaving.
UNESCO Institute for Statistics. Catalog Sources World Development Indicators.
42
Table 6
Gross Enrollment Ratio, Tertiary, Countries with Moderate Tuition Fees
Country
1980
1989
1993
1999
2003
2009
US
53
67
78
72
81
88
Japan
31
30
30
47
52
58
India
5
6
6
11
16
China
1
3
3
no
data
7
15
22
Philippines
24
26
26
29
29
28
Source: World Bank
3.4 Access and Cost Sharing in Philippine State Universities and Colleges
The potential impact on higher education accessibility and its implications to equity
and social justice are critical concerns in cost sharing schemes adopted by any country. Just
like their private counterparts, Philippine public colleges and universities charge tuition and
other fee. However, public higher education institutions are viewed as the “cheaper”
alternative in getting a college degree. Even then, more than half of total tertiary enrolment
has historically been in private institutions but enrollment share in public higher education
institutions have steadily increased (Table 7). In school-year 1999-2000, almost 70% of
2,373,486 tertiary students were enrolled in private institutions. By school-year 2005-06,
enrolment share in public institutions rose to 34.21% and in school-year 2010-11, 42.26% of
total higher education students were in public universities and colleges.
43
Table 7
Enrollment in Tertiary Level in the Philippines
SY
1999-00
2002-03
2005-06
2008-09
2010-11
Private
1,656,041
1,611,381
1,633,719
1,642,684
1,751,922
Public
717,445
815,595
849,555
982,701
1,282,045
Total
2,373,486
2,426,976
2,483,274
2,625,385
3,033,967
% share
Private
Public
69.77% 30.23%
66.39% 33.61%
65.79% 34.21%
62.57% 37.43%
57.74% 42.26%
Source: CHED
Most Filipinos regard education as a primary avenue for upward social and economic
mobility and middle-class parents make many sacrifices to provide secondary and higher
education for their children. Moreover, many of them seem to equate high quality education
with high tuition fees. The annual tuition fees of big private universities in Metro Manila are
nearly half the average income of Filipino families. (International Comparative Higher
Education Finance and Accessibility Project, State University of New York at Buffalo 2012).
While enrolment trend in higher education reveals that share of public institutions has
grown over the last decade, with SUCs comprising over 90% of enrolment in public
institutions,6 in contrast, national government subsidy has been declining.
Total SUCs receipts grew by 9% yearly on the average from PhP 21.8 billion in 2003
to PhP36.1 billion in 2009 (Table 8). The subsidy from the national government continues to
account for the bulk of total receipts of SUCs in 2003-2009. However, a shift in the
composition of SUCs’ receipts is evident during the period. The share of NG subsidy in total
6
Other public higher education institutions include Local Universities and Colleges (LUCs) and CHEDsupervised HEIs
44
SUCs’ receipts contracted from 82% in 2003 to 70% in 2008-2009. Conversely, the share of
internally generated income expanded from 18% in 2003 to 30% in 2008-2009. This came
about as SUCs’ receipts from internally generated income grew more than thrice as fast as
NG subsidy between 2003 and 2009. To wit, SUCS’ internally generated income increased
by an average of 18% per year in 2003-2009 while NG subsidy to SUCs rose by an average
of 6% per year.
Table 8
SUCs Receipts
Year
2003
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
Amount (in P'000,000)
Internallygenerated
NG Subsidy Income
Total
17,906
3,903
21,809
17,993
5,668
23,661
18,857
6,625
25,482
20,372
7,995
28,367
22,769
9,650
32,419
25,363
10,771
36,134
Internally
NG
generated
Subsidy
Income
82.1%
17.9%
76.0%
24.0%
74.0%
26.0%
71.8%
28.2%
70.2%
29.8%
70.2%
29.8%
Total
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
Source: DBM
3.5 Enrolment in MUST
In SY 1998-1999, total enrolment in MPSC was 3,429. Initial implementation of
BOT Resolution No. 18, s. 2000 or the MUST Ten-year Rationalized School Fess Policy
started during school year 2000-2001. The new set and rates of school fees affected only the
new entrants at all levels in the college excluding those in the satellite campuses. The
schedules of school fees were posted on the bulletin boards of each school for the
Source: DBM
information of students who sought admission in the first year. These incoming students
45
were also properly informed of the new schedule of fees during the interview phase of their
admission.
It is interesting to note that when the policy was first implemented, enrolment in
MUST increased by 26% or 996 headcount over the previous school-year, making it the
biggest increase ever in terms of percentage (Figure 7). The second biggest increase came in
2007 when enrolment increased by 1,171 students or an equivalent or 19%. The slight
decrease in the enrolment in school years 2001 to 2002 was attributed to the closure of some
programs (MPSC Annual Report 2001 and 2002). By 2011, enrolment in MUST surged to
8,691 students or an increase of 153% over the 1998 level.
Figure 7. Enrolment Trend in MUST
Source: MUST Annual Reports
An important aspect of policy analysis is the policy’s impact on growth. In this study,
growth is measured in terms of increase in enrolment or enhancing access. Did the policy
enhance growth and improve access? A deeper examination of the enrolment statistics of
46
MUST would show that by 2007, enrolment has more than doubled compared to the 1998
level. It is argued that that the corresponding increase in income brought about by the
increase in tuition and other fees generated much needed funds for construction of new
instructional facilities, allowing the University to accommodate more students. A more
exhaustive discussion on impact on physical facilities and institutional quality is discussed in
the next chapter.
This increase in enrolment in MUST against the backdrop of decreasing government
subsidy reflect the worldwide trend. Salmi and Hauptman (2006) observed that an increasing
number of countries are faced with the challenge in the financing of higher education in that
demand for education beyond the secondary level is growing faster than the ability or
willingness of the governments to provide public resources that are adequate to meet the
demand. They (Salmi and Hauptman 2006) offer three main reasons for the rapid increase in
demand. First, the economic value of attaining a tertiary education in virtually all countries,
as measured by rates of return or other indicators, is growing faster than the economic returns
accruing to those who receive a secondary education or less. Secondly, in many cultures
there are strong social pressures on students for moving beyond the secondary level of
education for non-monetary reasons such as greater social standing and prestige in the
community--sometimes even better marriage prospects for girls. Thirdly, many countries are
attempting to make their tertiary education curricula more relevant as governments and
tertiary education institutions de-emphasize certain fields with low levels of labor force
demand such as public administration and education in favor of emerging fields such as
information technology, engineering and science.
47
The three main reasons offered above for increase in demand or enrolment higher
education could very well be the same reasons why enrolment in MUST increased over the
last decade vis-à-vis implementation of the MUST Ten-Year rationalized School Fees Policy.
A discussion on how the policy was formulated is in order at this point to give a background
of the policy and how stakeholders’ (faculty and students) views were considered.
3.6 Policy Formulation
Republic Act 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act of 1997 provides that
“there shall be an administrative council consisting of the president of the university or
college as Chairman, the vice president(s), deans, directors and other officials of equal rank
as members, and whose duty is to review and recommend to the Board of
Regents/Trustees policies governing the administration, management and development
planning of the university or college for appropriate action.” (emphasis supplied)
Conformably with the above-cited provision, proposals on tuition and other fees shall
be deliberated by the Administrative Council. The Administrative Council shall then
recommend/endorse the policy to the Board for its approval. As previously mentioned,
pursuant to RA 8928, the Board has the power “to fix tuition and other necessary school
charges, such as but not limited to matriculation fees, graduation fees and laboratory fees.”
In due time, then College President instructed the Financial Management Officer and
the Planning Officer to draft the proposal considering the following assumptions: (1) that
during the ten-year period the enrollment will be pegged at six thousand (2) that Congress
will continue to appropriate funds for personal services at current level of the plantilla
positions; (3) that the inflation rate will remain at 10% per annum; (4) that the annual
48
adjustment in the rate of fees shall affect only the freshmen paying the same rate until they
graduate; (5) that MOOE and Capital Outlay shall be charged to internally-generated income;
and (6) by end of the policy period, the share of the internally-generated income of the
college in the total annual budget will at least fifty percent.
The proposed rationalized school fee structure as prepared by these two college
officials was then presented to the Administrative Council which deliberated it, made the
necessary improvements and then indorsed it to the Board of Trustees for final action.
Proponents of the policy did not like to label it as tuition and other school fees
increase to avoid the negative connotation. Rather it was labeled as tuition and other fees
rationalization because it was only intended to restructure these fees to make them more
reasonable considering the recommendations contained in the various studies mentioned
earlier and the vision of the college likewise contained in the three strategic plans just
presented, hence it is labeled as “Rationalized Tuition and Other School Fees, S.Y. 20002010.”
During the first time the proposal was deliberated by the Board of Trustees, the
Student Trustee raised objection to it. The Board Chairman then assigned said Student
Trustee to head a committee with student members of his choice to make a comparative
study of the tuition and other school fees charged by private colleges and universities for
similar programs in Cagayan de Oro City. In the succeeding regular board meeting, it was
the Student Trustee who moved for the approval of the proposal provided that some minor
concessions shall be granted by the College President, seconded by the Faculty Trustee
leading to the passage of BOT Resolution No. 18, s. 2000 approving the “Rationalized
Tuition and Other School Fees, SY 2000-2010”.
49
There are two versions of this policy: the original version which was approved per
BOT Resolution No. 18, s. 2000 and the revised version which was approved per BOT
Resolution No. 86, s. 2004. Both versions introduce the adjusted rate only for new comers
and then retains that rate until they graduate. The difference lies in the fact that the original
version which remained in effect during SY 1999-2000 until SY 2004-2005 adjusted the rate
every two school years, while the amended version which took effect from SY 2005-2006
until SY 2009-2010 made the adjustment annually. Reason for the amendment was that the
Board realized that the adjustment made every two years was not sufficient to cope with the
inflation rate.
