“Universal Access” to Higher Education:
Ambiguities in Philippine Policy Formulation
Research Masters Thesis
ANDREA PATRICIA T SANTOS (PATTY) 11607815
!
University of the Philippines entrance exams following RA 10931, October 2018, Quezon City
International Development Studies
Graduate School of Social Sciences, University of Amsterdam Supervisor: Dr. Rosanne Tromp
Second Reader: Dr. Courtney Vegelin 01 August 2019
Abstract
Only about a tenth of the Philippine’s poorest students enroll in higher education, compared to three-quarters of their richest counterparts. In an effort to align higher education with national poverty alleviation strategies, in 2017 the Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act (RA 10931) mandated tuition-free education to all students attending one of the nation’s 112 public universities. However, it's universal design in providing access for all, coupled with its intention to increase access for the nation’s most disadvantaged presents an inherent
contradiction in the policy’s use of the concept ‘universal access.’ This study shows ’increasing access’ as an education reform goal is ambiguous and can refer to various stages of the higher education trajectory, with each stage requiring a specific set of policy tools and expertise. As a result, this study investigates policy ambiguities evident in universalizing tuition-free enrollment, paying specific attention to how policymakers frame ‘access’ and rationalize its universal design. As a qualitative study, a thematic analysis of policy documents and in-depth interview data find an incoherence in the perceived rationales, outcomes and outputs of ‘universal access’ in RA 10931. As the nation’s most expensive and expansive social justice initiative, the study concludes access in higher education are highly politicized in the Philippine context, while ambiguities in the policy may be motivated by deliberate choice. With limited existing literature on Philippine higher education, this article contributes the case of the Philippines alongside access-related education research in the Global South. In practice, it provides international research
organizations and Philippine policymakers with a discursive basis for the policy’s formal evaluation planned in 2020, as well as an insightful starting point to future Philippine education policies geared towards ‘increasing access.’
Acknowledgements
I would like to express my deepest appreciation to my thesis advisor, Dr. Rosanne Tromp, for your continual dedication to my personal, professional and academic growth whom without this thesis would not have been possible. I truly appreciate your wisdom, warmth, patience and mentorship despite the countless obstacles I encountered throughout the thesis writing process. I look forward to continuing my education knowing there are professors like you!
I am also grateful to Dr. Clarissa David and the Center for Integrative Studies at UP Diliman for her guidance and enthusiasm for making it possible to carry out this work while in the field. As a first-generation student, witnessing your commitment to social justice and the Filipino
community has truly inspired me to continue this research into the next chapter of my academic career.
Finally this thesis is dedicated to my partner and family both in Los Angeles and in Manila for their love and support throughout this masters program. Salamat po!
TABLE OF CONTENTS
Abstract 1
Acknowledgements 2
Acronyms and Abbreviations 5
Tables and Figures 5
Chapter 1. Introduction 6
1.1 Background to the Study 7
Chapter 2. Existing Literature on ‘Universal Access’ 9
2.1 Multidimensionality of ‘Access’ in Higher Education 9
2.2 ‘Universal’ Higher Education Today 16
Chapter 3. Conceptual Framework: Ambiguity in Policy Formulation 19
3.1 The Nature of Ambiguity 19
3.2 Discursive Construction of the Policy Problem: Where Knowledge Meets Power 22 Chapter 4. Philippine Higher Education Policy Context 24
4.1 Historical Context 24
4.2 Philippine Higher Education Landscape and Wealth Disparities 25 4.3 Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017 28 Chapter 5. Research Questions and Operationalization 30
5.1 Research Question 30
5.2 Research Sub-Questions 30
5.3 Operationalization of Research Questions 30
5.4 Overview of Empirical Chapters 30
Chapter 6. Methodology 32
6.1 Research Context 32
6.2 Research Design and Positionality 32
6.3 Methods 33
6.4 Data Analysis 35
6.5 Limitations of the Study 36
6.6 Ethical Reflections 37
Chapter 7. Multidimensionality of Access: To what and for who? 39 7.1 ‘Access’ to what? A look at the higher education trajectory 39
7.2 Access for Who? 43 Chapter 8. Policy Ambiguities: Why is RA 10931 Universal? 46 8.1 Divide in Rationales: Policy Documents versus Semi-Structured Interviews 46
Chapter 9. Conclusions 52
9.1 Limitations and Suggestions for Future Research 53
9.2 Summary of Contributions 54
Chapter 10. Appendix 56
10.1 Operationalization Scheme 56
10.2 Semi-structured Interview Guide 56
10.3 Transcribed Interviews 58
10.4 Transcribed Policy Documents 59
Acronyms and Abbreviations
CHED: Commission on Higher Education
CIDS: Center for Integrative and Development Studies, UP Diliman DSWD: Department of Social Welfare and Development
HED: Higher Education 1
HEIs: Higher Education Institutions
RA 10931: Republic Act 10931 - Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of 2017 PIDS: Philippine International Development Studies
SUCs: State Universities and Colleges, or public colleges UP: University of the Philippines System
UPD: University of the Philippines, Diliman
Tables and Figures
Table 1: Comparing participation and completion among richest and poorest quintiles Table 2: Private-public share of all enrolled students in higher education, by quintile Figure 1 Access trajectory Citations and References
Figure 2 Concept map of conceptualizations of access
Chapter 1. Introduction
Inclusive access and success in education is essential for achieving social justice and ensuring that people have the opportunity to achieve their full potential. There is also a strong economic efficiency argument in favor of widening access. A well-educated population is key to the social and economic well-being of a region. Education provides individuals with knowledge and competencies to participate effectively in a society and to break the heredity of disadvantage (OECD, 2009, p 29).
Universal higher education has only recently entered the global education discourse in the Global South. Mainly in the form of tuition-free or online distance universities, examples of universal higher education are a result of successful global and state initiatives in universalizing primary and secondary education (Cooperman, 2014: 116). This dissertation focuses on the policy formulation stage of Republic Act 10931: Universal Access to Quality Tertiary Education Act of
2017 (RA 10931 from this point forward). Passed into law in August 2017, RA 10931 aims to
‘increase access’ for the nation’s most disadvantaged students by mandating tuition-free enrollment for all students attending public state universities. However, as the starting point of this research, I contemplated how ‘universal access’ to higher education can ensure access for
all, while also claiming to increase access for the nation’s most disadvantaged. I argue the
universal design of RA 10931 conflicts with its aim to complement national poverty alleviation efforts, which are often designed as targeted social welfare programs. Instead, ’increasing access’ as an education reform goal is ambiguous and can refer to various stages of the higher education trajectory, each requiring a specific set of policy tools and expertise. The ambiguity surrounding ‘universal access’ leaves the policy itself vulnerable to ineffective evaluation planned for 2020. In doing so, this research aims to clarify the ambiguity of ‘universal access,’ understand why these seemingly contradictory concepts were bound together in RA 10931 and to delineate the various conceptualizations of access that policymakers draw on in designing RA 10931. At its core, this research is concerned with the way policymakers frame the problem of education inequality during the policy formulation stage and how these framings inform the discursive construction of ‘universal access.’ Without the critical reflection of these policy ambiguities embedded in the policy, I argue the ambiguities of universal higher education in the Philippines as it is currently designed, has the potential to further exacerbate the disadvantage of poor students by mirroring existing wealth disparities in public university enrollment.
