Leave the GE reform issue to the next administration

On May 5, CHED issued its draft Policies, Standards and Guidelines (PSGs) for the Reframed General Education Curriculum (RGEC), reducing the mandated GE curriculum to 18 units. Fifteen units for five GE courses (including Labor, Ethics and Rizal) and three units for an institutional core. 

An angry academic community hit back by questioning the RGEC, the process by which it was formulated, its implementation schedule, the lack of consultation with higher education stakeholders, the constitutionality of CHED’s action and even the credentials of the GE technical panel and the commission members.

All the top universities have issued position papers opposing the RGEC. Professional organizations, subject-matter experts and discipline-based CHED technical panels have also opposed the RGEC.

The criticisms have come from all directions and all political persuasions.

No major university or respected academician has come out to support the CHED initiative.

A week later, academics and faculty groups marched to CHED to call for the halt of the RGEC, the reconstitution of the GE Technical Panel and the initiation of a genuine bottom-up consultation process for reform.

CHED backtracked and announced on May 14 that it was postponing the implementation to 2028 and vowed to consult with education stakeholders.

Snowballing opposition

CHED probably never expected the vociferous and widespread opposition to its GE reform proposal. Although it announced the cancellation of implementation, it has not rolled out the details of the consultation process nor the timelines for these actions until 2028.

By inaction, several groups have exploited the vacuum to advance their agendas. The Makabayan bloc has filed Resolution No. 999 to investigate the overhaul of the GE program, alleging that it prioritizes market demands over holistic education and failed to consult stakeholders.

Other groups have demanded the prohibition of all forms of labor displacement arising from GE revisions and representation of rank-and-file teachers and academic labor unions in major education policymaking bodies.

Even the groups that were displaced during the transition of GE subjects to senior high school under the K-12 implementation have reappeared and are now demanding a return to the 60-unit GE system in effect before 2016. This will mean students will again take Filipino, English, Literature, Algebra, Trigonometry and Humanities when they enter university.

Because CHED has been unable to compile an inventory of affected faculty members, some groups have declared that between 150,000 and 180,000 faculty members may lose their jobs. Whether this number is accurate is impossible to determine. But one can imagine the government’s funding requirements to address job losses resulting from the GE reduction.

Interestingly, no member of the commission has publicly argued for the RGEC; instead, they have sent Dr. Edison Fermin to defend the CHED’s decision.

Last week, UP VP for Academic Affairs Lorraine Symaco organized the “General Education on Higher Education” forum with local and foreign experts to get the ball rolling on a more in-depth discussion of the GE issue. Academic experts led by Prof. Martin Hayden and Prof. Lee Yew Jin said that while comparative studies are instructive, no single model could guide countries in their GE reform. At one extreme is Cambridge University, where there is no GE; at the other, Malaysia, South Korea and Taiwan require numerous GE courses for their students.

In short, the argument by CHED and EDCOM II that there are too many GE subjects in the current curriculum, and the mechanical act of simply reducing the number, falls flat on its face.

In the end, the experts said that the decision on GE reform will have to be taken by individual countries based on their own education philosophy (including identified employability and non-employability attributes of graduates, which change over time), national needs and consultation with education stakeholders.

It’s good that UP is exercising its public service mandate and will continue to organize forums across the country starting this June to discuss the GE issue.

I urge other universities to do the same and to reach out to education stakeholders, particularly small private schools and faculty in far-flung areas, who are most affected and vulnerable if GE is further reduced.

What happens next?

CHED must now accept that its proposed GE reform was poorly crafted and has united many education stakeholders against it.

Even the politician-members of the EDCOM II who are pushing for a three-year university education have made a hasty retreat. I was told that they have quietly reached out to some university presidents, asking whether university education can still be reduced (maybe to 3.5 years) without altering the current GE configuration. 

The case of the RGEC clearly shows that any reform measure, even well-meaning and substantive, will be difficult to achieve under an administration suffering from a governance deficit, negative performance and trust ratings and besieged by allegations of corruption.

If CHED is unable to provide a transparent, participatory, inclusive and acceptable framework for GE reform between now and 2028, various education stakeholders will develop one on their own, and I don’t think the commission will be happy with the outcome.

Here is my unsolicited advice: CHED should support, even facilitate, the ongoing discussions on RGEC among various groups between now and 2028, and leave GE reform to the next administration. 

Who knows? Maybe the next administration will not be as fixated on reducing GE at our universities.