A Study on the “No Permit No Exam Policy” in the Philippines

A study submitted by J. B. Nangpuhan II (MPA Student) as a project under 'causal relationship' for the class (Research Methods in Public Administration) of Dr. G. C. Jang at Chonnam National University, South Korea. 2011

Brief details of the NPNE Policy
Country of Origin: Republic of the Philippines

Implementing Agencies: Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines

 

ABSTRACT

This study focuses on the implementation of the ‘no permit no exam policy’ by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines and its effect on the number of university graduates. This policy was strictly enforced by HEIs in the first quarter of 2010. This was after tough flood crisis hit the whole country in the third and fourth quarter of 2009. An implicated result shows that the number of university graduates in the Philippines in 2010 declined. This study will then try to find out if there is a relationship of the policy to the declining number of university graduates.

A causal relationship analysis will be undertaken by looking into the number of university graduates in each academic year (AY). Simple Interrupted Time Series design will be used. The academic year timetable included in this study starts from AY1999/2000 to AY2009/2010. Also, an inclusive statistical prediction included from AY2010/2011 until AY2019/2020. This span of academic years will try to show comparison of the number of university graduates in the Philippines before and after the strict implementation of the policy in AY2009/2010.

An affirmative result is expected to be the outcome of this study. That the strict implementation of the policy affected the declining number of university graduates in the Philippines.

 

Keywords: no permit no exam policy, university graduates, Philippines

 

I.             INTRODUCTION

 

1.    Background of the ‘No Permit No Exam Policy’

Higher Education Institutions (HEIs)¹ in the Philippines implemented this policy. In 2010, this policy became an issue of debate by concerned agencies due to its strict implementation. It was a time when the country experienced huge damages caused by the onslaught of series of typhoons in the year 2009. The most notable event was in September of 2009 when super typhoon ‘Ketsana’² hit the Philippines (the local name of this typhoon is Ondoy). This super typhoon brought widespread flood in Metro Manila and its nearby provinces leaving hundreds of casualties. Many business establishments, houses, agricultural crops, and marine products were greatly devastated. Even private and public vehicles were washed away by the strong flow of inland water. The estimated number of damages in properties and agriculture amounts to more than $237million³.

Because of this sudden flood crisis in 2009, many middle- and low-income Filipinos were further submerged into poverty. The after-effects of the flood crisis divided the views of the people. In the education sector, one effect of the crisis is the strict implementation of the ‘no permit no exam policy’⁴.

 

2.    Concept of the Policy

The ‘No Permit No Exam Policy’ in the Philippines was conceptualized by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) primarily those private colleges and universities⁵. The main objective of the policy is to ensure proper collection and payment of tuition and other fees by HEIs to their enrolled students. After the student paid all the fees in the university, he/she is then allowed to take final examinations or equivalent tests thereof. If the student will not be able to settle his due accounts before the examination schedule, he or she will not be permitted to take examinations. This is a standard procedural requirement by HEIs before midterm or final examinations wherein students need to secure a test permit first before they will take the exam.

 

3.      Relationship Between the Policy and University Students

Some university students could not afford to pay their tuition and other school fees. Their reason is that they are financially incapable and that their parents could not afford to pay the fees. The strict implementation of the policy caused some students to drop-out of school and stop studying. The perceived long term effect of this policy is a further dooming poverty across the country.

 

II.            LITERATURE REVIEW

 

1.    Review of Education in the Philippines and the ‘No Permit No Exam Policy’

The Philippine constitution provides that the state shall protect and promote the rights of all citizens to quality education at all levels⁶. It shall take appropriate steps to make such education accessible to all. It is then the duty of the government to oversee the proper implementation of this directive. The government established the Department of Education (DepEd) to manage elementary and high school education programs. It assigned the Commission on Higher Education (CHED) to regulate college and university education levels. The government also established an alternative agency, the Technical Education Skills & Development Authority (TESDA) which is tasked to manage vocational education programs. These agencies are helpful in ensuring the full attainment of the government’s mandate on education. However, the desire to deliver quality education hampered the government having limited annual allocation budget. Corruption is another long-term problem way back many decades ago when the country’s natural resources were at its strongest. These and other problems further put the country in a really bad situation economically, politically, and socially.