The items in the fee structure consist of “Tuition Fee/fund augmentation fee” by level
of educational program, nine “Other Fees” and seven “Miscellaneous Fees”. In addition, the
structure also included a semestral “Development Fee” and “Testing Fee for
Employment/Career Evaluation” as can be seen in Table 9.
The choice by the academic community and the other stake holders of Plan “A” of the
aforementioned two strategic options to transform the former MPSC to MUST, a world-class
fiscally autonomous state university was considered as an acceptance by the same
stakeholders of the need to rationalize the tuition and other school fees.
It is noted that governing board of SUCs are composed of: (i) Chairman of the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Chairman; (ii) President of the university or
college, Vice Chairman; (iii) Chairmen of the Congressional Committees on Education and
Culture (upper and lower houses of Congress); (iv) Regional Director of the National
Economic Development Authority (NEDA) where the main campus of the university or
college is located; (v) Regional Director of the Department of Science and Technology
50
(DOST) in case of science and technological colleges; or the Regional Director of the
Department of Agriculture colleges; (vi) President of the faculty association; (vii) President
of the supreme student council or the student representative elected by the student council;
(viii) President of the alumni association of the institution concerned; (ix) Two (2) prominent
citizens who have distinguished themselves in their professions or fields of specialization. By
the composition of the governing board alone, various stakeholders are represented during
the formulation and enactment of the school fees policy. It can be argued that the students,
through their association president, have a strong representation in the governing board.
Noted was the fact that the MUST governing board gave the student trustee the opportunity
to make a comparative study of the tuition and other school fees charged by private colleges
and universities for similar programs in Cagayan de Oro City.
Presently, tuition and other school fees charged by private universities range from
Php20,000 to P32,000 per semester for engineering courses. In MUST, total tuition and other
school fees amount to a little over Php11,000 or almost half of what private institutions are
charging.
51
Table 9
Rationalized Tuition and Other School Fees, 2000 - 2010
52
3.7 Cost of Program in MUST
Padua, et al (2004) conducted a study to determine the cost per student per program in
MUST and found out that, using 2002 financial data, BS in Mechanical Engineering recorded
the highest cost at P240,764.99 while BS Applied Mathematics costs least at P117,236.86. If
we get the cost per student per year, it would be P48,152.99 for Mechanical Engineering and
P29,309.22 for Applied Mathematics. Table 10 shows the cost per student per program
(Padua, et al, 2004).
Table 10
Cost per Student per Program, CY 2002 Financial Data
Degree
BS Electrical Engineering
BS Civil Engineering
BS Architecture
BS Electronics and Communications
Engineering
BS Mechanical Engineering
BS Industrial Technology (from Automotive
Eng. Technology)
BS Applied Mathematics
BS Industrial Education (THE)
Cost Per Student Per
Program
P189,617.38
P176,667.99
P179,593.61
P175,306.98
P240,764.99
P129,687.98
P117,236.86
P127,934.64
The methodology used determining cost per student per program shown in arriving at
the figures shown in Table 10 is as follows:
“Costs are classified into three: direct (teaching) personal services; direct MOOE; and
indirect costs. The direct personal services costs is taken from the total annual
53
compensation of each faculty which include basic salary, ACA/PERA, YEB, cash
gift, government share of GSIS, Philhealth, HDMF and overload honoraria. The total
teaching honoraria for part-time faculty members were considered in their annual
compensation. From the annual compensation, time spent by each faculty member on
teaching (secondary laboratory school, undergraduate and graduate), administrative
work, research, extension and others were identified. The number of hours spent by
each faculty for teaching is the direct personnel services costs or the direct teaching
cost. The direct teaching cost per faculty is now divided by the number of subjects
and/or sections. This is now the cost per course.
In arriving at the direct MOOE, each academic department is supposed to
have different direct MOOE costs. However, there is no data available that can
readily identify direct MOOE for all the academic departments put together. The
direct MOOE is the same for all academic departments, as a consequence.
The indirect cost is the sum of all costs that can neither be identified as direct
MOOE nor direct teaching costs. Cost for library services, medical/dental clinics,
guidance services, general and administrative services, research and extension
services, etc. are classified as indirect costs. The personal services costs of faculty
members allocated to administrative functions, research, and extension also form part
of indirect costs.”
In that same study, Padua, et al (2004) offers another approach in costing programs,
the Life-Cycle Costing, the parameters of which include the following:
•
Direct Teaching Cost, where a subject is valued based on whether or not the subject
is a general education subject. General education subjects are valued based on the
54
average salary of Instructor I and Instructor III times 54 hours. Increments are given
for specialized courses
•
MOOE Costs based on the total MOOE expenditure using the GAA and the
internal income of the SUC
•
Other Costs includes rentals and others
Cost per student per program using Life-Cycle Costing showed that costs are much
lower, about a third of the costs calculated from actual costs (Table 11).
Table 11
Cost per Student per Program using Life-cycle Costing Approach
Degree
BS Architecture
Engineering
BS Industrial Technology (from Automotive
Eng. Technology)
BS Applied Mathematics
BS Industrial Education (THE)
Cost Per Student Per
Program
P 78,658.78
P 76,097.85
P 75,261.99
P 72,767.29
P 82,149.30
P 56,605.28
P 54,711.39
P 56,843.74
Note that in the life-cycle costing approach, direct teaching costs are valued by
subject, depending on whether a subject is a general education subject or not. Non-gen ed
55
subject are valued higher. Thus, a standard cost per program can be arrived at using this
approach.
In 2002, the average tuition and other fees paid by MUST student at that time is
P7,400 per school-year. For a four-year program, we just multiply by 4 and we get the
average total cost borne by students of P29,600. For five-year programs like Engineering and
Architecture, the average total cost borne by students is P37,000. Cost sharing by students
and the government suing actual costs in 2002 is shown in Table 12 while cost sharing using
life-cycle costing is shown Table 13.
Table 12
Cost Borne by Student and the Government using Actual Costs in CY 2002
Cost per Student
189,617.38
176,667.99
179,593.61
175,306.98
240,764.99
129,687.98
117,236.86
127,934.64
Cost Borne by Student
Cost Borne by Government
Amount
%
Amount
%
37,000.00
20%
152,617.38
80%
37,000.00
21%
139,667.99
79%
37,000.00
21%
142,593.61
79%
37,000.00
21%
138,306.98
79%
37,000.00
15%
203,764.99
85%
29,600.00
23%
100,087.98
77%
29,600.00
25%
87,636.86
75%
29,600.00
23%
98,334.64
77%
As shown in Table 12, cost borne by student ranges from a low of 15% to a high of
25% of total cost. This suggests that cost-sharing is not equally applied. This is
understandable since tuition and other fees are uniform across programs.
56
Table 13
Cost Borne by Student and the Government using Life-cycle Costing
Cost per Student
78,658.78
76,097.85
75,261.99
72,767.29
82,149.30
56,605.28
54,711.39
56,843.74
Cost Borne by Student
Cost Borne by Government
Amount
%
Amount
%
37,000.00
47%
41,658.78
53%
37,000.00
49%
39,097.85
51%
37,000.00
49%
38,261.99
51%
37,000.00
51%
35,767.29
49%
37,000.00
45%
45,149.30
55%
29,600.00
52%
27,005.28
48%
29,600.00
54%
25,111.39
46%
29,600.00
52%
27,243.74
48%
Using the life-cycle costing approach, there are 4 programs where student share is
higher than government share: Electronics and Communications Engineering, Industrial
Technology, Applied Mathematics and Industrial Education (Table 13). In contrast to the
cost per program using CY 2002 actual, government share ranges from 75% to 85% (Table
12).
There is a worldwide trend for decreased government support for higher education
and increased costs for students and families in the form of some type of tuition. It is also
clear that given the financial austerity facing governments and the compelling public needs in
terms of health care, primary education, housing, the environment, any expansion in higher
education enrolment will have to come at the cost of increased investment by parents and
students (Marcucci et al, 2007).
57
Rotoras, et al (2005) provided a logical framework for rationalizing program
offerings in SUCs which attempts to reconcile the seemingly conflicting issues and
unbounded goals facing higher education institutions when making decisions to offer
courses.
Considering issues of equity, access and quality of programs, the framework
provides a clear and sound basis in identifying courses that the government should subsidize
and the courses potential for revenue generation. It was suggested that some programs,
termed Special Programs, should be fully paid for by the students and government subsidy
will be poured to the regular programs.
Another approach would be to apportion the cost of all programs between the
government and the students. A staggered approach could be effected on the apportionment
could be employed starting with heavy subsidy from the government. Say we begin in years
1 to 2 a 80:20 sharing where government shoulders 80% of the program cost and the student,
20%. Years 3 and 4 would be 70:30 sharing, years 5 and 6 at 60:40, etc. Following the policy
goal of the rationalized school fees policy, we can say that 50:50 sharing would be
appropriate. This approach supports the notion of equity, where those who benefit should
shoulder a significant portion of the cost. It is argued that student and their parents, who see
education as a vital tool to improve their quality of life, would be willing to shoulder a
significant of the cost of higher education and provide their share or their equity.
Arriving at the appropriate cost per program could be difficult as actual costs vary
from each college or university even among SUCs. Great variances in cost would be
expected if private universities are considered. Whatever the approach in cost sharing, a
deeper look into the cost behavior patterns of different cost items in the operations of the
university will definitely help management to be more cost effective.
58
Chapter 4
Impact on Institutional Quality
4.1 Introduction
This part of the study intended to determine the impact of the MUST Ten-Year
School Fees Rationalization Policy on institutional quality. It was determined that The
MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees Policy has propelled MUST into what it is today,
a SUC Level IV and one of the Leading SUCs in the country. With 70% of fixed assets
coming from the Special Trust Fund, it is argued that the policy has achieved its goal in
developing the institution and elevating the level of quality. Moreover, allocation from
income to research and extension services was significantly higher than the national
government subsidy.