This dissertation is structured as follows: Chapter 1 begins with a background of free higher education and access globally, followed by research objectives. In Chapter 2, I review the existing literature on the multidimensionality of access and rationales for ‘universal’ higher education policy. In Chapter 3, the conceptual framework will outline the nature of ambiguity in policymaking. Chapter 4 will provide an overview of the Philippine policy context and will include a brief history, the current Philippine higher education landscape, related contemporary
Philippine higher education reforms, and elements of the RA 10931 policy. Research questions, sub-questions and operationalization of the research questions are described in Chapter 5, while methodology, research context, design, data analysis, ethical considerations and limitations are detailed in Chapter 6. The empirical chapters 7 and 8 will link the findings of the research with the review of the literature in Chapters 2 and 3. The thesis will conclude with the answers to the research questions, limitations and suggestions for future research and a summary of the thesis’ contributions in Chapter 9.
1.1 Background to the Study
Worldwide, global participation in higher education has steadily risen in the past decade, both in the Global North and South. As processes of globalization spark discussions of the role and boundaries of national governance, higher education has continued to remain a reliable vehicle for strengthening national economic development and individual prosperity in the newly reorganized global knowledge-based economy. As a result, global and national efforts to
universalize literacy has led to dramatic improvement of secondary education systems globally, and the number of secondary school graduates qualified for higher education has skyrocketed, yet public spending and allocation of public funds for higher education has steadily decreased, especially in the Global South (UNESCO, 2017; Asian Development Bank, 2012). The unmet demand for a growing knowledge economy, limited enrollment capacity, increasing tuition fees and reduced government support has led to participation in higher education that favors the wealthy, continuing to deepen the socioeconomic divide where social inequality is already pervasive (Gayardon, 2017, 12). As a result, the massification of tertiary education to expand access for the most marginalized students has become prioritized in global and national agendas, resulting in 40% of the world’s higher education institutions as ‘tuition-free’ (Gayardon, 2017, 12). However, the various forms of tuition-free higher education policies worldwide display a notable difference between higher education institutions in the Global North and the Global South. Specifically, are the adverse implications in increasing access for the most marginalized students in the Global South, which include notable efforts in Ecuador (Estrella, 2011; Post, 2011), South Africa (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012), Brazil and Uruguay (Clements et al, 2015: 318). Similarly, the Philippines has become the latest example in the massification of higher education intended to increase the access of the poorest Filipinos. However, with limited existing literature on access and inclusion in contemporary Philippine higher education and with RA 10931 in its’ infant stages of implementation , it is unknown whether these state-led interventions will result 2
in greater access for disadvantaged students as the literature suggests.
The field work and data collection for this research occurred from September 2018 to December 2018, and the implementation
2
Nevertheless, only about a tenth of the Philippine’s poorest students enroll in higher education compared to three-quarters of their richest counterparts. To address this enrollment gap and 'increase access,’ proponents argue RA 10931 will democratize access as part of a larger effort to aid poverty reduction. Although there are more than 2,000 private universities nationwide, these 112 public universities serve approximately 80% of the nation’s poorest college eligible students. As such, its universal design has garnered widespread public support, as much of the political narrative is aimed at the poorest of families. In this thesis, I draw on the perceptions of policymakers and higher education experts involved in designing RA 10931 to critique the policy’s ambiguous discourse surrounding ‘increasing access’ for poor students and to better understand rationales for its universal design.
Chapter 2. Existing Literature on ‘Universal Access’
Central to this dissertation is an overview of the existing literature regarding the concepts of ‘universal access’ in higher education. It begins with an examination of ‘access’ as a
multidimensional concept in education research and will conclude with debates regarding ‘universal’ higher education.
2.1 Multidimensionality of ‘Access’ in Higher Education
There is quite the consensus that efforts in widening or increasing accessibility to higher 3
education fundamentally is an effort to widen overall social equity (Marucci and Johnstone, 2007; Bvec and Ursic, 2008; Tikly, 2001; Usher and Medow, 2010; UNESCO, 2017; Clancy, 2010; Eggins, 2010; Guri-Rosenbilt, 2016). In the following section, ‘accessibility’ is
conceptualized concerning two related assumptions: accessibility as affordability and
accessibility as participation. Both assumptions underlie the dominant macro-national policy-oriented conceptualizations of accessibility and will be problematized in relation to ‘access’ for the most disadvantaged students. The first is built on the assumption that increased accessibility for poor students is directly achieved through increased affordability (often in the form of free, or subsidized tuition). This assumption exists within discussions of who is responsible for widening accessibility (and therefore affordability in most cases) and highlights the debate of whether higher education is seen as a public or private good. The second assumption represents another common conceptualization of accessibility, where increased accessibility is measured through increased enrollment or participation of disadvantaged and poor students. This conceptualization, and the subsequent policies rooted in it, inherently disregards retention (the continual
enrollment) and attainment (graduation, or the completion of higher education) and as such, assumes accessibility is only relevant at the beginning of the academic trajectory for poor students. This second assumption also does not address the divide in academic preparation and university application competitiveness between poor students and their wealthier counterparts in admission processes, nor does the assumption address the necessary supportive measures to ensure academic success and retention throughout a disadvantaged student’s academic trajectory, into and beyond graduation. Included in this debate is a multidimensional conceptualization of accessibility, which includes reconsidering the who in access, as well as the relevance of cultural capital and affirmative action policies to reframe higher education inequalities, and concludes with a discussion of other considerations in the accessibility debate.
Access as Affordability: Affording higher education
The most common conceptualization of accessibility is evident in the popular policy objectives to increase the affordability of higher education costs. According to Bevc and Ursic, greater
affordability is framed as a precursor to greater accessibility for poor students (2008; Marucci and Johnstone, 2007; UNESCO, 2017; Usher and Medow, 2010; Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016). In this way, accessibility is directly related to how affordable the university is for disadvantaged students, or, in other words if the students can afford the costs of higher education. Affordability therefore inherently includes a level of government responsibility in the form of financial support and contribution to total student costs. Here, affordability can be conceptualized as a form of cost-sharing, or an instrument of policy, to increase accessibility (Johnstone, 2003; Bevc and Ursic, 2008; Marucci and Johnstone, 2007). As such, implementing free tuition in an attempt to increase affordability, represents a shift in the cost-sharing, from the family and parent to the government, taxpayers, and the HEI (Johnstone, 2003, 351). Here, tuition is regulated or
prohibited by national policies, and again, affordability (and therefore, accessibility) becomes the responsibility of the state and taxpayers (Marucci and Johnstone, 2007; Johnstone, 2003;
Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016). Primarily, this conceptualization of accessibility assumes the main obstacle for disadvantaged students in the Global South are higher education tuition costs (Bevc and Ursic, 2008; Marucci and Johnstone, 2007; Murakami and Blom, 2008).
