Perspective Chapter: Neoliberalism, Quasi-Marketization, and the Cultural Changes in the Philippine State Universities and Colleges

Abstract

The historic EDSA People Power Revolution in 1986 toppled the 21 years’ reign of the dictatorship of the then Philippine President Ferdinand E. Marcos. It was followed by a series of deregulation, privatization, and international pacts and agreements in adherence to the neoliberalism ideology. After more than three decades, the Philippines remains a developing country, and the quality of education falls below in comparison with most of its neighboring Asian countries. This chapter presents a personal viewpoint on the influence of neoliberalism principles implemented in higher education institutions in the Philippines. The chapter describes how SUCs have embraced neoliberalism knowingly or unknowingly as they implemented their operational policies and plans to achieve their strategic visions. The discussion draws its contents from relevant works of literature and personal account. The mutation of administrators into a corporate-style managerial elite; the infusion of managerial prerogatives; spiderweb-like, top-down organizational staffing; competition and publicity; outsourcing; and quality assurance compliance are some of the neoliberalism practices enumerated in the discussion. Higher education institutions’ new “cultures” cemented neoliberalism in the Philippine higher education systems.

1. Introduction

The concept of neoliberalism may not be well understood by many Filipinos, yet ask them about privatization, deregulation, and globalization, and they can surely relate to them. Unknown to many of us, neoliberalism in the form of policy packages by the Philippine government – often comes with foreign aids or debts (Structured Adjustments Programs by IMF, World Bank, ADB, USAid, etc.) or as an obligation as a member of international organizations (APEC, ASEAN, GATT, UN, etc.) – has already re-shaped, transformed, and defined our economic and social lives and the future of the Philippines. Its impact on education is pervasive and wide-reaching. In fact, I believe that its influence in education is an assurance that neoliberalism is here to stay. Neoliberalism, as a form of governance, is a policy-making strategy “aimed at decreasing the political, legal, and social limits on market processes, corporate growth, and capital accumulation” [1]. It pertains “to ways of governing society that emphasize the central role of markets and advocate for minimal state involvement and intervention in market processes” [2]. It is a corporate market ideology that the world’s government embraced since its crucial evolution in the 1980s. Championed by the then US President Ronald Reagan and UK Prime Minister Margaret Thatcher, who described it to be “TINA” – there is no alternative – following the economic turmoil during that period created by “command-economies and state-led capitalism” [3], neoliberalism has been the default approach by most governments around the world since then.

Neoliberalism principles are exemplified when market ideas and practices are introduced in government organizations and in the delivery of government services (marketization); when public assets are sold (privatization); when rules limiting businesses are abolished (deregulation); when public services are reduced, or users are charged (user’s pay); through modified unionism; by limiting or removing legal protection for workers and local industries; and in economic reforms that lower taxes on high-earning individuals and companies. Neoliberalism in economic terms is equivalent to a free-market idea and the rise of the oligarchs. Over time, neoliberalism has promoted key cultural changes in the society. This includes expanding the reach of the market and its ability to determine things and services as a product that can be sold (commodification) where education is now considered a commodity; turning local economies to depend on the world market and the in and out of foreign capital (globalization); restructuring public institutions in the model of competitive private companies (public sector reform); and giving power to managers who undermine local collective decisions (managerialism) [4].

So far, neoliberalism has already cemented its foundation in the Philippines. Since the takeover of President Cory Aquino in 1986 up to today’s government of President Ferdinand R. Marcos, Jr., neoliberalism has dictated policies and reforms initiated by each president in a span of six administrations. This is not surprising since most government officials elected and appointed have studied their masters and PhDs in the US and in the UK [5]. Its takeover of public higher education is continuing, and although the process is uneven, without a doubt, it will get there soon. Hence, this paper discusses the impact of neoliberalism on public higher education institutions in the Philippines. Specifically, it will describe how quasi-marketization has been implemented and regulated in public state colleges and universities. The Commission on Higher Education’s (CHED) directive on Quality Assurance and Internationalization will be given a closer look. The eventual cultural changes among SUCs will also be discussed.