It was also found out that compared with the other 17 SUCs which were similarly
previously categorized under Level II, MUST showed the highest average percentage
increase in income at 70%, covering CY 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile, percentage increases in
subsidy were very minimal among the 18 SUCs. It is noted that only MUST, then MPSC,
was the only state college in the country that leaped from Level II to Level IV.
The MUST experience in allocating a significant share of income from school fees to
massive infrastructure development is worth emulating. It can be surmised that the leadership
deliberately kept current operating expenses to a minimum in order to provide a sizeable
portion of income to infrastructure development and laboratories upgrading thereby growing
its fixed assets base. It can also be argued that critical functions along instruction, research
and extension were given much attention and focus as the university was able elevate itself
from a Level II SUC to a Level IV and even becoming one of the Leading SUCs in the
59
country. A more in-depth study on the allocation method and leadership style is
recommended in order to gain better understanding of how MUST achieved its present
stature.
4.2 Measurements of Quality in SUCs
Measurement of quality of higher education institutions in the Philippines is a
difficult and tedious exercise. Various instruments have been developed to gauge quality of
education. At present, the SUC Leveling Instrument, developed jointly by the Department of
Budget and Management and the Commission on Higher Education, is being utilized to
measure institutional performance. The leveling instrument measures performance along Key
Result Areas (KRAs) in instruction, research, extension and management of resources. Other
measures of level of quality were also introduced by CHED just recently whereby SUCs are
classified either as Leading, Developed, Developing or Underdeveloped SUC.
In 1979, the Department of Budget and Management (DBM) issued a compensation
circular on the use of the SUC Leveling Instrument primarily aimed at determining the
classification level of SUC presidents and vice-presidents and their compensation. SUCs
were classified into nine (90 levels which considered enrolment size, number of programs,
faculty size and profile, resources for research, extension, non-formal training, number of
dormitories and residents, and appropriations of budget. In 1989, the DBM reduced the
number of levels to four (4). The revision was made due to the implementation of the Salary
Standardization Law. At this time, there was no Commission on Higher Education (CHED)
yet.
60
The Leveling Instrument was again revised in 2003 and this time the announcement
on the revision was made jointly by DBM and CHED. Four Key Result Areas (KRAs) were
prescribed and were assigned points for purposes of leveling: quality and relevance of
instruction, research capability and outputs, relations with and services to the community,
and management of resources:
•
Quality and Relevance in Instruction
In the Leveling Instrument, performance of graduates in the Professional
Regulatory Commission examinations, the accreditation status of universities by
CHED as centers of excellence or centers of development, number of weighted
enrolled units, faculty profile and scholarships are included in the KRA quality and
relevance of instruction.
•
Research Capability and Outputs
Under the KRA research capability and outputs, the following indicators are
included: research outputs published in international/national/local journals, research
outputs
disseminated/presented,
inventions
patented/commercialized,
research
outputs cited, and number of researchers.
•
Relations with and Services to the Community
Included in the KRA relations with and services to the community are number
of recognized extension program and community/population served.
•
Management of Resources
Under management of resources, the indicators are income from nongovernment sources and HRD programs/system including faculty development
program.
61
4.3 Financing Institutional Development in MUST
The researcher examined the cost behavior pattern of MUST to assess the impact of
the MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees policy on institutional development. To do
this, the researcher looked into the books of accounts of the university.
As discussed, SUCs are authorized under RA 8292 to retain and disburse their
internally-generated income. For this purpose, the Commission on Audit issued COA
Circular No. 2000-002 dated April 4, 2000 authorizing SUCs to open and maintain the
Special Trust Fund where income from tuition and other necessary school charges and its
utilization shall be separately recorded. The Special Trust Fund is separate and distinct from
the General Fund where subsidy from the national government and its disbursements are
recorded. In MUST, the Special Trust Fund was established in 2002. For purposes of this
study we shall analyze the accounts under the General Fund and the Special Trust Fund.
General Fund. The General Fund is where the national government subsidy and its
corresponding disbursements. The national government subsidy is authorized each year
through the General Appropriations Act (GAA). For every budget cycle, the DBM issues the
Budget Call calling upon government agencies to submit their respective budget proposals.
The Budget Call is issued a year prior to the implementation year. To illustrate, the Budget
Call for the FY 2014 budget is issued in the first quarter of 2013. In the case of SUCs, the
budget proposal shall be deliberated by the Administrative Council7 which will endorse the
same to the governing board for approval. This is the original agency budget proposal. The
7
As provided under RA 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act, there shall be an administrative council
consisting of the president of the university or college as Chairman, the vice president(s), deans, directors and other officials
of equal rank as members, and whose duty is to review and recommend to the Board of Regents/Trustees policies governing
the administration, management and development planning of the university or college for appropriate action.
62
approved original agency budget proposal shall be submitted to the DBM and CHED for
review and evaluation. The DBM and CHED then issues the budget ceiling upon which the
SUCs will now revise their budget proposals based on the budget ceiling. The budget ceiling
is indicated in the National Expenditure Program (NEP). It is also called the President’s
budget since this is the budget that the President of the Republic will present to Congress for
approval or legislation. Congress then calls upon all government agencies to defend their
budget proposals based on the NEP. The NEP is usually very much lower than the original
agency budget proposal (in the case of MUST, particularly).
Congress deliberates on the NEP and upon approval, the General Appropriations Act
for the year is enacted. The Department of Budget and Management (DBM) then issues the
Agency Budget Matrix (ABM) or a Special Allotment Release Order (SARO) to government
agencies. Both the ABM and SARO authorize said government agencies to enter into
contract with third parties for provision of goods or services and incur obligations in behalf
of the government. The DBM then issues the Notice of Cash Allocation, giving government
agencies the cash with which to pay/settles its obligations. The cash is deposited in the
account of the agency in an Authorized Government Depository Bank (AGDB). The account
of the agency where deposits under the NCA are credited is called the Modified
Disbursement System (MDS) account. The agency then draws or issues checks from this
MDS account to pay its obligations for Personal Services, Maintenance and Other Operating
Expenses (MOOE) and Capital Outlay (if any).
Special Trust Fund. Income from tuition and other school fees as well as grants and
donations are recorded in the books of STF. It may be recalled that the income of SUCs may
disbursed by its governing board. The budget under the STF is also approved on an annual
63
basis. Every year, the governing board approves the Program of Receipts and Expenditures
(PREs) which shall include appropriations under the GAA, projected income under the STF
as well as projected income from income-generating projects8 of SUCs. In the case of
MUST, the PREs is usually submitted to the Board through the Administrative Council
within the last quarter of the year prior to the implementation year. For example, the PREs
for 2013 was submitted to the Board for approval in December 2012. The budget under the
STF is also includes expense items under Personal Services, MOOE and Capital Outlay.
Personal Services are expense accounts pertaining to compensation and other
personnel benefits such as salaries, allowances, bonus, honoraria, RATA, etc. (Table 14).
Salaries and other personnel benefits of regular employees may only be charged against the
General Fund. However, only a few Personal Services budgetary accounts such as honoraria,
allowances for teachers and students who render services to the school, salary differential9
and overtime payments of regular employees and others may be paid out of the Special Trust
Fund. Salaries and other personnel benefits of regular employees may only be charged from
the General Fund. On the other hand, there is not much restriction under the MOOE and
Capital Outlay accounts that may be charged under the STF and GF. The MOOE includes
expenses for travel, trainings and scholarships, electricity, water, security services, repair and
maintenance, etc. (Table 15). Capital Outlay, are for capital expenditures such as
construction of buildings, purchase of IT equipments, furniture and fixtures, instructions
laboratory equipments, library books, etc.
8
SUCs are authorized to generate income from income-generating projects (IGPs), aside from tuition and other
fees. Income from IGPs are may be separately under the Revolving Fund. The Revolving Fund is separate and
distinct from the Special Trust Fund and General Fund. MUST maintains all three funds.
9
Salary differential for faculty promotions under DBM National Budget Circular No. 461 and for designated
VPs under DBM and CHED Joint Circular No. 1, s. 2004 .
64
Table 14
Personal Services Expense Accounts
Salaries and Wages – Regular Pay
Salaries and Wages – Part Time Pay
Salaries and Wages – Casual/Contractual
Personnel Economic Relief Allowance (PERA)
Additional Compensation (ADCOM)
Representation Allowance (RA)
Transportation Allowance (TA)
Clothing Allowance
Honoraria
Hazard Pay
Overtime and Night Pay
Holiday Pay
Christmas Bonus
Cash Gift
Productivity Incentive Benefits
Other Bonuses and Allowances
Life and Retirement Insurance Contributions
PAG-IBIG Contributions
PHILHEALTH Contributions
ECC Contributions
Pension and Retirement Benefits
Terminal Leave Benefits
Health Workers’ Benefits
Subsistence and Quarters’ Allowances
Longevity Pay
Other Personnel Benefits
Source: COA New Government Accounting (NGAS) Manual, Volume 3
65
Table 15
Maintenance and Other Operating Expenses Accounts
Traveling Expenses – Local
Traveling Expenses – Foreign
Training and Seminar Expenses
Water
Electricity
Cooking Gas
Telephone/Telegraph and Internet
Postage and Deliveries
Subscription Expenses
Advertising Expenses
Rent Expenses
Insurance Expenses
Fidelity Bond Premiums
Survey Expenses
Storage Expenses
Zoological/Animal Maintenance Expenses
Printing and Binding Expenses
Accountable Forms Expenses
Office Supplies Expenses
Depreciation Expenses
Bad Debts Expense
Other Expenses
Medical, Dental and Laboratory Supplies Expenses
Food/Non-food Expenses
Gasoline, Oil and Lubricants Expenses
Agricultural Supplies Expenses
Legal Services
Auditing Services
Consultancy Services
General Services
Consultancy Services
General Services
Security and Janitorial Services
Taxes, Duties and Licenses
Repairs and Maintenance
Awards and Indemnities
Rewards and Other Claims
Grants and Donations
Representation Expenses
Extraordinary and Miscellaneous Expenses
Loss on Sale of Assets
Loss of Assets
Source: COA New Government Accounting (NGAS) Manual, Volume 3
Physical Plant and Facilities. Good facilities appear to be an important precondition
for student learning, provided that other conditions are present that support a strong academic
program. A growing body of research has linked student achievement and behavior to the
physical building conditions. McGuffey (1982) concluded that heating and air conditioning
systems appeared to be very important, along with special instructional facilities (i.e., science
laboratories or equipment) and color and interior painting, in contributing to student
achievement. Proper building maintenance was also found to be related to better attitudes and
66
fewer disciplinary problems in one cited study. A study of working conditions in urban
schools concluded that "physical conditions have direct positive and negative effects on
teacher morale, sense of personal safety, feelings of effectiveness in the classroom, and on
the general learning environment." (Corcoran et al., 1988)
MUST envisioned itself to become a world-class university. Critical to this goal is
availability of good physical facilities with modern laboratories. However, the dwindling
government subsidy has made it almost impossible for SUCs to modernize laboratories, build
new classrooms and other learning facilities. For the period CY 2000 to CY 2012, MUST
received total appropriation of Php37.7M for capital outlay (Table 16). No capital outlay for
MUST was appropriated in the GAA in the years 2003, 2004, 2011 and 2012. Minimal
amounts were appropriated in the years 2005 and 2006 at Php486,000 in both years.