However, quite a few scholars problematize greater affordability as a means to increase
accessibility, especially in the form of very low or zero tuition fees. This approach seems to have one of two negative implications: inadequate enrollment (in terms of unequal distribution of socioeconomic backgrounds represented in the student population) or increasingly limited access (enrollment) (Bevc & Ursic, 2008: 231). For instance, Marucci and Johnstone’s (2007)
examination of Ireland’s 1995 no public university tuition policy concluded ‘little or no impact in promoting equity’ for the nations poorest students. Furthermore, Marucci and Johnstone found evidence to suggest even smaller enrollment of the nations poorest students after the policy’s implementation (38). This relationship is future echoed by similar investigations of other free public university tuition policies similar to that of the proposed Philippine policy, that have essentially negatively affected overall accessibility for the poorest students - including efforts in Israel (Arar, Haj-Yehia, and Badarneh, 2016), Indonesia (Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016), Chile (Guzman-Valenzuela, 2016), Ecuador (Estrella, 2011; Post, 2011), South Africa (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012), Ghana (Okrah and Abador, 2010), and Kenya (McCowan, 2016) to name a few. Accordingly, high levels of affordability (in the form of free or very low tuition) does not imply high accessibility, considering accessibility can be impeded by ‘other financial and non-financial costs (Usher and Medow, 2010: 53; Murakami and Blom, 2008).’ Ultimately, Bevc and Ursic (2008) insist the relationship between state financial support (or degree of accessibility) to students and enrollment (again, participation, not attainment) is unclear - mostly because enrollment to higher education includes an array of factors beyond enrollment costs (232). Interestingly, affordability is most often defined as the ‘cost of enrollment’ or tuition, only.
However, affordability merely measured by tuition costs alone is narrowly focused, as Murakami and Blom (2008) emphasizes the role of living costs for poor and disadvantaged students
represent a main financial burden in ensuring attainment and degree completion, especially in the urban cities of low-income postcolonial states, where most HEIs are located (Usher and Medow, 2010; Murakami & Blom, 2008: 32).
Instead, a combination of high tuition costs, where middle and upper-income students are required to contribute, with generous means-tested grants and subsidized loans, seems to be suggested as most efficient in increasing accessibility while ensuring affordability for the poorest students (Johnstone, 2003: 357). However, it is important to note means-testing and subsidies requires a measurement of ‘financial need,’ which is especially difficult to determine in
developing countries where tax evasion and participation in the informal economy are common. As a result, to ensure accessibility for all students through the lens of affordability, developing countries typically have two options: the continual exclusion of large populations of students from the higher education system or the implementation of free or low tuition for all (Johnstone, 2003: 360). Here, addressing accessibility with the assumption that affordability, or an inability to afford higher education, is inadequate in capturing broader masses (Edgerton & Roberts, 2014: 196).
Lastly, is the ongoing debate concerning quality in ensuring affordability to higher education, where UNESCO (2017) specifically delineates affordability from quality-affordability (8). Although efforts to increase affordability and access, efforts to affordable and quality higher education institutions is a separate issue. Therefore, the strategy of RA 10931 is to ensure quality affordable and accessible higher education through free-tuition, only, is limited overall.
Ultimately, to increase accessibility through the lens of affordability, student financial support should be diverse and include student loans, fellowships, and grants to be available to
disadvantaged students (Bevc and Ursic, 2008: 232; Estrella, 2011; Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). Who pays for access? Higher Education a Public or Private Good
Similarly, a debate about affordability as a means to widen accessibility is intrinsically a discussion about whether higher education is a private or public good, or who (the state or the individual) carries the responsibility for providing access to higher education (Okrah & Abador, 2010: 55). This tension between private and public good can be aligned along a divide between two competing ideologies: a neoliberal and a socialist one, respectively. To clarify, as a private good, higher education is then reframed where the individual is the primary beneficiary of higher education, and therefore, holds the primary responsibility for accessibility (Johnstone, 2003; Marucci and Johnstone, 2007; Bevc and Ursic, 2008; Asian Development Bank, 2012; Murakami
and Blom, 2008). This micro or neoliberal perspective of higher education is the ‘posture of IMF/World Bank,’ and counters the macro, socialist perspective of higher education. Here, higher education is seen as a public good and society, or the state, is both the primary beneficiary and is responsible for the provision of higher education (Arar et al, 2016; Okrah and Abador, 2010: 55; Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016; Post, 2011; Tikly, 2001; UNESCO, 2017; Usher and Medow, 2010; Wangenge-Ouma, 2012). Together, these viewpoints explain the current model of cost-sharing seen in higher education today where the cost (or affordability and therefore, accessibility) is shared between the state (taxpayers), the student (parents) and the university (Ball, 1998; Edgerton and Roberts, 2014; Guzman-Valenzuela, 2016). By sharing the costs of higher education, parents and students would become ‘disconcerning consumers,’ while
supplementing public revenue and ensuring ‘producer responsiveness' making universities more ‘responsive to the needs of individuals and/or society,’ ensuring accountability (Johnstone, 2003: 355). This model would suggest both the university, the state, and the student are equal
beneficiaries of the outcomes of higher education and therefore should all share the responsibility of providing access to it.
However, by viewing higher education as entirely a private good, where ‘the provision of higher education should be a public duty of the citizens,’ would create both an ‘asymmetrical advantage’ for the wealthy who can afford it, and disadvantage to the poor who cannot (Okrah and Abador, 2010; Guzman-Valenzuela, 2016; Guri-Rosenbilt, 2010; Estrella, 2011; Clancy, 2010). On the other hand, if universities do not cost-share tuition fees to parents and students (or not requiring students to pay partial tuition), while public funding continues to decrease, HEIs can either limit enrollment or continue to operate while underfunded and overcrowded. Interestingly, untargeted free tuition for all, as in the case of the Philippines’ free tuition policy, would result in greater competition in admission to public universities due to limited enrollment, where poorer students are already less academically prepared than their weather peers, and therefore disadvantaged in the admissions process. This disproportionately affects the poor, as wealthier students have alternatives abroad or in private universities in the case of overcrowding or underfunding in public universities, while also having the advantage in admissions processes (Johnstone, 2003: 354; Okrah and Abador; 2010; UNESCO, 2017; Post, 2011; Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016; Wangenge-Ouma, 2012; Murakami and Blom, 2008; Arar et al, 2016).
Access as Enrollment
A second major assumption underlying the conceptualizations of accessibility in higher
education in national and development policy is accessibility as the expansion of participation, particularly in the form of increased enrollment. In this way, efforts to widen participation are assumed as the main barrier to higher education participation is financial (through enrollment or
tuition fees), where participation is mainly an economic concern solved through greater government funds (taxes) or cost-sharing (with parents and students). Again, assuming tuition costs are central to disadvantaged student participation and enrollment conceptualizes poor students as disadvantaged in comparison to their wealthy counterparts only economically, without mention to the apparent socioeconomic divide in academic preparation for university applications, academic achievement and success, retention, and graduation (UNESCO, 2017; Edgerton and Roberts, 2014). Additionally, by framing accessibility as participation, primarily through student’s ability to pay for enrollment, other financial barriers such as housing,
transportation, and educational materials throughout the higher education trajectory are sidelined. In this way, accessibility narrowly refers to the entrance to the university, which intentionally omits student retention and attainment, that infers degree completion and graduation (UNESCO, 2017: 2). To elaborate, it is also important to note the coupling (or decoupling) of accessibility and attainment within discussions of equity and affordability. Essentially, these two concepts are often framed to represent two phases in the higher education academic trajectory: ‘accessibility’ relating to enrollment and before instruction, and ‘attainment’ relating to graduation and
completion of instruction.
