Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation and Investment

Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation and Investment
Name	Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation and Investment
Formation	2016
Type	Advisory commission
Headquarters	Manila
Jurisdiction	Philippines

Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation and Investment The Commission on Higher Education Reform, Innovation and Investment was an ad hoc policy body convened to assess tertiary University of the Philippines-level systems, propose regulatory changes affecting Ateneo de Manila University, De La Salle University, University of Santo Tomas, and state universities such as Philippine Normal University, Mindanao State University, and Cebu Technological University. The commission engaged stakeholders including representatives from Senate of the Philippines, House of Representatives of the Philippines, Department of Education (Philippines), Department of Budget and Management (Philippines), and international actors like World Bank, Asian Development Bank, and UNESCO to align local reforms with global frameworks such as the Bologna Process, Sustainable Development Goals, and ASEAN University Network. Its work intersected with legislative proposals, executive issuances, and university autonomy debates involving entities like the Commission on Higher Education (Philippines) and the Office of the President of the Philippines.

Background and Establishment

The commission was established amid policy debates involving the 2010s Philippine economic policy, the K-12 (Philippines) implementation, and reform agendas promoted by figures from the Duterte cabinet and advisors linked to Benigno Aquino III-era initiatives, with inputs from commissions similar to the Commission on Audit and consultancies used by McKinsey & Company and Boston Consulting Group. It drew comparisons to reform bodies in other jurisdictions such as the Robbins Committee (United Kingdom), the Bowen Commission (United States), and panels convened by the European Commission and Organisation for Economic Co-operation and Development. Founding discussions referenced the Higher Education Act frameworks of the United States Department of Education and accreditation practices exemplified by CHED Memorandum Orders and regional quality assurance agencies like the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities and Asean University Network-Quality Assurance.

Mandate and Objectives

The commission's mandate included reviewing financing models used by institutions such as De La Salle–College of Saint Benilde, assessing governance reforms affecting Silliman University and Ateneo de Davao University, and proposing mechanisms to incentivize research at hubs like the Philippine Science High School System and University of the Philippines Diliman. Objectives emphasized linking talent pipelines to industries represented by Philippine Chamber of Commerce and Industry, promoting innovation ecosystems akin to Silicon Valley partnerships, and recommending investment modalities used by sovereign wealth funds and development banks including Asian Infrastructure Investment Bank and International Finance Corporation. The commission aimed to harmonize regulatory instruments, fiscal incentives, and accreditation processes drawing on models from European Higher Education Area, Times Higher Education, and national strategies like the Philippine Development Plan.

Organizational Structure and Membership

Membership combined academics from institutions such as University of the Philippines Los Baños, policy experts from Ateneo School of Government, legislators from the Senate Finance Committee, and private sector figures from the Philippine Business for Education and Makati Business Club. The commission mirrored structures seen in advisory panels like the National Economic and Development Authority-led task forces, with working groups on finance, quality assurance, research, and workforce alignment; these groups consulted stakeholders including Teachers' Dignity Coalition and representatives from unions like the Federation of Free Workers. International advisers included scholars with affiliations to Harvard University, University of Oxford, Massachusetts Institute of Technology, and policy staff from UNICEF and Asian Development Bank.

Policy Recommendations and Programs

Recommendations proposed by the commission covered funding reforms modeled on outcomes-based financing used in Australia and United Kingdom, creation of competitive grant schemes similar to National Science Foundation (United States), and expansion of scholarship programs patterned after CHED scholarship frameworks and private initiatives like the Ayala Foundation scholarships. Programmatic ideas included research commercialization hubs akin to Stanford Research Park, dual credit frameworks inspired by Community colleges (United States), and performance-based subsidies referencing the Performance-Based Research Fund (New Zealand). The commission suggested strengthening quality assurance through enhanced roles for agencies like the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and Universities and aligning degree structures with European Credit Transfer and Accumulation System and ASEAN Qualifications Reference Framework.

Implementation and Impact

Some recommendations influenced policy instruments introduced by the Commission on Higher Education (Philippines), and were debated in hearings of the House Committee on Higher and Technical Education and the Senate Committee on Finance. Pilot programs were discussed with provincial governments such as Cebu Provincial Government and metropolitan units including the Metro Manila Development Authority to test public-private partnerships modeled on Build-Operate-Transfer projects and collaborative research funding mechanisms resembling the Philippine Innovation Act. Effects included revised budget allocations in the General Appropriations Act debates, shifts in university program offerings at institutions like Pamantasan ng Lungsod ng Maynila and adjustments to scholarship priorities by agencies including the Technical Education and Skills Development Authority.

Criticism and Controversies

The commission faced criticism from stakeholders including faculty associations at University of Santo Tomas and student groups such as College Editors Guild of the Philippines for perceived alignment with private sector priorities and proposals reminiscent of market-driven reforms criticized in debates involving Bologna Process opponents and critics of privatization cited in cases like the Tuition Fee Control controversies. Legislators from factions in the House of Representatives of the Philippines raised concerns about sovereignty over curricular decisions and the potential impact on state-run institutions like Philippine Normal University. Civil society organizations and unions invoked precedents from disputes involving Teachers' unions (Philippines) and campaigns led by BAYAN to argue against certain privatization and deregulatory measures, prompting calls for broader consultations and amendments to proposed legislative outcomes.

Category:Education in the Philippines