2. The quasi-marketization and globalization of higher education

The quality of Philippine higher education was once considered the second best in Asia, second only to Japan [6]. Today, this status has been left behind, and the country now lags to many nations in the continent and remains a developing country. The present system of higher education in the country is regulated by the Commission of Higher Education, an agency directly under the Office of the President of the Republic of the Philippines. It was created on May 18, 1994, through the passage of the Republic Act (RA) No. 7722 or the Higher Education Act of 1994. It governs all colleges and universities offering tertiary, professional courses and graduate studies. The Technical Education and Skills Development Authority (TESDA), on the other hand, regulates all schools offering vocational courses, while the Department of Education (DepEd) takes care of the basic education from kindergarten to K-12. This trifocalization of the Philippine education system is one of the educational reforms studied and outlined by the Congressional Commission on Education in 1992 as a response to the continuous decline of the quality of education in the country.

Data from the Commission on Higher Education website indicate that the Philippines, as of June 8, 2017, has 1710 private higher education institutions – 21% of which or 351 institutions are sectarian schools, while there are only 283 public higher education institutions; these are the State Colleges and Universities (SUC’s) and local universities and colleges (LUC’s) created by national laws or local ordinances. The commission has direct and strong regulatory powers among private institutions to the extent that, given enough violations and/or non-compliance, it can order a closure to the institution. State universities and colleges, including local colleges, on the other hand, cannot be sanctioned likewise; since these institutions are created by law, CHED has a modified regulatory power over these SUCs but has full administrative control. The chairperson of all the state colleges and universities’ governing bodies, the Board of Trustees, or the Board of Regents is the CHED chairperson. This was mandated in the RA No. 8292, otherwise known as the Higher Modernization Act of 1997. This law required the commission to “establish a complete, adequate, and integrated system of higher education” [7]. It provided power to the commission to modify and uniformly establish a governing board to every SUC nationwide. This law institutionalized the implementation of neoliberal principles in higher education institutions in the country. This is where the accreditation of programs offered in every SUC, ISO compliance, SUC leveling, and other schemes summarized under the Quality Assurance program, were systematically implemented, transforming every SUC to work like a private company under global standards and measures, providing neoliberal powers to the administrators and eventually changing the culture of public higher education permanently.

A significant impact of neoliberalism in education is the reforms seen worldwide with the main feature of aligning government schools with market-based ideas and practices. This marketization of education is often referred to as quasi-marketization. This is because, instead of mainstreaming government schools in the principles of free market, the government maintained strong regulatory powers while introducing reforms, making public education operate more like a private company. This policy stems from the perception that public schools have become inefficient, irrelevant, and unaccountable and do not effectively develop human capital [2]. Government intention to introduce market ideas and practices is supposed to be the solution. In the Philippines, education remains under government regulation and control. Several reforms in partnership with funding agencies, like the USAid, the British Council, AusAid, JICA, the World Bank, the IMF, the ADB, and numerous non-government agencies, were introduced to address the challenges in this sector. This scheme became the gateway for neoliberal policies to be implemented in the country as a required condition from the benefactors. Beginning from the modification of the composition of the Governing Boards of chartered state universities and colleges (SUCs), which resulted in the mutation of administrators into corporate-style managerial elites, trained with business perspective and paid like corporate managers, CHED have issued a series of memoranda and orders to implement the mandated functions of “(a) achieving a more coordinated and integrated system of higher education; (b) rendering them more effective in the formulation and implementation of policies on higher education; (c) providing for more relevant direction in their governance; and (d) ensuring the enjoyment of academic freedom as guaranteed by the Constitution”. The latest is the CHED Memorandum Order (CMO) No. 46 series of 2012 or the Policy Standard to Enhance Quality Assurance in Philippine Higher Education through an Outcomes-Based and Typology-Based QA [8].