However, in policy rationales behind increasing accessibility for all, accessibility is used
synonymously with equity. Marucci and Johnstone (2007) measure equity in higher education by three factors: participation rates, attainment rates, and overall equity, or how well does the student population reflect the socioeconomic distribution of the general population, with consideration of the gender parity. This reframes accessibility as multidimensional and broader conceptualizations include: the availability of technology, addressing the technological barriers to higher education and the digital divide in developing countries (Muganda, 2007; Wangenge-Ouma, 2012; Prunastuti and Izzaty, 2016; Guri-Rosenbilt, 2010; Okrah, & Abador, 2010: 59), the availability of diverse programs in higher education to ease competitiveness, and the ability to revitalize infrastructure and diversify resources to include online or distance learning (Daniel and Uvalic-Trumic, 2005: 5; Okrah and Abador, 2010). Okah and Abador (2010) takes this one step further in his investigation of Ghana and notes the barriers to accessibility in higher education are ‘structural and perceptual’ (57), and argues that the availability of quality secondary school resources (quality curricula or safe learning environments for example) ultimately dictates accessibility to higher education in the Global South (Guzman-Valenzuela, 2016). Overall, the literature suggests in the Global South, there are generally four types of barriers to higher education access for the poorest students which are historical, socio-cultural, economic, and technological. Muganda (2007) argues these barriers of accessibility can be solved through online distance learning (ODL), which does not have infrastructure or enrollment capacity limits and can widen options for students who continue to be barred from traditional forms of higher
education. This strategy can be especially useful in boosting accessibility if existing HEIs, which already possess quality resources, diversify their available programs to include ODL. In this way, HEIs can ‘reach more people without displacing them’ (Muganda, 2007: 7).
Access for who?
This conceptualization of participation through a financial lens also problematizes the question of which disadvantaged students can participate in higher education, or which disadvantaged students should be targeted by efforts to increase accessibility and participation. Of the authors that identified the who in accessibility, there was quite the consensus on “qualified disadvantaged students,” ‘less privileged, especially rural students,’ ‘intellectually qualified or willing to pursue higher education,’ or “deserving poor low-income students” (UNESCO, 2017: 1; Okrah & Abador, 2010: 54). In addition to not being as academically prepared compared to their upper-income peers, accessibility policies often identify students who belong to the 19-23 year old age group (UNESCO, 2017: 1). This age bracket does not include disadvantaged low-income older adults who are returning or beginning to enter higher education after a period of systematic exclusion - which is especially relevant in the Global South and postcolonial regions (McCowan, 2016; Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016). Furthermore, this age group does include severely
economically disadvantaged students who do not immediately enroll in higher education upon completion of secondary education. In the face of high tuition costs, it is common for students to enter the labor market after completing secondary education, especially in the face of high tuition costs, who choose to return to higher education at a later time when they are more financially stable. Other scholars define accessibility in relation to underrepresented groups in higher education including students who are: low-income, racial, ethnic, religious or linguistic minorities, female, and in isolation (from quality secondary schools, or in rural areas)
(Johnstone, 2003: 352). Furthermore, Usher and Medow (2010) and UNESCO (2017) were the two authors that specifically included gender parity in the conception of accessibility and participation. Usher goes so far as to claim ‘any deviation from gender parity… is indicative of inequality’ and therefore inherently negatively affects accessibility (9). Here, accessibility is conceptualized to include four indicators: participation (or enrollment), attainment (or
graduation), equity of participation according to socioeconomic distribution, and gender parity. However, it is important to mention equity here, is often used in relation to enrollment, or participation, rather than graduation, or attainment.
Access to what?
In an attempt to broaden the current conceptualizations of accessibility, Edgerton and Roberts (2014) argue Bourdieu’s concept of cultural capital can be more effective in explaining the
disproportionate enrollment, academic success and the perpetuation of broader educational inequality experienced by poorer students in higher education. In the context of higher education, cultural capital is the ‘adaptive cultural and social competency,’ that is ‘contingent on class,’ has origins in ‘family background,’ and is (arguably) linked to a student’s ‘cognitive skills’ (Edgerton & Roberts, 2014: 208). In this way, Edgerton and Roberts claim socioeconomic advantage is synonymous with academic advantage, where families from higher socioeconomic backgrounds, who are often college-educated, ‘produce skills that formal institutions reward.’ Furthermore, perpetuated educational inequalities reflect inequalities between richer and poorer students throughout their academic trajectory, where these educational inequalities cannot be prevented via mere enrollment or participation in higher education. However, because cultural capital is not evenly distributed, it seems more likely that poorer students lack the social and cultural ‘know-hows’ in strengthening their ability to strategically adapt to the institution of higher education, towards and beyond graduation (Edgerton & Roberts, 2014: 205; UNESCO, 2017; Okah and Abador, 2010). To clarify, students with parents who are college-educated, who often belong to the middle to upper classes, embody a ‘behavioral repertoire’ and set of practices (cultural capital) that have greater ‘currency in formal institutions.’ This includes better academic
preparedness, an understanding of the available resources to ensure application competitiveness, as well as the required habitus to adapt and thrive in the middle-upper income institution of formal higher education. In this way low income, disadvantaged and students first in their families to attend college, also known as first-generation students , exhibit differences in 4
educational attainment and outcomes, and these ‘imbalances’ are ‘perpetuated to the next generation’ (Edgerton & Roberts, 2014: 207; Daniel and Uvalic-Trumbic, 2005).
As a result, accessibility ultimately depends on a combination of parent income and parent education attainment, which explains efforts that are focused on admissions processes rather on the financial constraints disadvantaged students face. As such, admission policies that promote a form of ‘positive discrimination’ or ‘affirmative action,’ which both challenges and compensates for the historic ‘meritocratic basis of admissions procedures’ (McCowan, 2016;
Guzman-Valenzuela, 2016; UNESCO, 2017; Eggins, 2010; Arar et al, 2016). Different examples of affirmative action take factors such as race, gender, caste, indigenous or linguistic minority status, or regional origin (rural areas) into consideration, and are achieved through quotas, bonus admission application points, scholarships or outreach, retention, and academic support programs (McCowan, 2016: 7). In practice however, admissions processes are often conceived as a
separate responsibility belonging to HEIs rather than the state, which ultimately diffuses the
‘First generation’ or ‘first in family’ are common terminologies used among higher education administrators and experts in the
4
responsibility of ‘accessibility’ across various scales and actors - further fragmenting the conceptualization of accessibility.
