Ten years ago a report characterized the Philippine system of higher education in a way that is still valid today. The college population was described as an unusually large one, larger than in most developed countries and comparable to that in the United States. Students were concentrated in a few programs: business and commerce, engineering, and teacher education. Few students were enrolled in science and technology programs. About 85 percent of college students attended private schools. This might have represented a strength and large savings for the government, but it was made possible by low tuition, which in turn resulted in poor quality owing to low teacher salaries and poor facilities. Graduate education was concentrated in teacher education; there were few graduate programs in science and engineering. Moreover, the completion rate in graduate programs was very low. The preuniversity preparation of Filipino students was inadequate. This was partly due to the inadequacies of resources at the elementary and secondary levels. Also, the typical college-bound student had only 10 years of preuniversity schooling, in contrast to the 12-year preparation in most countries. To bring this overview of Philippine higher education up to date, it is necessary only to supply the current numbers and outline the major initiatives and interventions being made to strengthen the system.

Today, the college population in the Philippines is close to 2 million, representing about 35 percent of the college-age population. There are 1,357 higher education institutions, of which 1,147 are private and 210 are public. The expenditure per student at the most expensive schools is about $1,500 a year. For the great majority of institutions, however, the expenditure amounts to between $350 and $500 a year. Clearly this translates into relatively low teacher salaries and inadequate facilities. On the other hand, it is quite impressive to see what institutions are able to achieve with such meager resources.

The Philipppine Commission on Educational Reform
The latest initiative to address the problems facing the system was set forth in the April 2000 report of the Philippine Commission on Educational Reform. The report addresses these major concerns: the optimization and better allocation of scarce financial resources, improving the quality of higher education by better preuniversity preparation, a strong faculty development program, and developing an effective system of accreditation.

Allocation of Public Resources
At this time the government provides practically no financial support to private higher education. Private institutions depend mainly on student tuition and to a small degree on alumni donations. Since public resources go almost entirely to public institutions, the commission’s first recommendation was to rationalize the use of these resources. Up to the 1970s, there were only about 20 public institutions. In the 1980s, 40 new ones were established, and in the 1990s 29 more were added. The public funds available for higher education, however, did not grow commensurately. It has been recommended that a moratorium be declared on the creation of new public higher educational institutions and to use this period to review the premises for the financing of public higher education. The goal would be to develop a system of financing compatible with quality and equity, as well as greater accountability and efficiency. A major study is now being undertaken on this better system of financing.

Preuniversity Preparation
The commission called for a prebaccalaureate year after high school for students intending to attend university. This prebaccalaureate year will be implemented for all students, with the provision that universities may allow some students to enter directly after high school, either because they have already had more than 10 years of schooling or because of proven aptitude.

The desirability of such a prebaccalaureate year has already been recognized by many universities. The University of the Philippines has a Learning Resource Center that provides assistance for freshmen to bridge the gap between high school preparation and the demands of the university. The Ateneo de Manila provides basic courses in English and mathematics for a significant percentage of entering freshmen whose preparation is inadequate.
This approach is recognized by many as most desirable. However, there are difficult political and logistical concerns to be overcome. For example, parents have to be convinced of the necessity of paying for an additional year in college. There is as yet no clear implementation plan.

Faculty Development
The Commission on Educational Reform estimates that of the approximately 80,000 teachers at the tertiary level, only a third have master’s or doctoral degrees. The rest have only a bachelor’s degree, with perhaps some graduate course work. The plan is to launch a massive faculty development program that would raise the number of teachers with a master’s degrees to about 70 percent. This would involve providing financial support and opportunities for about 30,000 teachers to obtain their master’s degrees over the next 5 years. A Working Group of the Commission on Higher Education is now at work on developing the system and obtaining the financing to carry out this ambitious project. We have the experience of the Engineering and Science Education Project, which in the 1990s implemented a large-scale graduate program (though small in comparison to this new initiative) in science and engineering. This earlier experience has given us reasonable confidence that the larger-scale program can be undertaken with success.

Accreditation
Finally, we are also working on creating a more effective accreditation system. Right now there are several accrediting agencies using different procedures and standards. Accreditation has also yet to achieve the importance and influence that it has in other countries. There are two major challenges: the first is how to institute common or comparable standards among the different accrediting agencies; the second is how to inform and win over the public so that they will choose accredited institutions and programs.