Quality assurance institutionalized the infusion of free-market ideas in public higher education in the Philippines. The memorandum provides a template for SUCs as to what kind of institution it will be. The memorandum issued on December 11, 2012, aimed to: (1) “get HEIs to contribute more vigorously to national development”. Citing the importance of globalization, CHED believed that HEIs played a significant role in boosting the national economy by producing competent graduates. Very clearly, this policy perceived education as an economic necessity rather than a search for knowledge. (2) “regain the Philippine competitive advantage close the competitive gap”. CHED argued that it is through the quality assurance that the Philippines could enhance its competitiveness close enough to compete against its Asian neighbors. Hence, the accreditations that come with this order are internationally based standards evaluating local practices and traditional ways and means [9]. (3) “adapt approaches that will resonate with national needs and international practice”. The commission wanted to steer higher education along with a learner-centered, competency-based, and industry-linked curriculum. This requires HEIs to embrace outcomes-based education, which countries around the world have already dismissed [10]. (4) “remain in step with the ASEAN in adopting and substantiating National Quality Framework”. The CMO complements the issuance of Executive Order No. 83 series of 2012 issued on October 1, 2012, the Philippine Qualification Framework with alleged pressures from APEC and ASEAN [10]. (5) “enhance the competitiveness of Filipino graduates, reduce their vulnerability to sub-optional working conditions within and outside the country”. Through quality assurance, Filipino workers, domestic and abroad, are required to be highly skilled and competent. This also ensures the labor mobility within the ASEAN Economic Community after its integration in 2015.

With these objectives, CMO 46 directed all HEIs, including private institutions, to (1) “shift to an outcomes-based quality assurance”. This required SUCs to state their roles (instruction, research, and outreach) in an outcome form, including the extent and manner of evaluating them. This imperative also resulted in the re-statement of SUCs’ Vision, Mission, and Goals to be outcomes-based. (2) “adapt an outcomes-based accreditation of the HEI’s program offering and itself”. Under this scheme, SUCs needed to (a) get a Certificate of Compliance for programs offered in both the undergraduate and graduate studies, (b) voluntarily submit itself to determine whether they qualify as a Center of Excellence (COE) or Center of Development (COD) for programs offered, and (c) undergo the accreditation process of these programs offered conducted by Accrediting Agency of Chartered and Universities in the Philippines (AACUP). This accrediting agency describes itself as an independent and international benchmark company, which in effect sets standards for public higher education in the country. Presently, AACUP is a member of the International Network for Quality Assurance Agencies in Higher Education (INQAAHE) based in Barcelona, Spain; CHEA International Quality Group from Washington, D.C., USA; and the Asia-Pacific Quality Network (APQN) based in Shanghai, China. Both the AACUP and CHED promote the benefits of accredited programs for SUCs, which include: “lend prestige to universities and college, ensure the listing of SUC in the list of Internationally Accredited Universities/Colleges (UNESCO-IAN), reveal their strengths and weaknesses that need to be addressed, help parents identify which schools they may send their children to for quality education and make possible for prospective funding agencies to know what academic institution is worth supporting”. The result is also used as a “criterion in administrative decision-making in a variety of ways”. It is also a requisite for budgeting SUC leveling and performance bonuses [11]. These shared perspectives on benefits by AACUP and CHED reflect what truly is the purpose of accreditation – competition, publicity, globalization, the commodification of education, and administrative control. (c) on the institutional level, public HEIs are mandated to become ISO compliant also. Not only are the programs evaluated under international standards, but also the institution itself is evaluated by measures not really designed for education. (3) adapt a typology-based quality assurance. Under this process, SUCs are classified according to their status as a college or a university with its corresponding level to which they are qualified. This SUC leveling makes use of the HEI’s compliances and accreditation processes it underwent and other criteria relevant to its functions as the basis for its classification or leveling. For example, an SUC could be level 1 up to level 5. The leveling comes with an enticing incentive of attaching the level to the official designation of the head of the SUC; if the SUC is level 5, the president is consequently, officially and formally, addressed as SUC President 5, which carries with it an additional budget and financial incentives. The achievement of SUCs in this leveling mechanism is a motivation for other SUCs to work harder, prompting a competition among the group.