2.2 ‘Universal’ Higher Education Today
In this section, the concept of ‘universal’ will be explored in the context of higher education. Universal higher education, as a modern phenomenon, will provide context to RA 10931. Beginning with Martin Trow’s stages of higher education this section will track the shift of modern higher education systems from elite to mass to universal. This section will also examine the two forms of universal higher education, namely online distance learning and tuition-free university enrollment.
Universal Higher Education, According to Martin Trow
In 1970, Martin Trow identified a transition ‘underway in every advanced society - from elite to mass higher education and subsequently to universal access’ (2005: 6). Trow argued shifting between the stages was a consequence of the previous stage driven by the demands of the masses. Embedded in these phases of higher education development are the attitudes of access, who higher education is meant to educate, and why. Arguably the most primitive form of higher education provision are elite universities, designed to educate elites privileged by birth or talent and intended to prepare elites for elite roles in society. From elite universities, states (particularly after WWII) shifted towards mass higher education to ‘[achieve] equality of opportunity,’
providing the masses with training and preparation for a ‘broad range of technical’ skills in the newly organized global economy. In this way, access to university was seen as a ‘right for those with certain qualifications.’ Most relevant to this thesis is the last phase of higher education development, or universal higher education. Trow argues in the shift from mass to universal higher education, where over 50% of society enrolls in university is designed to include the ‘whole population’ in scenarios of rapid and technological change. This phase is especially relevant to postcolonial contexts and new democracies. Rather than a focus on ‘equality of individual opportunity,’ which is evident in elite and mass higher education, universal higher education is concerned with the ‘equality of group achievement’ where the university is meant to reflect the social (class, ethnic or racial) distribution of the population (2005: 26). Here, universal access is often related to tuition-free or low-cost education, yet critics continue to argue tuition increases play an important role in increasing the percentage of college graduates (Cooperman, 2014: 113) However, Trow’s analysis is largely eurocentric, and does not take into consideration the possibility of a combination of these development phases, where opportunities for elite, mass and universal higher education may exist simultaneously, as in the case in poorer countries of the Global South (Cooperman, 2014: 111).
The expansion of higher education has led to issues regarding access and inclusion. Specifically, are issues relating to equity and distributional justice in the context of universal or massified higher education, and how policy can address unequal access to higher education. As discussed by Trow in the previous section, higher education systems that transitioned from mass to universal, access would to an obligation of the state. In this way, admissions based on merit would be replaced with open access where access would no longer depend on merit and student qualification. However other than the community college system in the United States, there is little evidence internationally that this shift in access is present (Gale & Tranter, 2012: 155). Furthermore, there are indications that the expansion of higher education access in the Global North has reflected policy developments rooted in movements for human rights (Gale & Tranter, 2012: 150). In contexts where higher education participation is ‘near universal,’ students from high-income families are at a ‘saturation point,’ resulting in the need to broaden access so college enrollment better reflects the socioeconomic makeup of the nation to ensure a highly skilled workforce. In this way, increasing access to and ensuring equity in higher education is now ‘much a matter of economic necessity as of social justice’ (Gale & Tranter, 2012: 152). Additionally, Marginson (2006) argues that increased access to higher education is a result of ‘post-war nation building and Keynesian principles of universal employment and equitable distribution of wealth, stimulated by government intervention’ (12). With a growing need for an educated labor force, higher education access and equity became entrenched in discussions of human capital investment through ensuring equal educational opportunity, especially for those who had not considered university-level education before WWII. Despite these intentions, higher education remains overrepresentation of those from privileged and elite backgrounds, with social inequality in higher education largely unchanged (Gale & Tranter, 2012: 156).
Universal (Higher) Education
Similarly, universal education plays a significant role in the global fight against poverty. Rooted in the 1948 Universal Declaration International Human Rights which states ‘everyone has the right to education,’ universal education as a development priority has led to (arguably) successful international initiatives (UNESCO’s 2015 Education for All and the UN Millenium Development Goals for example). However, much of the current focus on universal education is interested in efforts in primary and secondary education. As mentioned, universal higher education on the other hand has only recently entered the global education discourse in the Global South in the form of tuition-free universities and online universities as a result of the success of primary and secondary universal education initiatives. This has resulted in higher education enrollment doubling in size globally between 2000 and 2014, accounting to 207 million students worldwide (Cooperman, 2014: 116; UNESCO, 2016).
Inherently tied to universal education are issues relating to access and cost as these are considered ‘dual barriers to equal opportunity,’ especially since education is now seen as a ‘universal right... the logical consequence of its massification’ (Cooperman, 2014: 116). To address issues of access and cost, universal higher education is often possible through the use of distance or online education and low-cost or free tuition. Distance or online education however, depends on the availability and affordability of technology and stable internet connection, whereas free or low-cost tuition depends on cost-sharing among those who can afford the costs of university (Asplund et al, 2008: 261).
Most relevant to the context of this research is universal higher education in the form of tuition-free enrollment. Specifically, the universalization of higher education to expand access for the most marginalized students has resulted in 40% of the world’s higher education institutions as ‘tuition-free’ (Gayardon, 2017, 12). Despite the notable differences between tuition-free higher education institutions in the Global North and the Global South, increased participation in free universities have not ‘enhanced equity in access… for children from different social backgrounds (Asplund et al, 2008: 262). Specifically, tuition-free higher education in the Global South has resulted in adverse implications to the access for the most marginalized students, including recent efforts in Israel (Arar, Haj-Yehia, and Badarneh, 2016), Indonesia (Purnastuti and Izzaty, 2016), Chile (Guzman-Valenzuela, 2016), Ecuador (Estrella, 2011; Post, 2011), South Africa (Wangenge-Ouma, 2012), Ghana (Okrah and Abador, 2010), and Kenya (McCowan, 2016). A dominant argument against tuition-free university lies in debates regarding cost-sharing and financing, where the (partial) contribution of students and parents to tuition costs are essential to ensuring equity and access (Johnstone, 2003: 353; Asplund et al, 2008: 265). Specifically, large scale public subsidies, like those that fund tuition-free universities, are inequitable in the sense that this system results in a regressive distributional effect, disproportionately burdening poorer taxpayers. This is due to the mirrored disproportionality seen in university enrollment, where the wealthy outnumber the poor, especially evident in the Global South (Asplund et al, 2008: 265). This demand for cost-sharing from taxpayers to students and families is greater in low-income countries where the higher education system is attempting to shift from elitist and exclusionary to mass or universal participation in higher education (Johnstone, 2003: 353).
Chapter 3. Conceptual Framework: Ambiguity in Policy Formulation
As an explanatory tool, the conceptual framework will provide a thorough examination of ambiguity in policy documents used in policymaking. Much of the assumptions regarding ambiguity in this study are primarily built from the work of Gray (2014) in constructing the nature of ambiguity in the policymaking process, and its potential policy consequences. The second section, I will discuss how the multitude of policy actors construct a policy problem discursively, which highlights the focal point of this research.