Considering the enrolment and the type of programs offered by MUST, the allocation from
the GAA simply cannot support even a decent maintenance plan for existing facilities, much
more upgrade or acquire new laboratory equipment or build new buildings for classrooms
and laboratories.
67
Table 16
MUST Capital Outlay Allocation from the GAA, 2000 - 2012
Year
Amount
2000
8,000,000
2001
8,000,000
2002
1,700,000
2003
None
2004
None
2005
486,000
2006
486,000
2007
2,012,000
2008
3,012,000
2009
11,012,000
2010
3,000,000
2011
None
2012
None
TOTAL
37,708,000
Source: DBM
In 1999, total fixed assets of MUST was recorded at Php101,508,948 funded out of
the General Fund (Table 17). Increases in fixed assets were recorded annually from 2000 to
2012 with exception in 2004 when some assets were dropped from the books on account of
68
being unserviceable. It is noted that in 2003 when no capital outlay was appropriated from
the GAA, fixed assets of MUST increased by 12% over the previous year or an equivalent
amount of Php15M. Likewise when there was minimal annual capital outlay appropriation of
Php486,000 in 2005 and 2006, fixed assets of MUST grew by 14% and 11% in 2005 and
2006, respectively, the fixed assets now 70% higher than the 1999 level.
There were
significant increases recorded from 2007 to 2010, the highest being in 2010 at 48.5%. That
year, fixed assets of MUST grew by 345% over the 1999 level. By 2012, total fixed assets
was recorded at Php501M, the bulk or 71% of which was sourced from the Special Trust
Fund.
Table 17
Fixed Assets Annual Increase/Decrease and % Share of STF and GF
Year
1999
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Fixed Assets
101,508,948.00
110,873,311.00
120,463,529.00
129,076,040.08
144,567,803.90
140,231,325.36
160,395,707.32
177,262,040.68
216,980,258.90
250,677,795.79
303,172,015.86
450,348,744.36
454,865,933.17
501,352,552.44
Annual
% Increase /
Decrease
9.2%
8.6%
7.1%
12.0%
-3.0%
14.4%
10.5%
22.4%
15.5%
20.9%
48.5%
1.0%
10.2%
% share
STF
3.3%
7.8%
11.6%
22.2%
28.9%
41.5%
45.8%
54.0%
67.5%
67.6%
71.0%
GF
100.0%
100.0%
100.0%
96.7%
92.2%
88.4%
77.8%
71.1%
58.5%
54.2%
46.0%
32.5%
32.4%
29.0%
69
Of the total fixed assets acquisitions of almost Php400M in CY 1999 - 2012, less than
10% is funded from the GAA (Figure 8). Thus, as of 2012, over Php360M in fixed assets was
funded out of the Special Trust Fund.
It was in 2009 when fixed assets under the Special Trust Fund outgrew fixed assets in
the General Fund. The gap between the GF and STF continue to widen in the coming years
that by 2012, the Special Trust Fund recorded fixed assets higher by over Php210M against
the General Fund (Figure 9).
Figure 8. Fixed Assets Acquisitions against Capital Outlay from GAA
70
Figure 9. Fixed Assets of MUST by Fund Source
Construction of the Learning Resource Center (LRC), the first high-rise building in
MUST is an example of a capital outlay project funded from the GAA. It is a four-storey
structure with an outlay of Php30M budget approved by DBM to be funded in three years:
from 1995, 1996 and 1997. The actual appropriations, however, was only Php10,931,000.00
during the three year period, as follows: 1995-Php2,000,000.00; 1996-Php7,089,000.00; and
1997-Php1,842,000.00. (Terminal Report of Dr. Salvador, p. 101).
“The national funding came in staggered basis so that the College considered the
option to file a loan with a bank. But after discussions with key College officials, it was
deemed rather wise to use Php3,388,828.00 internally generated income. By end of 2004, the
third floor of the LRC was ready for occupancy for the College Main Library.
The College allotted P4 million from its internally generated income to complete the
fourth floor and the roof deck of the LRC…The unveiling of LRC Marker on December 20,
71
2005 officially opened the building to the public….” (Terminal Report of Dr. Salvador, p.
102).
It took the college ten (10) years from 1995 to 2005 to complete this project at a total
cost of Php41M. Since the national government started to gradually withdraw financial
support for capital outlays to SUCs starting CY 1998, the completion of the project was made
possible through internally-generated income.
This example shows how capital outlay project in a SUC that is dependent on national
appropriation. The completion of the project minus the elevator was made possible with the
infusion of over eight million pesos from internally-generated sources.
With the projected gradual increase of its internally-generated income during the
initial implementation of the policy, the administration decided to give priority to upgrade its
laboratory facilities by concentrating the use of the laboratory and development fees for the
setting up of four show window laboratories starting 2003 up to 2006. During an
administrative council meeting, the school deans agreed to apply the college’s resources on
each school’s identified project on rotation basis. The projects agreed upon were:
2003 –Simulation and Modeling Laboratory for the School of Engineering;
2004 –Automation and Control Laboratory for the School of Industrial and
Information Technology;
2005 –Multi-Media Center for the School of Teacher Education; and
2006 –Speech and Call Center Training Laboratory for the School of Arts and
Sciences10.
10
Implementation of the project was not pushed through.
72
In addition to the above-listed laboratories, the College Librarian also proposed the
setting up of an E-Library. The IT facilities for this project were acquired through a deferred
payment scheme wherein the college charged users’ fee from students to pay for the
equipment on installment basis. Total cost of the project was over Php4.2M
The Terminal Report of Dr. Salvador (pp. 104-108) describes the aforementioned
show window laboratories as follows:
“1) Simulation and Modeling Laboratory
A simulation and modeling laboratory was one of the state-of-the-arts facilities that
MPSC provided to accentuate its commitment to quality education. Through this laboratory,
students, faculty, researchers, intellectuals and practitioners were aided in the discovery of
new knowledge, thus pushing the frontiers of their respective sciences. This laboratory unit
addressed issues/concerns through software development and applications which included,
but not limited to, the following areas: power systems economics; energy efficiency and
energy data analysis; signal processing (independent component analysis, fuzzy logic,
applications of neural network); data analysis; and environment. The project cost was almost
Php1.4M.
“2. Automation and Control Center
In 2003, MPSC established the Automation and Control Center in the School of
Industrial and Information Technology under a progressive scheme. The center was
envisioned to provide students with the necessary competency on automation and control
needed to operate state-of-the-art equipment found in industrial establishments, and likewise,
to provide technical skills upgrading to those who were already working in industries.
73
…Phase I Project in the amount of Php 3.690M was used to acquire one unit of
module 3 of the Mechatronics Package, Electro-pneumatics with PLC, Electro-Hydraulics
Trainer, Process Controller Trainer, and Web trainer. Included in the Phase I project was
Trainers Training of Faculty in the handling and utilization of the acquired equipment,
Administrators’ Training abroad specifically to do benchmarking on management and
sustainability of the Mechatronics Equipment, and Teachware needed to facilitate delivery of
instruction.
Phase II Project in the amount of Php 5.3M acquired the following equipment, which
was commissioned in the Automation and Control Center on July 11, 2005:
1 unit –Station 1 Distribution of Mechatronics Module
1 unit –Station 2 Testing of the Mechatronics Module
1 unit –Station 4 Storage of the Mechatronics Module
5 copies –Mechatronics Exercises
1 set –Basic and Advance Sensor Technology complete with material sample and
CS2 groove plate case and documentation CD.
Furthermore, this package included the 10 units dual workstation table (aluminum
profiled) and Training of Faculty in Mechatronics System for five days and Sensor
Technology for 3 days. Eleven (11) units of PC were acquired to ensure the purchased
Webtrainer under Phase I Mechatronics Project would be fully appreciated by the students.
Total cost of the project was P11,690,000.
“3. Multi-Media Center
One of the show widows envisioned by the College to be acquired in preparation for a
corporate university was the Multimedia Center.
This Center would serve as 1) the
74
laboratory for instructional technology classes for the BTTE program and other technology
classes, 2) multimedia facility for the faculty of the College in developing and producing
instructional materials, 3) the training center for all teachers and professionals in the region,
and 4) a test ground for new technology application in computing.
The amount of
P3,300,000.00 would fully equip the Center with software, hardware, and accessories.
“4. Speech and Call Center Training Laboratory
The first of its kind to be installed in a school, the Speech and Call Center Training
Laboratory with an estimated cost of Php1.9M would train students to man the international
communication center established to link the world through electronic communications.”