In the tertiary level, the government provides subsidy to public colleges and universities. However, the government cannot subsidize all students, nearly 3 million⁷ in total. In their pursuit to continue university education, along with the assistance of their parents, some students enroll into private universities. The tuition fee in private universities is nearly four times more than that in public universities. Private universities rely mainly on tuition fees to finance sustainable operations like salaries of teachers/professors, monthly bills, etc. Aside from maintenance purposes, private universities also need to improve the quality of services that they deliver to their clients particularly the students.

However, some students could hardly afford to pay their tuition fees on time. Their reason is because they do not have enough resources to pay in full the tuition fee and other school fees. Invoking the right of universities to collect tuition fees, they implemented a ‘no permit no exam policy’. This policy disallows examination permit to those students who did not pay tuition fees. In other instances, some universities express sympathy for these students and allowed them to take examinations even without test permits as long as they sign a promissory note. In the promissory note, the student agrees to pay the remaining balance of the tuition fee after examination. Nevertheless, despite signing a promissory note, many students were not able to settle their due accounts on the agreed date⁸. The university now faced with a huge management responsibility can no longer collect the tuition fee from the student. Even if they sue the student into court for violating the content of the promissory note, the university expects nothing from the financially deprived student. This is considered a lost on the part of the university.

The strength of the issue has reached some government officials. Since they are looking into the common good of all Filipinos, their concern is at most for a majority benefit.  In the Philippine legislative sector, a bill was filed in the House of Representatives entitled “An act penalizing the imposition of a no permit no exam policy or any such policy that prohibits students from taking their periodic or final examinations due to unpaid tuition or other school fees”⁹. The main purpose of the bill is to ensure the accessibility of quality tertiary education and to exercise reasonable regulation of private higher education institutions. The bill was filed in 2010 and is pending further deliberations in the House of Congress.

The Commission on Higher Education had also issued a memorandum order¹⁰ in early 2010 appealing to Higher Education Institutions for flexibility in the implementation of the no permit no exam policy or any such policy that prohibits students from taking their periodic or final examinations due to unpaid tuition and other school fees. The CHED memorandum order was officially disseminated to all HEIs. However, despite receiving the memo, other HEIs still implement the policy.

 

2.    Review of International Policies on Education

United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) – the ‘Education for All’¹¹ movement was launched by UNESCO in 1990. The movement earmarked greater participation of other countries including Philippines. The goal of the movement is to achieve free and better quality education for all the children, the young, and adults.

World Bank – It explicitly expressed its support for the ‘education for all’ movement by UNESCO. World Bank launched the ‘Education for All Fast Track Initiative’¹² (EFA-FTI) to accelerate better quality education efforts. It is now helping 90 countries worldwide through multidimensional efforts which include: improving drop-out and retention rates of girls as well as their learning outcomes.

 

3.    Other Related Policies in Other Countries

In Brazil, free education is offered by the Ministry of Education¹³. The Ministry offers scholarships for masters, doctoral, and post-graduate degrees for Brazilians and immigrants who have Brazilian citizenship. On the other hand, private universities have considered reducing the amount of tuition fees over the last 10 years to attract more low-income students. As a result of this joint participation by the government and private education sectors, Brazil increased the number of university students by 5 million. However, despite the increase in the number of university students, there is also an increase in the number of drop-outs. Reasons in drop-outs include poor academic orientation and lack of course information. Only few students related financial need as a reason for dropping out of school.

In Sri Lanka, free education is also being provided by the government at all levels¹⁴. At the university level, the state universities provide undergraduate course for free. However, this totals only about 10% for those qualified for university entrance. Grants and scholarships are provided for a limited number as study allowances. 

 

III.          FRAMEWORK OF ANALYSIS

 

1.    Hypothesis

“The decline in the number of university graduates in the Philippines is greatly associated to the strict implementation of the ‘no permit no exam policy’ by Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) in the Philippines.”