3.1 The Nature of Ambiguity
Contested concepts that underpin higher education policy, such as ‘universal access,’ as this study is concerned with, can contribute to ill-defined policy problems and goals which in turn, can lead to difficulty in developing effective evaluation (Gray, 2014: 1). In this section, the nature of ambiguity will be discussed with specific attention to behavioral and structural factors that cause policy ambiguity (Gray, 2014: 1). Here, ambiguity refers to uncertainty which
‘emerges from the simultaneous presence of multiple valid and sometimes conflicting ways of framing a problem’ (Brugnach & Ingram: 2011, 61.) Linguistically, ambiguity has the potential to produce ‘alternative reactions to the same piece of language’ (Empson, 1961: 1). Generally speaking, the policy literature refers to two types of ambiguity, wherein the first refers to ‘ignorance created by not having sufficient information’ and the second which refers to the ‘confusion’ created when a group utilizes multiple meanings (Brugnach & Ingram: 2011, 61). Nevertheless, ambiguity is an inevitable outcome of the collaborative policymaking process and Grey (2014) identifies six types of policy ambiguities. First, are policy content ambiguities, or policies which the intention or policy aims are either unclear, resulting in various (often unintended) consequences at the individual, group or societal level. Second, are policy
expectation ambiguities that are unclear about the results the policy is meant to achieve. Third are ambiguous policy mechanisms, which lack explicit identification of policy tools, instruments or implementation actors that transform policies into practice. Fourth, are ambiguous policy outputs, which result in an inability to carry out evaluation efforts to determine a policy’s success or failure. Fifth are ambiguous policy outcomes, which result in issues in identifying specific consequences of a policy. Lastly, are ambiguous policy evaluations, which as Gray argues, is an inevitable result of either of the aforementioned five policy ambiguities (2014, 2).
Motivational causes for policy ambiguity
Moreover, Gray argues policy ambiguity can be attributed to two underlying motivational causes that can explain the ‘continued presence of ambiguity’ in producing practical difficulties, ‘even when it [does not] produce serious problems for policymakers’ (3). The first underlying
ambiguity is a result of a complex policy space in which ambiguous policies are the only ‘effective means to achieve any meaningful output.’ Factors which contribute to a complex policy space include unclear technology, fluid participation (of policy actors), problematic preferences (among actors), ideological differences, political disagreement, and a conflict between various responsibilities among different sectors of government (3). Reflected as
structural constraints in the policymaking process, in these instances, policies are created without a definitive solution that is capable of resolving all of the existing conflicts. Policy ambiguities as a result of structural conditionings can result in the creation of symbolic policy, or policy magic, ‘which are not intended to do anything other than provide a form of political fig-leaf to disguise an absence of agreed intention’ (3). For example, policy magic (in this case, in the form of free tuition) as a solution to poverty, is an oversimplification in solving the issue of accessibility and equity (Ball, 1998: 41). Here, operating as deliberate policy ambiguity, conflict can be dissipated and instead, managed as dissatisfaction among disagreeing policymakers. Similarly, deliberate policy ambiguity ‘demonstrates a willingness to do something, even if nobody is entirely clear what that something is or should be’ (4). Here ambiguity allows for disagreeing policymakers to put into practice what they seem fit, especially if there are clear differences in responsibility between varying levels of government. In this way, deliberate ambiguity in national legislation provides regional and local authorities choices in which the policy should be implemented (4). In sum, structural conditioning as a motivational cause of policy ambiguity provides a convenient mechanism that willingly ignores (and appeases) the disagreement among various actors. Second, another type of motivational cause underlying policy ambiguity is deliberate choice, which has an organizational element and relates to the level of specificity required in
policymaking at the national, regional, and local levels. For instance, at the macro or national level, the deliberate vagueness in the policy ‘act as an expression of intention rather than as deliberate courses of action’ (4). This is evidenced by national education policies that highlight their support for national development, social mobility, or democracy, for instance. In this way, the ‘details of these desires… becomes the responsibility of other parts of the system’ (5). Here, policy ambiguity is a deliberate choice seen as a reasonable policy preference. Rooted in
theoretical understandings in political science and economics, namely, rational choice theory and game theory, ambiguity as a deliberate choice highlight a ‘conscious calculation of the benefits of ambiguities for actors in particular circumstances’ (5). Beyond theoretical considerations, there are three contextual conditions specifically related to this research that explain ambiguity as a deliberate policy choice. First deliberate policy ambiguity is evident in contexts where there is high policy uncertainty. Here, ‘nobody really knows what works, what does not, and nobody knows how to make an effective selection amongst multiple policy options’ (6). Grey adequately describes this process:
‘policy-makers may opt to ‘let a thousand flowers bloom’ in the hope that one of them will turn out to be a rose. The fact that the other 999 may turn out to be variants of poison ivy is not the point: the fact that nobody knows what the ‘best’ policy solution maybe means that simply providing an open arena for experimentation through the establishment of a deliberately ambiguous policy may provide the opportunity for effective practical policy responses to a given policy issue or problem to be created somewhere (and it does not matter where), by somebody (and it does not matter who).’ (2014, pp.6)
In this way, the more ambiguity in the policy, then the greater the ‘scope for innovative approaches’ are available. Although this type of deliberate policy ambiguity allows for experimentation in uncertain policy contexts, in high stakes policy contexts concerned with higher education policy for example, trial and error has the potential to exacerbate inequalities in generations of students. Second, deliberate policy ambiguity is evident in contexts where the policy issue has a high level of centrality, or political importance among policymakers. The deliberate choice to create ambiguous policies allows policymakers to ‘either deny responsibility for policy failure’ while also allowing policymakers to claim ‘responsibility for policy
success’ (6). Grey describes this type of context that allows for deliberate ambiguous policy choices here:
“In these circumstances ambiguity has the political virtue of making it difficult for critics to pin down precisely where policy failure rested while allowing success to be claimed regardless of whether it is justified or not. The greater the ambiguity associated with a policy the more that unintended consequences can become important for policy-makers: positive results, whether meant or not, can always be claimed as being the inevitable result of putting policies into practice, and negative results, again, whether intended or not, can always be blamed on other actors. Thus, the more important the policy issue is, the more that ambiguity can be a helpful resource for politicians, particularly in those cases where there is a high level of policy uncertainty when the gap between intended and unintended policy consequences can be large as a result of a lack of definitive knowledge about policy contents, outputs and outcomes.” (2014, pp. 6). The last contextual condition that allows for deliberate ambiguous policy creation is where compromises are achieved in the face of disagreement regarding the policy’s rationale. Here, different forms of rationality include economic, social, legal and political rationales, which results in different justified actions, or policy choices (7). It is here amongst the varying
rationalities that justify policy choices where incompatibilities between logistics in policymaking emerge. As mentioned, these clashes of understanding are reconciled through compromise to ‘establish common ground for social action,’ which is only made possible using a ‘high level of ambiguity in the [policy] language used to justify policy choices’ (7).