Current Operating Expenditures. Current operating expenditures of MUST over
the policy implementation period, such as Personal Services and MOOE accounts, were
mostly taken from the General Fund. It is noted that salaries and other personnel services of
regular employees are solely funded from the General Fund. Historically, PS comprised
about 70 to 80% of the total current operating expenditures. In 2002, almost 90% of current
operating expenditures were charged to the General Fund (Table 18). It was in 2009 when the
highest percentage share of operating expenses was taken from the Special Trust Fund at
43%. During this time, total operating expenses grew by 112% or Php176M from the 2002
level of only of Php83M. By 2011, operating expenses was recorded at a total of Php205M
(higher by 148% than the 2002 level) 29% of which was taken from the STF and 71% from
GF.
75
Table 18
Current Operating Expenditures
Year
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
STF
9,396,777.03
15,707,657.50
19,279,649.68
23,311,269.55
29,703,697.82
35,974,989.35
63,827,121.72
74,863,692.86
55,176,236.92
59,044,821.26
GF
73,713,856.24
71,244,271.35
81,785,165.01
78,527,290.29
78,279,591.33
83,578,429.68
88,368,537.02
101,031,957.83
119,611,745.44
146,831,129.33
TOTAL
83,110,633.27
86,951,928.85
101,064,814.69
101,838,559.84
107,983,289.15
119,553,419.03
152,195,658.74
175,895,650.69
174,787,982.36
205,875,950.59
% share
STF
GF
11.31%
88.69%
18.06%
81.94%
19.08%
80.92%
22.89%
77.11%
27.51%
72.49%
30.09%
69.91%
41.94%
58.06%
42.56%
57.44%
31.57%
68.43%
28.68%
71.32%
Source: MUST Annual Audit Reports
Expenses for research and extension services are considered current operating
expenditures. For purposes of comparison, the researcher looked into the funding allocation
for research and extension. In the area of research, funding allocation from the STF was
significantly higher, providing the bulk of funding (Figure 10). Funding for extension
services from the STF was also significantly higher than was allocated in the GF (Figure 11).
76
8000000
7000000
6000000
5000000
GF
4000000
STF
3000000
2000000
1000000
0
2005
2007
2008
2011
2012
Figure 10. Research Funding Allocation
4000000
3500000
3000000
2500000
GF
2000000
STF
1500000
1000000
500000
0
2005
2006
2008
2009
2010
2012
Figure 11. Extension Funding Allocation
4.4 The MUST SUC Leveling Experience
Under the first leveling evaluation following 4-level scheme, a total of 107 SUCs
were classified: 64 SUCs under Level I, 18 under Level II, 16 under Level III, and only 9
77
SUCs in Level IV. MPSC (now MUST) was among the 18 SUCs classified under Level II
(Tables 19 and 20).
In CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 60, series of 2007, a new SUC leveling
result was released. In that issuance, MUST (then MPSC) attained the highest level and
became the only state college that leaped from Level II to Level IV.
It is put forward that the MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees policy provided
the MUST with the means to enhance institutional quality. As shown earlier, government
subsidy to SUCs was simply not enough to fund the development of the institution.
Roman (2012) citing 2004 figures, reported that UP was spending $1,226 per student
per year and it was considered among the lowest spending among all universities in the Asia
Pacific Rim. Japanese universities were spending from $50,000 to $60,000. US universities
were spending between $15,000 and $60,000. Australian National University was spending
about $23,000, the National University, $24,138. Chulalongkorn University and University
of Malaya were spending almost double the UP’s budget. For MUST, it was a measly $251,
way below the norm among reputable universities.
78
Table 19
Level I and II SUCs, 1st Round of Evaluation
LEVEL I
1 Ilocos Sur Poly State College
33 EASTERN SAMAR ST UNIV
2 BATANES ST COLL
34 NAVAL INST OF TECH
3 NUEVA VISCAYA STATE UNIV
35 SAMAR ST COLL OF AGRIC AND FOR
4 QUIRINO ST COLLEGE
36 SOUTHERN LEYTE ST UNIV
5 AURORA ST COLL OF TECH
37 T TANCINCO EME INST OF SCI AND TECH
6 BATAAN PEN ST UNIV
38 BASILAN ST COLL
7 BULACAN NATL AGRCI ST COLL
39 JH CERILLES ST COLL
8 RAMON MAGSAYSAY TECH UNIV
40 JOSE RIZAL MEM ST COLL
9 LAGUNA ST POLY UNIV
41 SULU ST COLL
10 SOUTHERN LUZON ST UNIV
42 TAWI-TAWI REGIONAL AGRIC COLL
11 UNIV OF RIZAL SYSTEM
43 ZAMBO CITY ST POLY COLL
12 MARINDUQUE ST COLL
44 ZAMBO ST COLL OF MARINE SCI AND TECH
13 MINDORO ST COLL OF AGRIC AND TECH
45 CAMIGUIN POLY ST COLL
14 OCC MINDORO NATL COLL
46 MISAMIS OR ST COLL OF AGRIC AND TECH
15 ROMBLON ST COLL
47 NW MINDANAO ST COLL OF SCI AND TECH
16 WESTERN PHIL UNIV
48 DAVAO DEL NORTE ST COLL
17 CAMARINES NORTE ST COLL
49 DAVAO OR ST COLL OF SCI AND TECH
18 CAMARINES SUR POLY COLL
50 MARINE AND AQUATIC SCHOOL OF TECH
19 MEM ST COLL OF AGRIC AND TECH
51 ADIONG MEM POLY ST COLL
20 PARTIDO ST UNIV
52 COTABATO CITY ST POLY COLL
21 SORSOGON ST COLL
53 COTABATO FOUNDN COLL OF SCI AND TECH
22 AKLAN ST UNIV
54 SULTAN KUDARAT POLY ST COLL
23 CAPIZ ST UNIV
55 APAYAO ST COLL
24 GUIMARAS ST COLL
56 IFUGAO ST COLL OF AGRIC AND FOR
25 ILOILO ST COLL OF FISHERIES
57 KALINGA APAYAO ST COLL
26 NEGROS ST COLL OF AGRIC
58 MT PROVINCE ST POLY COLL
27 NORTHERN ILOILO POLY ST COLL
59 AGUSAN DEL SUR ST COLL OF AGRIC AND TECH
28 NORTHERN NEGROS ST COLL OF SCI AND TECH
60 NORTHERN MINDANAO ST INST OF SCI AND TECH
29 POLY ST COLL OF ANTIQUE
61 SURIGAO DEL SUR POLY ST COLL
30 CENTRAL VIS ST COLL OF AGRIC FOR AND TECH
62 SURIGAO ST COLL OF TECH
31 NEGROS ORIENTAL ST UNIV
63 MARIKINA POLY ST COLL
32 SIQUIJOR ST COLL
64 PHIL ST COLL OF AERONAUTICS
LEVEL II
1 DON H VENTURA COLL OF ARTS AND TRADES
10 EASTERN VISAYAS STATE UNIV
2 PAMPANGA AGRIC COLL
11 PALOMPON INST OF TECH
3 TARLAC COLL OF AGRIC
12 SAMAR ST UNIV
4 BATANGAS ST UNIV
13 BUKIDNON ST UNIV
5 PALAWAN ST UNIV
14 MINDANAO POLY ST COLL
6 CAMARINES SUR ST AGRIC COLL
15 UNIV OF SOUTHEASTERN PHIL
7 CATANDUANES ST COLL
16 ABRA ST INST OF SCI AND TECH
8 CARLOS HILADO MEM ST COLL
17 EULOGIO "AMANG" RODRIGUEZ INST OF SCI & TECH
9 W VIS COLL OF SCI AND TECH
18 RIZAL TECH UNIV
79
Table 20
Level III and IV SUCs, 1st Round of Evaluation
LEVEL III
1 UNIV OF NORTHERN PHIL
LEVEL IV
1 Don Mariano Marcos Mem State Univ
2 CAGAYAN ST UNIV
2 MARIANO MARCOS ST UNIV
3 BULACAN ST UNIV
3 PANGASINAN ST UNIV
4 NUEVA ECIJA UNIV OF SCI AND TECH
4 ISABELA ST UNIV
5 TARLAC ST UNIV
5 CENTAL LUZON ST UNIV
6 CAVITE ST UNIV
6 BICOL UNIV
7 WEST VIS ST UNIV
7 PHIL NORMAL UNIV
8 CEBU NORMAL UNIV
8 POLY UNIV OF THE PHIL
9 CEBU ST COLL OF SCI AND TECH
9 TECH UNIV OF THE PHIL
10 LEYTE NORMAL UNIV
11 LEYTE ST UNIV
12 UNIV OF EASTERN PHIL
13 W MINDANAO ST UNIV
14 CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIV
15 UNIV OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO
16 BENGUET ST UNIV
Compared with the other 17 SUCs which were similarly previously categorized under
Level II, MUST showed the highest average percentage increase in income at 70% (Figure
12), covering CY 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile, percentage increases in subsidy were very
minimal among the 18 SUCs.
It can be recalled that in 2007, annual income generated by MUST accounted for
more than 50% of the operating budget, giving the university the much needed funds to
implement infrastructure projects, upgrade laboratory facilities, support conduct of
researches, and intensify faculty development, among others. In blending to global trends, the
electronic library was also developed.
80
Figure 12. Average Percentage Increase in Subsidy and Income of Level II SUCs
(1st Round Leveling), CY 2000 - 2007
4.5 MUST as Leading SUC
By 2012, the MUST was identified by the CHED as one (1) of twenty-two (22)
Leading SUCs in the country. This recognition validated MUST’s enhanced level of quality.
Again, income funded a significant portion of the university’s programs and projects.