 

2.    Variables

a.     Independent Variable: The ‘no permit no exam policy’ of some Higher Education Institutions in the Philippines.

b.    Dependent Variable: Number of university graduates in the Philippines.

c.     Control Variable: Lack of interest in pursuing higher education.

 

 

Independent Variable	Dependent Variable
The ‘no permit no exam policy’	Number of university graduate

IV.           SURVEY DESIGN

 

1.    Operational Definition

In this study, ‘university graduates’ refers to students who successfully finished their degree courses. In the Philippines, this can be determined when the student completed all the requirements in the university and received a graduation diploma. Basically, universities determine the number of their graduates at the end of every semester. In the case of the Commission on Higher Education (CHED), the one in charge of all HEIs in the Philippines, they determine graduates per academic year after all universities submit annual report of graduates to the central office of CHED¹⁵.

‘Academic Year (AY)’ refers to the completion of one school year. In the Philippines, Academic Year usually starts on the month of June of the current year and ends on March or April of the following year. One AY is equivalent to 32 weeks¹⁶ of regular class/lecture. For instance, AY2009/2010 refers to a regular class which starts June, 2009 until March or April, 2010. Normally, there are two semesters in one academic year but other universities adopted three semesters and even four semesters. Also, a delay in finishing 32 weeks is because of unexpected holidays declared by the government or the university itself.

 

2.    Experimental Group

Since the policy was strictly implemented in the Philippines in AY2009/2010, this period will be considered as the treatment for both independent and dependent variables. Each variable will be compared using the data taken for ten (10) academic years before the implementation of the independent variable. And then, another 10 academic years including statistical predictions. Hence, it will start from AY1999/2000 to AY2008/2009 (before) and then from AY2010/2011 to AY2019/2020 (after). AY2011/2012 until AY2019/2020 will be considered as statistical predictions until an actual data will come into existence.

 

3.    Control Group

There will be no control group in this study because of vast demographic areas covering the higher education of each nation. It would be difficult to compare number of university graduates in each country due to the absence of similar policies covering the independent variable as the subject of this study.

 

4.    Design

The Simple Interrupted Time Series design¹⁷ will be used in this study. This will allow all variables to be compared with each other before and after the implementation of the policy. The design will include a time span of 10 years before the implementation of the policy, and then another equal 10 years after. This will give a more reasonable room for analysis of all data. Below is the symbolic representation of the design.

OAY1 ........OAY10

X

OAY11 ……..OAY20

Where: 

X : treatment – ‘No Permit No Exam Policy’ which was implemented on AY 2009/2010.

O_AY1 ........O_AY10   : The number of university graduates in each academic year (AY) from AY1999/2000 (O_AY1) until AY2008/2009 (O_AY10).

O_AY11 ……..O_AY20 : The number of university graduates in each academic year (AY) from AY2010/2011 (O_AY12) until AY2019/2020 (O_AY20).

 

5.    Treatment of Competing Hypothesis

A competing hypothesis is expected to arise as a result of the control variable. There is a possibility that this variable/s will invalidate the expected hypothesis. However, the control variable can be eliminated by looking into its effect prior to the implementation of the policy. The control variable (lack of interest in pursuing higher education by the student) is considered to be long time problem. Its effect to the number of graduates can be traced by considering a review of university graduates 10 years prior to the existence of the independent variable (the strict implementation of the ‘no permit no exam policy’). Then compare its percentage result when the policy was strictly implemented. Here is the academic years to be compared: AY1999/2000 <-> AY2009/2010.

 

V.            DATA COLLECTION METHODS

Collection of data is relied primarily through information taken from the Internet. The information collected will further be verified by searching related books in the Library. Other means to verify the data will include contacting staffs from concerned agencies, and also looking for references available to national offices and other research institutions. Below are major agencies where data would be available for this study.

1. Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Philippines (www.ched.gov.ph)– this agency is mandated to oversee the implementation of higher education in the Philippines. This agency covers both public and private institutions offering degree programs in bachelor, master’s, doctoral, and post-graduate degrees. For this study, data such as the number of graduates per academic year (http://202.57.63.198/chedwww/index.php/eng/Information/Statistics) and important memorandum orders (http://202.57.63.198/chedwww/index.php/eng/Information/CHED-Memorandum-Orders) can be taken in this agency.