Potential Policy Consequences of Ambiguity
Related to the use of policy language in highly ambiguous policy contexts, the most obvious consequence of ambiguity embedded in policies that it opens it up to ‘a great deal of internal
debate’ regarding the policy’s contents, goals, intentions, outcomes, outputs, and tools for implementation. Despite achieving workable compromises in making ambiguous policies, these internal debates that arise during implementation demonstrate policy ambiguity as a deliberate effort to avoid resolution among clashing policy actors. However, for core policymakers, ambiguous policy solutions do not present much of a problem and instead allows actors to address the issue of inequality in higher education, for example, without having to make any definite choices. In this way, the core policymakers can stake a claim in the territory of higher education policy (8). However, Gray argues policy ambiguity resulting in conflict can allow for the ‘establishment of multiple solutions’ in which a general aim can indeed, be reachable. As a result, to address the ambiguity, these conflicts can transform an ambiguous policy into multiple distinct policy results. Interestingly, policy ambiguity and the conflicts that arise after the fact, can assist in creating more focused understandings of the policy context at hand, and in turn, result in more policy specificity (8). However Gray warns, in cases where internal conflict is rampant and continual, these specificities do not immediately resolve the policy ambiguities, and instead my reinforce it - especially when practical consequences of the ambiguity becomes more and more evident (9). Gray sums up these consequences here:
‘This may appear to be an example of a non-virtuous circle of policy dissatisfaction - with disagreement over policy contents leading to disagreement over policy justifications, leading to further disagreements over policy contents and so on – but, again, this may be preferable for policy-makers to the unpalatable requirement to provide definitive answers to policy issues that do not actually prove to have definitive solutions available for their resolution. Again, policy disagreement as a displacement activity for having to deal with irresolvable problems can be a bearable price to pay in these circumstances.’ (2014, pp. 9) 3.2 Discursive Construction of the Policy Problem: Where Knowledge Meets Power
This section will further discuss ambiguity as a result of policymakers discursively constructing policy problems. Constructing the policy problem is influenced by several factors which include: non-decisions, as a strategy to suppress issues, political ideology, which frames conflicts over social welfare policies, special interest groups, who influence political agendas, mass media as well as public opinion (Johnson, 2015: 13). As mentioned, ambiguity can be traced back to the ‘structuredness’ of the policy problem at hand (Nair & Howlett, 2017: 23). Here, an ill-structured policy problem is one ‘whose structure lacks definition’ and although ambiguity can occur due to wrong, imperfect or missing information, ‘all information [in the policymaking process] is prone to ambiguity… multiple interpretations and diverse perspectives (24). In this way, competing formulations of the problem are tested during the formulation process and reflect ‘competing visions of the problem itself and the world in general’ (Pohle, 2013: 3). These
competing formulations are a result of the multitude of policy advice actors that participate in the formulation stage that supply policy advice and work as brokers that match their expert
problem (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2017: 11). These include state or non-state actors, and range from executive and legislative staff, policy analysts, research scientists, consultants, and think tanks. Although in some cases policy actors may agree on a specific policy problem, decisions on which policy goals, its causes, effects, instruments and solutions and are often a result of the varying interests of powerful policymakers (Howlett & Mukherjee, 2017: 8). The reliance on these competing perspectives in identifying the policy problem is also due to the concept of bounded reality, where ‘policymakers do not have the ability to consider all evidence relevant to the policy problem’ (Cairney & Oliver, 2016: 399). Nevertheless, the policy formulation process can ‘proceed without a clear definition of the problem’ and can never have a neutral effect on society, as there is always a ‘winner’ and a ‘loser’ (7). This process of identifying policy
problems represents the contentious construction of social problems into state-led objectives, and affects how policymakers decide if the policy goals, tools, and solutions are ‘administratively achievable, technically feasible, and politically acceptable’ (8). Policy problem definitions are ‘never a technical exercise’ and instead ‘a struggle over alternative realities’ reflected in the language used to frame these problems (Rochefort & Cobb, 1994: 9). Additionally, the policy formulation process is dependent on the policymakers that propose them - ‘their beliefs, and ideas about society, and problems they feel formulation should address’ (10). Understanding these perceptions and how they are reflected in the formation of goals, tools, and solutions during this process can illuminate why some policy options gain more traction than others. As a result, worldviews, principled beliefs and causal ideas held by policymakers and policy advisors play a key part in influencing the construction of policy options (13). More specifically,
principled beliefs and causal stories opposed to worldviews, ‘can exercise a much more direct influence on the recognition of policy problems’ while causal stories or beliefs about certain target groups ‘heavily influence choices of policy settings’ (14). As a result, oftentimes negative outcomes of policy implementation can be rooted in policy design, as it is during this stage which policies can ‘create and maintain systems of privilege, domination, and quiescence among those who are most oppressed.’ In this way, policy designs reflect dominant storylines, values, interests and existing power relations, especially if these policy designs result from ‘degenerative political processes’ (Sidney, 2007: 83). According to Fischer (2003) these dominant storylines are more effective when they are ‘multi-interpretable’ (107) as ambiguity ‘often facilitates cooperation and compromise… enabling politicians to blur or hide problematic implications of controversial decisions’ (63). In this way, ambiguity has an important political function to assist in ‘sidestepping barriers that otherwise block consensus building’ by synchronizing these various interests to make collective action possible (63). It is important to note, the literature reflects western systems rather than authoritarian regimes, like in the case of the Philippines.
Chapter 4. Philippine Higher Education Policy Context
This section begins with a brief historical context of the Philippines. Next, as RA 10931 primarily aims to support national poverty alleviation efforts (as identified in the policy text), this section continues with an overview of Philippine higher education, with specific attention to state (public) universities and colleges (SUCs), as well as the existing wealth disparities in Philippine university enrollment. This section will conclude with an overview of the various elements of RA 10931, as delineated in the policy text. In this way, looking at education in a historical and evolutionary perspective across time allows a better sense of why a particular policy, namely RA 10931, is being advocated at the moment (Haddad, 1995: 29).
4.1 Historical Context
Officially known as the Republic of the Philippines, or Republic ng Pilipinas, The Philippines is comprised of three island groups, consisting of more than 7000 islands and 187 indigenous languages. With 19 officially recognized dialects, the major languages in the Philippines are English and Tagalog, as the Philippines represents the third-largest English speaking population in the world (World Health Organization, 2017; Department of Foreign Affairs and Trade, 2016). At almost 5000 Filipinos born every day, the population had reached 103 million people in 2016, with estimates exceeding 107 million by the end of 2018 (Maca et al., 2018). The Philippines accounts for 9 of the top 15 most densely populated cities in the world, with Metro Manila, where the fieldwork was conducted, accounting for about 12 million people alone. With a GDP of $311 billion in 2016, the Philippines is also one of the fastest growing GDPs in Southeast Asia, while also being the only country in the Asia Pacific region ‘to have fully closed the gender gap in both education and health’ (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2018). Unfortunately, high economic growth ‘has not translated into poverty reduction,’ resulting in a ‘slow and uneven’ decline in poverty (Su & Mangada, 2018: 72). Additionally, despite its middle-income status, the Philippines is ‘characterized by high levels of poverty and inequality’ marked with ‘decades of poverty-reduction efforts’ (Reid, 2016: 97), as, in 2010, there was an estimated half a million informal settlements, or large colonies of slums, in metropolitan Manila alone, easily amounting to more than 3 million inhabitants (Ofreneo, 2015: 124). As a result, the Philippines is a ‘highly unequal society’ with ‘no visible middle class’ where ‘income of the top 1% of families [equates] to the aggregate income of the bottom 30%’ (Ofreneo, 2015: 125).