Massive infrastructure development and improvement in facilities to aid student
learning continue to be a priority. By end of 2012, the four-storey ICT building costing
P71.4M, the five-storey Science Complex costing P136M, and gymnasium renovation
amounting to P91M were done, all funded from income. Chemistry, Physics, Biology, and
Food Science and Technology laboratories were upgraded costing more than P35M. Library
holdings are constantly expanded and supplemented by on-line journals with more than
19,000 titles.
MUST was also able implement NBC 461 until the 5th cycle and also developed an
awards and incentive scheme for faculty doing research. The awards and incentive scheme
may be a major factor for the increasing number of research outputs presented in national and
81
international fora as well as publication in ISI or refereed journals. The university also
sustained its status as Center of Development in Mathematics and in 2010, gained another, as
Center of Development in Electrical Engineering in 2012.
4.6 MUST Accomplishments
Quality and Relevance in Instruction. MUST ‘s performance in licensure
examinations are shown in Figures 13 to 18.
Figure 13. Mechanical Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MUST
National Passing Rate
Figure 14. Electronics Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
82
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MUST
Figure 15. Electrical Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
80%
70%
60%
50%
40%
30%
20%
10%
0%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MUST
National Rate Passing
Figure 16. Civil Engineering Licensure Examination Performance
80.00%
60.00%
40.00%
20.00%
0.00%
2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012
MUST
Figure 17. Licensure Examination for Teacher Performance
83
100%
80%
60%
40%
20%
0%
2003
2005
2006
2007
MUST
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Figure 18. Architecture Licensure Examination Performance
In the area of program accreditation, MUST has been keen on having the various
programs accredited by the AACCUP. See Tables 21 to 24.
Table 21
2000
Level I
Level II
BS Applied
Mathematics
BS Electrical
Engineering
BS Electronics and
Communications
Engineering
BS Industrial
Education
2001
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electrical
Engineering
BS Electronics and
Communications
Engineering
2002
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electrical
Engineering
BS Electronics and
Communications
Engineering
84
Table 22
Programs Accredited in CY 2004
2004
Level II
Level I
BS Computer Engineering
BS Information Technology
BS Mathematical Science
BS Applied Physical Science
BS Teacher Education
BS Industrial Technology
Engineering
85
Table 23
Level I
Level II
Level III
2006
BS Information
Technology
BS Mechanical
Engineering
BS Civil
Engineering
BS Computer
Engineering
BS Applied
Physical Science
BS Mathematical
Science
BS Electrical
Engineering
BS Electronics and
Communications
Engineering
2007
BS Computer
Engineering
BS Mechanical
Engineering
BS Information
Technology
BS Applied Physical
Sciences
BS Mathematical
Sciences
BS Applied
Mathematics
BS Electrical
Engineering
BS Electronics and
Communications
Engineering
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electronics
Communications
Technology
BS Electrical
Technology
Management
BS Mechanical Design
and Fabrication
BS Technician Teacher
Education
2008
BS Computer
Engineering
BS Applied
Mathematics
BS Mathematical
Science
BS Information
Technology
BS Mechanical
Engineering
BS Secondary
Education
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electronics
Communications
Management
BS Electrical
Technology
Management
BS Mechanical
Design and
Fabrication
BS Auto-Mechanical
Technology
BS Food Science and
Technology
86
Table 24
Programs Accredited in CY 2009 – 2012
Level I
Level II
2009
BS Computer
Engineering
BS Applied
Physical
Sciences
BS
Mathematical
Sciences
BS Information
Technology
BS Mechanical
Engineering
BS Civil
Engineering
2010
Level III
BS Secondary
Education
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electronics
Communicatio
ns Technology
BS Electrical
Technology
Management
BS Mechanical
Design and
Fabrication
BS AutoMechanical
Technology
BS Food
Science
Technology
2011
BS Information
Technology
BS Mechanical
Engineering
BS Civil
Engineering
BS Computer
Engineering
BS Applied
Physical Sciences
BS Mathematical
Sciences
BS Technician
Teacher
Education
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electronics
Communications
Technology
BS electrical
Technology
Management
BS Mechanical
Design and
Fabrication
BS Electronics
and
Communications
Engineering
BS Electrical
Engineering
2012
BS Computer
Engineering
BS Applied
Physical
Sciences
BS
Mathematical
Sciences
BS Technician
Teacher
Education
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electronics
Communicatio
ns Technology
BS Electrical
Technology
Management
BS Mechanical
Design and
Fabrication
BS Electronics
and
Engineering
BS Electrical
Engineering
BS Technical
Teacher
Education
BS Industrial
Technology
BS Electronics
Communicatio
ns Technology
BS Electrical
Technology
Management
BS Mechanical
Design and
Fabrication
BS Electronics
Engineering
BS Electrical
Engineering
87
Research Capability and Outputs. MUST’s accomplishments on research capability
and outputs are shown in Table 25.
Table 25
MUST Accomplishments in Research, CY 2000 - 2012
Year
2000
2001
2002
2003
2004
2005
2006
2007
2008
2009
2010
2011
2012
Completed
Researches
13
19
22
17
20
12
23
3
22
25
3
Research
Output
Presentations
3
15
8
5
10
15
27
13
51
35
61
31
Research
Publications
22
12
6
27
13
5
7
20
11
Relations with and Services to the Community. Included in the KRA relations with
and services to the community are number of recognized extension program and
community/population served. MUST’s accomplishments on this area are shown in Table
26.
88
Table 26
MUST Accomplishments in Extension, CY 2000-2012
Extension
Programs/Projects
Clients Served
2000
15
573
2001
12
313
2002
12
292
2003
13
334
2005
8
304
2006
11
1,353
2007
9
559
2008
31
1,025
2009
17
851
2010
25
854
2011
20
2,039
2012
2
257
Transition to the New President. Dr. Salvador, a Doctor of Public Administration
finally retired in January 2006 and MPSC administration was placed on the hands of the first
so-called “home-grown” president in the person of Dr. Ricardo E. Rotoras, a Doctor of
Engineering with specialization in energy economics. With gradually increasing internally-
89
generated funds, the new president continued with the physical transformation of the college
to cope with the fast increasing number of students. Finally in 2009, MPSC was converted
into the Mindanao University of Science and Technology (MUST) with Dr. Rotoras
assuming a new post as the first University President. The University adopted a new vision
of becoming “one of the country’s leading provider of scientific and technological
knowledge and skills.” (MUST, Towards an Internationally Competitive State University).
The Executive Summary of the President’s Report entitled “Towards and
Internationally Competitive State University” said that “The strong emphasis on resource
generation at MUST made it possible to implement massive infrastructure development and
other important programs and initiatives.”
The MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees Policy has propelled MUST into
what it is today, a SUC Level IV and one of the Leading SUCs in the country. With 70% of
fixed assets coming from the Special Trust Fund, no doubt the policy has achieved its goal in
developing the institution and elevating the level of quality. Moreover, allocation from
income to research and extension services was significantly higher than the national
government subsidy.
The MUST experience in allocating a significant share of income from school fees to
massive infrastructure development is worth emulating. It can be surmised that the leadership
deliberately kept current operating expenses to a minimum in order to provide a sizeable
portion of income to the infrastructure development and laboratories upgrading thereby
growing its fixed assets base. It can also be argued that critical functions along instruction,
90
research and extension were given much attention and focus as the university was able
elevate itself from a Level II SUC to a Level IV and even becoming one of the Leading
SUCs in the country. A more in-depth study on the allocation method and leadership style is
stature.
91
Chapter 5
Looking Back to Move Forward
5.1 Introduction
This study sought to evaluate the policy of Mindanao Polytechnic State College
(MPSC) now Mindanao University of Science and Technology (MUST), to attain fiscal
sufficiency by gradually restructuring the school fees during a ten year period from school
year 1999-2000 to school year 2009-2010 which was approved by virtue of BOT Resolution
No. 18, s. 2000 and amended by BOT Resolution No. 86, s. 2004 of the MPSC Board of
Trustees, with an end in view of increasing the share of the internally-generated income
component of the college’s annual budget from 17% in 1999 to at least 50% percent at the
end of the policy period, and thereafter attaining fiscal sufficiency pursuant to the intention
of RA 8292. The study also sought to know the following: What was the budget of the
college prior to the passage of its School Fees Restructuring Plan by the Board of Trustees?
What processes were observed in the formulation and enactment of the policy? What were
the reactions of the different stake holders during the formulation and enactment stages of the
policy? What problems, if any, were encountered during the ten-year implementation period
of the policy, and how were these problems solved? What were the impacts of the policy on
the attainment of institutional fiscal autonomy and the development of the college? Did the
restructured school fees affect the enrolment and drop-out rate in the college? What factors
contributed to the success or failure in the implementation of the policy?
92
The MPSC Corporate Plan for period 2002-2005 envisaged the eventual conversion
of the college into the Mindanao University of Science and Technology, “the Philippine’s
showcase of a corporate university in the Brunei-Indonesia-Malaysia-Philippines-East Asia
Growth Area.” In the light of the national policy then of gradually withdrawing financial
support to SUCs, arising from one of the EDCOM recommendation “to put all the money in
basic education” and “to let higher education pay for itself” and the eventual passage by
Congress of RA 8292 conferring upon SUCs all the powers of a corporation as provided for
in the Corporation Code of the Philippines, the MPSC management was left with no other
alternative but to pursue fiscal autonomy.
The findings of the study were presented within the respective empirical chapters and
the following sections synthesize the findings to answer the study’s questions.
5.2 Impact on Resource Generation Efficiency
The end in view of implementing the policy was to increase the share of the
internally-generated income component of the college’s annual budget from 17% in 1999 to
at least 50% at the end of the policy period, which is by 2010. It was found out that this goal
was achieved by end of 2007. At this time, internally-generated income comprised 55% of
the total operating budget or an amount of Php100.4M as against subsidy of Php81M. By the
end of the policy period in 2010, income comprised about 53%, a slight drop from CY 2007
level but it rose to 60% in 2012 with income of Php185M against Php122M subsidy.
