Impact of k 12 Higher Education Summit


Published on

Published in: Education
  • Be the first to comment

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Impact of k 12 Higher Education Summit

  1. 1. BICOL SUCS AFTER K TO12 AND BEYOND: An Ex-ante Analysis of the Impact of K-12 Program to HEIs Dr. Fay Patria M. Lauraya Project Leader Technical Working Group: Dr. Arnulfo M. Mascariñas Dr. Luis O. Amano Dr. Rebecca O. Bercasio Mr. Carlos V. Cortez, Jr. Mr. Erwin E. Torres Higher Education Summit 2013 Oriental Hotel, Legazpi City, Philippines November 14-15, 2013
  2. 2. Rationale      K to 12 program is the latest effort of the government to reform basic education to be at par with global standards. K to 12 program have a wide-ranging impact on higher education. The extent of involvement of SUCs and private HEIs in K to 12 implementation needs to be clarified. Thus, there is an urgent need for empirical data to show how the SUCs will take shape after K-12. There is also an urgent need to come up with relevant programs in support to K to 12 and to cushion its perceived negative impacts to HEIs/ SUCs.
  3. 3. General Objective The main objective of this policy research is to prospectively determine the program, human, physical, and financial impact of the K-12 Program during its immediate transition period (first five years) and during the “normalization” period (next five years after the transition period) as well as the strategies that SUCs in Region V should adopt to soften the impact while responding to the goals of the Philippine Higher Education Reform Roadmap.
  4. 4. Specific Objectives 1. Determine the curricular programs of SUCs in Region V which will be affected by the K-12 Program in terms of course/subject offering, student enrolment, and faculty workload; 2. Analyze the qualification and competencies of the faculty complement versus the requirements of the K-12 Program; 3. Ascertain capability enhancement/retooling program for faculty members who will be affected by the K-12 Program implementation;
  5. 5. Specific Objectives 4. Identify programs and projects that can be developed to absorb faculty members who will be affected by K-12 Program; and 5. Assess the economic/financial impact of the K-12 Program to the University along enrolment loss, faculty enhancement/retooling program, new programs/ projects, and other parameters.
  6. 6. Methodology  A research team was organized in each SUC headed by the SUC President.  A regional Technical Working Group (TWG) based in BU was also organized to do the data collation and provide the necessary technical backstopping.  Secondary data analysis and small focus group discussion were the research strategies used.
  7. 7. Limitations/Disclaimer  The study is a work in progress and data analyzed needs further validation.  The paper is a preliminary result for discussion purposes only. No part of this presentation may be quoted without permission from the authors.
  8. 8. A Quick Glimpse of K to 12 Program
  9. 9. Viewing K to 12 Program in the HEI Landscape Year of Admission 20142015 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 ***2016*** ***2017*** 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Number of Batches Enrolled per Year Situationer: 20152016 5 4 3 2 1 20162017 5 4 3 2 1 ACADEMIC YEAR 201820192019 2020 20172018 5 4 3 2 5 4 3 5 4 5 4 3 3 20212022 20222023 20232024 5 1 5 20202021 2 1 3 3 2 1 3 4 3 2 1 4 5 4 3 2 1 5 5 4 3 2 1 5 Business as Usual 6 YEARS OF REDUCTION IN NUMBER OF STUDENTS, GEN. Normalize starting Scenario ED. COURSE OFFERINGS AND UNIVERSITY INCOME AY 2022-2023
  10. 10. Major Findings  Most SUCs in Region V will be affected by K to 12 implementation due to the reduction of course offering, decrease in faculty workload, and decrease in enrolment.  The workload of GEC faculty members will be adversely affected due to the phasing out and/or realignment of courses. Out of the more than 60 units of GEC that students are currently taking, this will be reduced to 35 units. There are, however, some academic units in SUCs which will not be affected due to the offering of Electives.
  11. 11. Major Findings  There are three (3) ways by which K to 12 will affect the GEC faculty of SUCs:  Displacement due to competency gap  Displacement due to phasing out of some courses  Displacement due to reduction of courses/realignment of courses per discipline  There are SUCs which will have excess faculty members in certain field of expertise during the K to 12 transition period and period of normalization.
  12. 12. Major Findings  SUCs in Region V will experience a reduction in enrollment starting AY 2016-2017 until AY 2021-2022 due to: (a) phasing out and realignment of GEC and (b) no enrolment in selected year levels. Enrolment will start to normalize in AY 2022-2023 when all year levels become open.  Decrease in enrolment in SUCs will result to a decrease in income from tuition and miscellaneous fees every year starting AY 2016-2017 until AY 2023-2024. BU, for instance, is predicted to lose P 41.74 million every year from four colleges during the 6-year transition period.
  13. 13. Major Findings  Decrease in income of SUCs will have a serious implication on their financial capability to augment their regular budget/subsidy from the national government. SUCs depend on their income to finance their capital outlay, procure needed laboratory and office equipment, and augment their honorarium requirement.
  14. 14. Recommendations  Review and, if needed, revision of existing curricular programs of SUCs to: (a) take advantage of excess faculty expertise who will be displaced due to realignment and/or phasing out of some courses and (b) respond to the career pathways of SHS graduates.  Develop new curricular programs within the mandate of concerned SUC that are responsive to the requirement of K to 12 and sensitive to the demand of the labor market.  Consultation with the private/industry sector to determine and develop market-responsive curricular programs.
  15. 15. Recommendations  Develop and implement a retooling/capability enhancement program to support new curricular programs and to enable excess faculty or those with competency gap to handle K to 12 courses.  Reassignment/realignment of affected faculty members in any of the following:  Research and extension  Handle major courses and content courses in professional colleges or laboratory schools of concerned SUC.  Graduate programs (if qualified)
  16. 16. Recommendations  SUCs with excess faculty may consider a moratorium in the hiring of faculty up to 2023 and beyond along identified discipline or field of expertise.  To address the inevitable income loss, SUCs may consider the following:  Pursue aggressive income generation projects like resource materials development, continuing education, and life-long learning programs.  Increasing tuition and miscellaneous fees.
  17. 17. Recommendations  Lobby for funding assistance from CHED and other agencies/sources to support:  Research and extension engagements of faculty members  Upgrading of research and laboratory facilities  Scholarship and capability enhancement of affected faculty members.
  18. 18. Thank You!