As a result, decades of neoliberal priorities to liberalize the economy have resulted in ‘mass poverty and inequality’ which has been largely unchanged since the 1960s. Known for its
‘culture of disasters and vulnerabilities,’ ‘natural hazards, disaster, international relief and foreign debt’ are interwoven into Philippine politics, exacerbating and widening inequalities of the
nation’s poorest (Su & Manganda, 2018: 70), and ultimately, disastrous for the Filipino masses (Ofreneo, 2015: 127).
4.2 Philippine Higher Education Landscape and Wealth Disparities
Since the 1980s, higher education in the Philippines has been specifically oriented towards international migration and the needs of the global market (Ashby, 1997: 386). In doing so, Philippine education reforms as ‘projectized reforms,’ idealized out of ‘urgency or exigency’ involving an array of ‘small-scale disjointed education projects (...) that never translate into comprehensive or national reforms’ (Maca & Morris, 2012). Consequently, these projected reforms echo the long history of ‘relief operations that hurriedly address problematic holes in the system’ (476). Moreover, prior to RA 10931, the Philippine government has generally ‘failed to exercise control of the education system’ and has often negotiated governance of education with the Church, regional private education providers and international development organizations (Maca & Morris, 2012: 473). In fact, due to the limited state capacity to fund, govern, and provide higher education services to their ever-growing population (Asian Development Bank, 2012: 4), wide-scale privatization was strategized to supplement costs, encouraging the poor to attend private secondary schools through a government subsidies through education service contracting (ESC). As a result, private-public partnerships have defined Philippine education as the ESC is currently one of the world’s largest education private-public partnerships (De
Guzman, 2003: 40; Nuffic, 2018: 14).
Today, there are about 2,300 higher education institutions, with the vast majority (about 70%) consisting of private tertiary institutions defining the Philippine higher education system with “one of the highest rates of [educational] privatization in the world” with close to 50 percent of all tertiary students enrolled in private tertiary institutions (Maca & Morris, 2012: 478). An interesting side effect of the mass privatization in higher education is the voluntary nature of institutional accreditation, as only 20% of more than 2200 tertiary institutions had accredited degree programs (Gonzalez, 2004: 124) further complicating of quality assurance and regulation in Philippine higher education (De Guzman, 2003: 41; Maca and Morris, 2012: 476).
Nevertheless, Philippine higher education has expanded significantly in recent years. In fact, between 1999 and 2014, the Philippines has grown by more than 600 higher education institutions, with the number of enrolled students in higher education growing by almost 2 million (CIDS, 2017: 1). Attributed to both the growing population of the Philippines and the growing number of high school graduates, in 2014 there was 15.1 million youth between the ages of 17 and 24, with close to 10 million of these youths identified as college eligible. In fact, public university enrollment has absorbed most of the expansion in higher education, as
whole has a participation rate of about 28% in higher education, but this figure is only slightly higher than that of 1994, of 22% (CIDS, 2017: 3). It is important to note, despite these figures, the participation rate varies significantly between private and public universities and across regions in the Philippines.
Relatedly, one of the most significant reforms in Philippine public education is the 2013 Basic Education Act, otherwise known as the K-12 expansion, which extends kindergarten and
extended secondary school by two years. These additional two years were framed as ‘senior high school,’ to better prepare graduates to entering higher education, and thus, coinciding with the free public university enrollment mandated by RA 10931. By totaling basic education to 12 years instead of 10, the Philippines has mirrored public education systems in the Global North and the wider ASEAN region. With the first cohort of K-12 students graduating in 2018, the K-12 5
expansion produced an additional 400,000 college eligible students. In an attempt to cater to the expected and continued growing numbers of secondary school graduates, public higher education funding has increased significantly since 2015. With the addition of RA 10931, higher education accounted as ‘the second largest item on the [2018] national budget,’ amounting to about $10.3 billion. However, at the time this study was conducted, the financial sustainability of RA 10931 was still unknown and so is to what extent international funding agencies will be involved in supporting it, if at all (Philippine Statistics Authority, 2017).
Moreover, in the Philippine context it is important to note expanding access in higher education is primarily done so through an expansion of financial assistance. In fact, national funding for student financial assistance has been aligned with poverty alleviation initiatives and amounted to almost 1 billion pesos in 2013. However, prior to RA 10931, national financial assistance
programs spanned ‘62 programs across 17 agencies’ making targeting and implementation of these funds largely inefficient (CIDS, 2017: 3). In the same way, metrics of income also
determine ‘disadvantaged students,’ as RA 10931 specifically identifies ‘disadvantaged students’ as belonging to the poorest 20% income bracket of Philippine society. Students belonging to this bracket often coincide with families who are recipients of the national conditional cash transfer program (titled National Household Targeting System for Poverty Reduction, or Listahanan 2.0). Latest figures from 2014 suggest among these students, often referred to in policy 6
discourse as the poorest, only about 10% of these college-aged youth (ages 18-24) participate in higher education, compared to more than 70% of their richest counterparts from the highest 20%
ASEAN refers to the Association for South East Asian Nations, a regional intergovernmental organization which the Philippines
5
is a founding member of.
Listahanan translates to ‘the list,’ which is a national list created by the Department of Social Welfare and Development. It lists
6
households who are recipients of the national conditional cash transfer program and is used for track and locate poor families across state agencies
income bracket (CIDS, 2017: 5). Furthermore, of the students from the richest income bracket only about 3% do not complete secondary school, compared to the 50% of the poorest, who are, ultimately, ineligible to enroll in higher education. These wealth disparities in secondary and higher education enrollment are evident as early as basic education, as shown in Table 1. More broadly speaking, wealth disparities in higher education enrollment has doubled between 1999 and 2014, from 11% to 22% respectively, between the richest and poorest quintiles. (CIDS, 2017: 12). As already mentioned, these wealth inequalities vary substantially between the regions of the Philippines.
Table 1: Comparing participation and completion among richest and poorest quintiles 7
Source: CIDS, 2017 In the context of public universities, which this study is most concerned with, of all college-going students from the poorest quintile, an overwhelming majority enroll in enroll in SUCs, or public universities (82%) compared to 30% of the richest quintile (Table 2).
Table 2: Private-public share of all enrolled students in higher education, by quintile 8
!
Source: CIDS, 2017
Poorest Quintile (bottom
20%) Richest Quintile (highest 20%)
Higher Education 10% participation 72% participation
Secondary Education 50% unable to complete 3.8% unable to complete
Basic Education 34.2% unable to complete 16.5% unable to complete
These figures are based on a data from Philippine Statistics Authority survey in 2014
7