The resource generation efficiency of the MUST Ten-Year School Fees
Rationalization as of 2012 is therefore 60%. The result exceeded the target of 50%.
93
5.3 Impact on Access and Equity
When the policy was first implemented, enrolment in MUST increased by 26% or
996 headcount over the previous school-year (1998-1999), making it the highest increase in
terms of percentage. The second highest increase came in 2007 when enrolment increased by
1,171 students or an equivalent or 19%. The slight decrease in the enrolment in school years
2001 to 2002 was attributed to the closure of some programs (MPSC Annual Report 2001
and 2002). By 2011, enrolment in MUST surged to 8,691 students or an increase of 153%
over the 1998 level. This trend reflects the global picture where there is a marked increase in
enrolments in higher education against declining government spending (Salmi and Hauptman
2006).
5.4 Impact on Institutional Quality
It was determined that The MUST Ten-Year Rationalized School Fees Policy has
propelled MUST into what it is today, a SUC Level IV and one of the Leading SUCs in the
country. With 70% of fixed assets coming from the Special Trust Fund, the policy has
achieved its goal in developing the institution and elevating the level of quality. Moreover,
allocation from income to research and extension services was significantly higher than the
national government subsidy.
It was also found out that compared with the other 17 SUCs which were similarly
previously categorized under Level II, MUST showed the highest average percentage
increase in income at 70%, covering CY 2000 to 2007. Meanwhile, percentage increases in
94
subsidy were very minimal among the 18 SUCs. MUST, then MPSC, was the only state
college that leaped from SUC Level II to SUC Level IV.
5.5 Conclusions and Recommendations
The rationalized school fees policy was implemented in order to attain fiscal
sufficiency by gradually restructuring the school fees during a ten year period from school
year 2000-01 to school year 2010-2011. It was shown that the policy was successful in
generating enough income to comprise at least 50% of the total operating budget of the
university before the end of the policy period or in 2007. It was also shown that there was no
negative impact on enrolment with the implementation of the policy. The findings also
strongly suggest that the policy provided significant resources in elevating institutional
quality.
The experience of MUST suggests that the charging of tuition fees is an effective
approach in generating vital financial resources. It can be recalled that income in 1999
was posted at Php14.6M. By 2004, income has more than doubled in the amount of
Php31.6M. It tripled in 2006 or an amount of Php52.6M. At the end of the policy period or
2010, income reached Php137.6M. In 2012, income has increased 12 times more than the
1999 level at Php184M.
With this in mind, the charging of tuition and other fees in MUST is recommended to
be continued in the coming years. While the Ten-year School Fees Policy sets a uniform rate
to all students regardless of program, a differentiated school fees structure could be
developed to capture differences in program costs. Some programs are evidently capitalintensive than others.
95
Another way to differentiate school fees is to consider income background of
students. Republic Act 8292 or the Higher Education Modernization Act enjoins SUCs to
implement a socialized tuition fee scheme. However, this is easier said than done. The
difficulty in determining household income is a major obstacle. The conventional
documentary indicator of income - the income tax return - is, for the most part, unreliable and
inaccurate. The challenge is really finding the appropriate indicator of indicator of household
income.
Still another alternative is to charge fees based on academic performance of students.
Students garnering low general point average may be charged higher than those with better
grades. A variant to this scheme is presently implemented at MUST. Students who exceeded
their period of study (four or five years) are charged the new or higher rate of tuition. This is
somewhat similar to what is being implemented in several states in Germany (BadenWürttemberg, Bavaria, Saxony, Berlin, Lower Saxony and Brandenburg) where tuition fees
for students who exceeded the normal duration of a certain programs are charged as opposed
to no tuition fees for those who are within the normal duration.
Rotoras, et al (2005) provided a logical framework for rationalizing program
offerings in SUCs which attempts to reconcile the seemingly conflicting issues and
unbounded goals facing higher education institutions when making decisions to offer
courses.
Considering issues of equity, access and quality of programs, the framework
provides a clear and sound basis in identifying courses that the government should subsidize
and the courses potential for revenue generation. It was suggested that some programs,
96
termed Special Programs, should be fully paid for by the students and government subsidy
will be poured to the regular programs.
Another approach would be to apportion the cost of all programs between the
government and the students. A staggered approach could be effected on the apportionment
could be employed starting with heavy subsidy from the government. Say we begin in years
1 to 2 a 80:20 sharing where government shoulders 80% of the program cost and the student,
20%. Years 3 and 4 would be 70:30 sharing, years 5 and 6 at 60:40, etc. Following the policy
goal of the rationalized school fees policy, we can say that 50:50 sharing would be
appropriate. This approach supports the notion of equity, where those who benefit should
shoulder a significant portion of the cost. It is argued that student and their parents, who see
education as a vital tool to improve their quality of life, would be willing to shoulder a
significant of the cost of higher education and provide their share or their equity.
Arriving at the appropriate cost per program could be difficult as actual costs vary
from each college or university even among SUCs. Great variances in cost would be
expected if private universities are considered. Whatever the approach in cost sharing, a
deeper look into the cost behavior patterns of different cost items in the operations of the
university will definitely help management to be more cost effective.
It is offered that MUST experience in allocating a significant share of income from
school fees to massive infrastructure development is worth emulating. It can be surmised that
the leadership deliberately kept current operating expenses to a minimum in order to provide
a sizeable portion of income to the infrastructure development and laboratories upgrading
thereby growing its fixed assets base. It can also be argued that critical functions along
instruction, research and extension were given much attention and focus as the university was
97
able elevate itself from a Level II SUC to a Level IV and even becoming one of the Leading
SUCs in the country. A more in-depth study on the allocation method and leadership style is
stature.
In sum, with declining government subsidy to public higher education institutions, the
charging of reasonable tuition and other fees is an effective approach in generating financial
resources for state universities and colleges. The MUST experience has shown that it can be
done.
98
References
Altbach, Philip G (2007). Tradition and Transition: The International Imperative in Higher
Education. Center for International Higher Education Lynch School of Education,
Boston College Chestnut Hill, Massachusetts.
Corcoran, Thomas B., Lisa J. Walker, and J. Lynne White (1988). Working in Urban
Schools. Washington, D.C.: Institute for Educational Leadership
Johnstone, D. Bruce (1992) Tuition fees. In B.R. Clark and G. Neave (Eds.). The
Encyclopedia of Higher Education, Volume 2. (London, Pergamon Press), 15011509.
Manasan, Rosario G. (2012) Rationalizing National Government Subsidies for State
Universities and Colleges. Philippine Institute for Development Studies, Discussion
Paper 2012-03
Marcucci, Pamela N. and Johnstone, D. Bruce (2007) Tuition Fee Policies in Comparative
Perspective: Theoretical and Political Rationales. Journal of Higher Education Policy
and Management, Volume 29 Number 1, 2007, pp. 25-40
Marcucci, Pamela N. and Usher, Alex (2012). 2011 Year in Review: Global Changes in
Tuition Fee Policies and Student Financial Assistance. Toronto: Higher Education
Strategy Associates.
McGuffey, Caroll (1982). “Facilities.” In Herbert Walberg (ed.), Improving Educational
Standards and Productivity, Berkeley: McCutchan Publishing Corporation
Padua, Roberto N. , Ongcol, Celerina M., Ascaño, Vanessa V. (2004). Cost Analysis of
Selected Degree Programs in MPSC
Rotoras, Ricardo E. , Ongcol, Celerina M., Ascaño, Vanessa V. (2005). A Framework for the
Offering of Programs in Public-Funded Higher Education Institutions in the Country:
Implications to Full-Cost Tertiary Education Pricing
Salmi, Jamil; Hauptman, Arthur M.. 2006. Innovations in tertiary education financing : a
comparative evaluation of allocation mechanisms. Education working paper series ;
no. 4. Washington, DC: World Bank.
Statistical and Research Training Center, Policy Training Manual, 2005
Tan, Edita A. (2003). College Fee Structure and Philippine Inflation. Philippine Institute of
Development Studies, Research Paper Series No. 2003-03
Ziegele, Frank (2003) Country Report: HE Finance and Cost-sharing in Germany. CHE
Center for Higher Education Development.
99
Websites consulted:
www.worldbank.org
www.nationmaster.com
www.ched.gov.ph
www.dbm.gov.ph
100
Republic of the Philippines
Lapasan, Cagayan de Oro City
ACTUAL SCHEDULE OF SCHOOL FEES IMPLEMENTED
SY 1999-2013
PARTICULARS
1999-2000
2000-2002
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2007
2006-2007
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2013
Tution Fee
HS (per mo.) Fund Augmentation fee
-
100.00
100.00
200.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
-
25.00
75.00
75.00
125.00
125.00
175.00
225.00
225.00
275.00
325.00
325.00
BPA/BEED/DT-SPED/BSEST/CT
-
-
-
-
-
-
275.00
275.00
325.00
375.00
375.00
BSTCM
-
-
-
-
-
-
325.00
325.00
375.00
425.00
425.00
Undergraduate (per unit)
Masteral (per unit)
100.00
200.00
200.00
250.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
350.00
400.00
450.00
450.00
MEP
Regular Program
-
-
-
-
-
350.00
400.00
400.00
450.00
500.00
500.00
MS-EST
-
-
-
-
-
-
546.11
546.11
546.11
596.11
596.11
Special Program
-
-
-
-
-
339.44
410.00
410.00
451.00
501.00
501.00
Regular Program
120.00
250.00
250.00
300.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
400.00
450.00
500.00
500.00
Special Program
-
-
-
-
-
450.55
521.11
521.11
574.00
624.00
624.00
5.00
30.00
30.00
60.00
60.00
100.00
130.00
130.00
150.00
200.00
200.00
75.00
75.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
150.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
-
50.00
75.00
75.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
150.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
250.00
100.00
150.00
150.00
200.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
300.00
350.00
400.00
400.00
Doctoral (per unit)
Other Fees (Per Sem.):
Athletic Fee
Registration Fee /Matri
High School
Undergraduate
Graduate Students
Library Fee:
Undergrad.(H/S & College)
Graduate Students
35.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
200.00
300.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
500.00
100.00
150.00
150.00
200.00
200.00
300.00
400.00
400.00
500.00
600.00
600.00
Laboratory Fee
Laboratory Fee (per lab. Subj.)
