“Libre lang mangarap”
That’s one of the well-known notions instilled in us since childhood. For an innocent child, it could be a fun experience. Yet as we grow and begin to understand the complex world, we realize that dreaming comes with a cost—especially for those deprived of the opportunity to dream big from the start.
In a country where education is a practical investment to escape poverty, access to tuition-free education is significant, as it represents a step toward a better life. However, our education system is not an exception to the plague of negligence and flaws, which constrains those who seek change and betterment.
Just recently, Department of Education Secretary Sonny Angara criticized the current system, stating that the government needs to improve the implementation of free tuition in State Universities and Colleges (SUCs) by “excluding the wealthy students” from the subsidy and prioritizing underprivileged, deserving students who are overlooked. He also asserted that universal access to quality tertiary education should not be so diluted that it favored affluent families.
Although Angara’s intentions are commendable and raise valid concerns about struggling students' ability to benefit from the subsidies, his approach simplifies the complex issues without considering the nuances of students’ circumstances and socioeconomic realities. This problem extends beyond students' demographics and financial capabilities, resulting in short-term fixes.
Aside from that, selecting students based solely on their perceived “needs and financial status” creates a stigma for those receiving support. This bureaucracy neither effectively advocates nor upholds the calls for free education. Blaming privileged students only encourages division while distracting us from dealing with the underlying cause of inaccessibility. After all, they also contribute to taxes and have the right to receive it too.
There are ways to support students without overly complicating the criteria for accessible education. But, what should we prioritize instead?
Firstly, the government should examine different instances contributing to why some students cannot access free higher education. For example, geographic disparities significantly contribute to the limited access to affordable, excellent learning. Rural areas have fewer SUCs than urban areas, forcing students to commute long distances, hampered by the inadequacy of transportation in the Philippines.
Moreover, even if they have been granted tuition-free education, other costs like document requirements, transportation fees, housing, and school projects, place an additional burden on those who are from low-income families. Even online learning requires technology and internet access which are expensive. While scholarships exist, not everyone is aware of financial aid opportunities and this option cannot address all the multifaceted factors the students face.
Secondly, assess why both are competing mostly at the University of the Philippines (UP) for an opportunity for a free tertiary education. The country has over 200 SUC institutions where they can apply to and continue their learning. Nonetheless, many from different regions aspire to enter UP. This preference is due to the quality and competent education offered there, which only a few SUC and private schools have, such a diverse range of courses, taught by recognized experts, along with a reputation that offers students more opportunities and networking advantages as soon as they graduate.
The government’s failure to allocate sufficient resources and quality assurance support leads to inequitable and limited choices. Hence, this resulted in a struggle for admission to the fewer well-regarded SUCs, leaving thousands of deserving Filipino students to be pushed aside due to the limited slots available in UP. If only they had access to similarly high-quality universities in their region, they would not be forced to compete for a place that attracts thousands of applicants.
Lastly, they should also assess why some students fail to enter some SUCs during applications, particularly those with examinations and other skill-proficiency tests, as this contributes to the existing issue. Many secondary public schools in the Philippines are underfunded, lacking access to essential learning materials, such as textbooks, extracurricular activities, learning facilities, or even qualified educators, since salary rates are also low in rural areas.
Furthermore, not everyone can access adequate college preparedness programs, such as entrance exam exercises and college application training which puts them at a disadvantage and hinders them from performing well academically or competing with students from schools that offer quality learning and have the means to invest in their schooling.
This results in lower enrollment rates and for them to pass an opportunity, as it still requires financial funding, which gives more opportunities to those students who come from well-off families, as from the start, the system serves their capabilities while scarce in the necessary adjustments to underprivileged students. Blaming the whole process simply because numerous financially capable students availed of SUC educations, such as UP is just a surface-level simplification, as merely removing them from the program does not solve the complex issues about our skewed educational system.
If the government is truly genuine about educational reforms, it should start by acknowledging its own inefficient and incompetent educational system, which impedes every student in the process. It is ironic that they denounce inequality issues but have not even provided ways to make free, quality tertiary education equitable and accessible.
The fact that SUCs are still suffering from budget cuts, which could affect quality education and reduce slots available for students wanting to avail tuition-free education, clearly shows that we are far from achieving the mandate outlined in our 1987 Constitution, Section 1: “protect and promote the right of all citizen to quality education at all levels.” Our current system undermines the effectiveness and sustainability of convenient and quality learning.
Resource-limited students cannot efficiently compete in an educational environment where they are disadvantaged; they need to double up their efforts to contend. Therefore, we should focus on creating more opportunities that uphold the same standards and quality for everyone, ensuring they are ready in a competitive landscape after graduation and avoiding the idea of seeking education that does not adjust to their qualifications.
Dreams shouldn’t be a memory to recall but a tangible goal to strive for. It’s not definitive to determine who should benefit from the subsidies, as free, quality education should be available for everyone.
Article: Kent Merrie Jade A. Mejares
Graphics: Kent Bicol
Komentáře