The politics of local colleges' and universities' reform

I ended my last column, entitled "What is the problem with local colleges and universities?" with a question: is there hope for LCU reforms to make them viable change agents for access and equity in higher education? Yes, there is hope, but the road is difficult and there are no shortcuts.

- POPOY DE VERA

The reforms will require a shift in paradigm and framework for local colleges and universities.

CHED and our legislators must recognize that the 173 LCUS come in all shapes and sizes. They differ in terms of geographic location, size, governance challenges, degree programs, funding requirements and the quality of education.

The government must therefore stop the tendency to issue "one size fits all" memorandum circulars, administrative orders and new laws.

CHED and education champions in Congress should start by developing a typology of local public higher education institutions and frame governmental policy on LCUs accordingly. This will require an understanding of public higher education systems in other countries and consultations with education experts and LCU stakeholders.

Many education advocates propose adopting the US community college model for LCUS.

Can we do this in the Philippines? Yes and no.

The US community college model evolved from the Morrill Acts of 1862 and 1890, and there are now more than a thousand "junior colleges" serving as pathways for students who aspire to enter university-level education.

The community college model was based on the German system, where the first two years of college would be separated from the final, research-oriented years of specialized postsecondary study. It was an acceptable compromise for research universities to accept only the finest students from junior colleges to transfer credits and proceed to four-year institutions.

The establishment of community colleges was also a response to the need for workers in rapidly expanding industries and a commitment to social equality and mobility.