Medical/Dental Fee
50.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
75.00
100.00
150.00
150.00
200.00
250.00
250.00
40.00
80.00
80.00
120.00
120.00
160.00
200.00
200.00
250.00
300.00
300.00
Entrance Exam Fee:
High Sch./College (Per Year)
20.00
150.00
150.00
250.00
250.00
350.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
450.00
Graduate Stud. (Per Sem)
30.00
200.00
200.00
300.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
250.00
600.00
600.00
700.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
900.00
1,000.00
1,100.00
-
Compre. Exam Fee (Per Student)
Graduation Fee:
High Sch./College
100.00
200.00
200.00
300.00
300.00
400.00
500.00
500.00
600.00
800.00
800.00
Graduate Students
200.00
300.00
300.00
500.00
500.00
600.00
700.00
700.00
800.00
900.00
900.00
40.00
100.00
100.00
175.00
175.00
200.00
250.00
250.00
300.00
350.00
350.00
125.00
Graduate Sch. Journal (Per Sem.)
Miscellaneous Fees:
TOR (Per page)
15.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
125.00
125.00
125.00
125.00
Certification Fee
20.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
80.00
Honorable Dismissal (Per Stud.)
20.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Removal Fee (Per Subject)
25.00
75.00
75.00
125.00
125.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
175.00
Fines for late endrolees - 1st day
30.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
125.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
day thereafter but not exess 5 days
10.00
20.00
20.00
50.00
50.00
75.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
Changing/Dropping of Subject
25.00
75.00
75.00
125.00
125.00
175.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
75.00
Development Fee (per term)
-
250.00
250.00
350.00
350.00
450.00
550.00
550.00
650.00
750.00
750.00
All other Programs
-
250.00
250.00
350.00
350.00
450.00
550.00
550.00
650.00
750.00
750.00
BSTCM
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,110.00
1,110.00
1,110.00
1,110.00
100.00
200.00
200.00
300.00
300.00
400.00
400.00
500.00
550.00
600.00
600.00
2,500.00
4,000.00
Testing Fee For Employment/Carrer
evaluation ( per Person )
Professionl Fee(Proposal Defense)
Master's Level - Proposal Defense
Adviser
3,000.00
101
PARTICULARS
1999-2000
2000-2002
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005
2005-2007
2006-2007
2007-2008
Panel Member
400.00
500.00
1,000.00
Secretary
300.00
300.00
600.00
2008-2009
2009-2013
Master's Level - Final Defense
Adviser
3,000.00
2,500.00
4,000.00
Panel Member
500.00
600.00
1,000.00
Secretary
400.00
400.00
600.00
Doctoral Level - Proposal Defense
Adviser
5,000.00
3,500.00
5,750.00
Panel Member
500.00
700.00
1,200.00
Secretary
400.00
400.00
750.00
Doctoral Level - Final Defense
Adviser
5,000.00
3,500.00
5,750.00
Panel Member
600.00
800.00
1,200.00
Secretary
500.00
500.00
750.00
Affiliation Fee
Masters
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,000.00
Doctorate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,500.00
External Reader
1,000.00
Internal Reader
3,000.00
1,000.00
Editor of the Manuscript
Audio Visaul Room Fee
5/page
3,000.00
8/page
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
ICT Development Fee
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
600.00
Library Comp. Fee
-
-
-
-
-
400.00
400.00
400.00
400.00
400.00
Maintenance Fee
-
150.00
150.00
150.00
650.00
650.00
700.00
700.00
700.00
700.00
Miscellaneous Trust Fund of Students
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
35.00
45.00
OJT Fee
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
ROTC Fee
50.00
100.00
100.00
School ID
School Organ
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
85.00
85.00
85.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
50.00
50.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
1.5 x tuition
rate/unit
85.00
Socio-Cultural Fee
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Student Handbook
20.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
25.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
500.00
700.00
700.00
700.00
40.00
40.00
40.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
Student Teaching Fee
Trailblazer
200.00
Late Exam Fee
High School
-
-
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-
College
-
-
-
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
Graduate
Authentication Fee- 1st set
subsequent sets
-
-
-
200.00
-
-
-
-
free
200.00
free
200.00
free
200.00
free
200.00
free
200.00
free
200.00
free
200.00
5/page
5/page
5/page
5/page
5/page
5/page
5/page
-
-
-
-
Correction of Names Fee
-
-
-
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Diploma Replacement
-
-
-
-
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
150.00
Evaluation Fee ( For former students)
-
-
-
-
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Form 137 ( Not transfer credential)
-
-
-
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
ID Replacement
-
-
-
-
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
50.00
Late Adding and Dropping Fee
-
-
-
Late Application for Graduation Fee
-
-
-
-
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
Lost Class Cards
-
-
-
-
5 per piece
Lost Clearance
-
-
-
-
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
Lost Enrollment Form
-
-
-
-
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
15.00
Lost ID
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
-
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
25/day not to
exceed P 100
25/day not to
exceed P 200
5 per piece
5 per piece
5 per piece
5 per piece
5 per piece
5 per piece
15.00
Recommendation Fee
-
-
-
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Rush Fee
-
-
-
-
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
100.00
Tuition (Special Class)
102
PARTICULARS
1999-2000
2000-2002
2001-2002
2002-2003
2003-2004
2004-2005 2005-2007 2006-2007
Gen. Ed. Subjects
-
-
-
-
Non-Gen Ed subjects
-
-
-
-
Charged based
on actual no. of
students
Charged based Charged based Charged based
on actual no. on actual no. of on actual no. of
of students
students
students
2007-2008
2008-2009
2009-2013
386.67
386.67
386.67
656.67
656.67
656.67
Undergraduate - Tuition Fee/unit
Undergraduate - Laboratory/unit
Gen. Ed. Subjects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
890.00
890.00
890.00
Non-Gen Ed subjects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,430.00
1,430.00
1,430.00
Graduate Level - Tuition Fee/unit
Master/Doctorate
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
50% higher of
tuition fee for
regular class
50% higher of
tuition fee for
regular class
50% higher of
tuition fee for
regular class
Graduate Level - Laboratory/unit
Gen. Ed. Subjects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
890.00
890.00
890.00
Non-Gen Ed subjects
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
1,430.00
1,430.00
1,430.00
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
JEEP Laboratory Fee( for JEEP subjects)
-
-
1,000.00
CHED-HEDP-FDP Supported Programs
Instructional Augmentation Fee
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
7,000.00
7,000.00
Program Development Fee
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
9,000.00
9,000.00
Matriculation and Miscellaneous Fee
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
-
6,800.00
6,800.00
103
Curriculum Vitae
VANESSA V. ASCAÑO, CPA
Portico Subdivision, Gran Europa, Lumbia
Cagayan de Oro City 9000 Mobile: 63+9088210278
Personal Information
Date of Birth : 19 June 1976
Sex
: Female
Civil Status : Married
Place of Birth: Cebu City
Religion
: Roman Catholic
Father
: Dante Luz N. Viacrucis, 70
Mother
: Clarita M. Viacrucis, 65
Spouse
: Cordulo P. Ascaño II, 45
Children
: Ellianne Beatrice, 9
Patricia Abigail, 6
Occupation: Retired Government
Employee
Occupation: Retired Government
Employee
Occupation: Government
Employee (Faculty)
Languages Spoken, Written and Read: English, Filipino
Educational Background
Bachelor of Laws (1st Year) University of San Carlos
Cebu City
June 2002–March 2003
Certificate in Public
Administration
Mindanao Polytechnic
State College
Cagayan de Oro City
Sept 2001–March 2002
Bachelor of Science in
Accountancy
University of San Carlos
Cebu City
Secondary Education
(Valedictorian)
Colegio de San Francisco
Javier
Palompon, Leyte
Elementary Education
(1st Honorable Mention)
Palompon South Central
School
Palompon, Leyte
Licensure
Certified Public Accountant October 1998Registration No. 0095984
Affiliation
Member, Philippine Institute of Certified Public Accountants (PICPA)
Employment Record
August 2011 – present
Company Name
: Mindanao University of Science and Technology (formerly
Mindanao Polytechnic State College)
Position
: Officer-in-Charge, Office of the Vice – President for
Finance and Resource Generation
August 2008 to July 2011
Company Name
Position
: Director – Financial Management Services Division
July 2003 – July 2008
Company Name
Position
: Accountant
July 2006 – July 2011
Concurrent Position in the Company: General Manager
Institute of Entrepreneurship and Productivity (IEP)
On July 28, 2006, the MUST President designated the Accountant as
General Manager of the Institute of Entrepreneurship and
Productivity (IEP), in concurrent capacity. The IEP is the incomegenerating arm of the College. Its main function is to raise funds to
support the advancement and development of the College’s academic
pursuits.
104
105
May 1999 – April 2002
Company Name
Position
: Agusan del Sur State College of Agriculture and Technology
: Accountant
March 1998 – April 1999
Company Name
Position
: Metropolitan Bank and Trust Co.
: Balance Verifier – Agusan del Sur branch

mindanao university of science and technology

Transcription

Similar documents

November 23, 2013|Saturday|2:00 PM

Registration Form - Notre Dame High School

The Case of Mindanao, Philippines (Executive Summary)

INFORMATION - Big Bend Community College

Hudyaka sa Lubi - Bobby Timonera

View - University of the Cordilleras

here - Northeastern NY PGA

Toronto,Canada Toronto,Canada - Toronto District School Board

Mission Link