Although globalization has been around in the country, its formal, deliberate, and strategic entry in higher education was on October 1, 2012, when Executive Order No. 83 series of 2012 had been issued by the then President Benigno C. Aquino III. Its main purpose was to align the country’s educational standards to international standards and low mobility of people within the ASEAN region and beyond in preparation for the ASEAN Integration in 2015. The outright response from CHED was the issuance of CMO No, 46, which subjected HEIs to quality assurance accreditation. Then, on November 11, 2016, when quality assurance had been integrated into the SUC system, CMO No. 55 series of 2016 or the Policy Framework and Strategies on the Internationalization of Philippine Higher Education was dispensed. The main purpose was to “address the effect of globalization and the recent ASEAN Integration. The CMO also acts as a guide to HEIs to ensure that their internationalization efforts serve the country’s interest, security, and identity” [12]. Finally, CMO No. 62 series of 2016 or the Policies, Standards, and Guidelines on Transnational Education came out. The British Council, one of the major benefactors of the K-12 Basic Education Reform, together with several British universities, forged courses with SUCs with excellent quality assurance accreditations in the Philippines [13]. The integration and transformation of SUCs with free-market ideas have been completed. The Philippine higher education is now on its way to follow the footprints that were left behind by those who did it first.

3. Neoliberalism and the cultural changes in SUCs

One of the most significant cultural changes in public higher education institutions in the Philippines that has evolved because of neoliberal infusion is the managerial prerogative of the administrators. The complete transformation of SUCs by CHED to operate like a private company provided its respective heads to define the kind of SUC they would be. The powers vested among the administrators to decide for the organization “substantially displaced organizational democracy” [2]. While consultations may be frequently elicited, and suggestions may be accepted, in the end, it is the managerial prerogative that prevails, making consultations sound more like a window dressing. It is in this context that the ideology of competition among members of the organization of every SUC becomes alive. Faculty members and staff must secretly and openly compete against each other to get a designation. The built-in perks, which include administrative powers, financial incentives, and prestige, drive and motivate many to clamor for a position as an administrator. The process disregards and undermines the spirit of cooperation and camaraderie, which are the primary requirements for an organization to work.

This spirit of competition, the core of a free market concept, together with the managerial prerogative, resulted in wide anxiety, disloyalty, and distrust among members of SUCs. Consequently, the commitment that everyone brought in from the first time they joined the SUC was now shuttered. Self-interest set in instead of doing work in the public interest. The love of teaching gradually faded, and the excitement of intellectual discovery was replaced by the quest for personal glory, craving for promotion, and monetary returns. Insecurity resided among those with designations, and factions emerged, making it difficult for programs and projects to be implemented or even planned [2]. To address this insecurity and ensure obedience and control, neoliberalism strategy of spiderweb-like, top-down organizational staffing was implemented. Getting permissions through a request to spend delegated funds, conduct research, and travel to a conference or training are neoliberalism managerial strategies that extend control, while the managers themselves are usually exempted. Yet, amidst these challenges, there are still members of the organization who continuously work honestly, sincerely, and with unwavering commitment. And despite these complications, SUCs have managed to undergo different accreditation tasks required by the Quality Assurance policy of the commission.

Competition is not limited within the institutions. SUCs also compete not only against each other but also against private universities. The market logic of getting an advantage over other institutions – public or private – prompted SUC managers to resort to a corporate technique of publicity. SUCs now deliberately create an image for themselves or a brand and a slogan that would boost their market presence. Public displays using huge tarpaulins of students, staff and institutional achievements, awards, and board exams results; even a motorcade to celebrate board top-notchers is a common practice among SUCs now. Further, limiting the workforce in the organization by outsourcing services like security and hiring casual or part-time employees have also become a strategy. The decline in the budget of SUCs and the normative funding approach forced them to create programs and projects that would potentially yield a profit that would increase their income. An irony, I believe, indeed, is that the organizations that were built to serve the public interest are now getting profit from the public. One thing is very clear here though; neoliberalism in public higher education has now deeply positioned itself, aided by the government’s reforms.

4. Conclusion

Neoliberalism has engulfed public higher education in the Philippines. Aided by quality assurance schemes and internationalization programs, CHED was able to integrate neoliberalism in the country’s educational system. These policies have completely transformed SUCs to operate like a private company, vesting powers to their administrators that led to permanent cultural changes in the organization. The transformation is still ongoing. While individual progress among Philippine higher education institutions is uneven, there is a common direction and a collective vision of becoming relevant globally, influenced and guided by neoliberal practices.