2. Philippine House of Representatives, 15^th Congress (www.congress.gov.ph) – it represents the lower chamber of the Philippine Legislative branch. A copy of the bill filed in congress against the implementation of the ‘no permit no examination policy’ in the Philippines (http://www.congress.gov.ph/download/basic_15/HB00807.pdf) can be taken in this agency. This bill was filed in 2010. Also, some citations about the 1987 Philippine Constitution can be obtained in this office.
3. Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA) (www.weather.gov.ph) – the agency in charge of monitoring the weather situation in the Philippines. A proof copy of the super typhoon Ketsana that hit the country in 2009 can be obtained here. (http://www.weather.gov.ph/index.php?option=com_content&view=section&layout=blog&id=36&Itemid=467)

4. United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (www.unesco.org) – an organization helping worldwide education, science, and culture programmes. Information about its program on “Education for All’ (EFA) can be obtained in this agency (http://www.unesco.org/new/en/education/themes/leading-the-international-agenda/education-for-all/). This program emphasized the importance of education for everyone.

5. World Bank (WB) (www.worldbank.org) – this organization strengthened its support to the EFA program of UNESCO. WB launched its‘Education for All – Fast Track Initiative (EFA-FTI) to accelerate better quality education efforts. For a detailed information about the EFA-FTI program can be directly found here http://info.worldbank.org/etools/docs/library/244501/day3FTI%20Presentation%20WBIJuly07.pdf

VI. EXPECTED RESULTS

1. Expected Results
This study is expected to bring about affirmative relationship between independent and dependent variables. That the strict implementation of the ‘no permit no exam policy’ in AY2009/2010 by HEIs in the Philippines greatly affected the number of university graduates. In the case of the control variable identified in this study, it is expected to have limited effect on the dependent variable. This is because of the perennial presence of the control variable all throughout the educational history in HEIs in the Philippines and some universities in other countries.

2. Limitations of the Study
The scope of this study is only in the higher education institutions in the Philippines. It does not cover the basic education of the country which is the elementary and secondary levels. Also, it does not include those studying postgraduate degrees in the country. The academic year (AY) periods included in this study starts from AY1999/2000 to AY2009/2010. However, an inclusive statistical prediction included AY2010/2011 until AY2019/2020. The inclusion of this statistical prediction is to balance the observation covering the implementation of the ‘no permit no exam policy’.

3. Future Research Studies
Further research studies should be undertaken in the future to determine the actual effect of the policy to the number of university graduates in the Philippines. There are possibilities that this policy may either bring positive or negative effects. In either case, formulation of other policies cannot be avoided depending on the situation of the university and the students. Other reasons that have impact on related policy formulations include the economic status of parents and government support on education. It is also interesting to look for possibilities of replicating this policy in other countries and the impact of its implementation.

VII. RESEARCH SCHEDULE

Research Activities	2011
	Mar	Apr	Jun	Jul	Aug	Sep	Oct	Nov	Dec
Selection of an issue
Setting of purpose
Review of existing theoretical research
Hypothesis
Survey Design
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Partial Report
Data Collection
Data Analysis
Drawing of conclusion
Report

 

 REFERENCES
¹Commission on Higher Education (CHED), Philippines (2010). www.ched.gov.ph
²Philippine Atmospheric, Geophysical and Astronomical Services Administration (PAGASA). 2011. www.weather.gov.ph
³Wikipedia. (2009) en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Typhoon_Ketsana
⁴Philippine House of Representatives, 15^th Congress (2010). www.congress.gov.ph
⁵Ibid. (CHED)
⁶1987 Constitution of the Republic of the Philippines. Article XIV. Section 1. http://www.chanrobles.com/article14.htm
⁷Ibid. (CHED)
⁸GMA News TV. Philippines. 2009. www.gmanews.tv
⁹Ibid. (congress)
¹⁰Ibid. (CHED)
¹¹United Nations Educational, Scientific and Cultural Organization (UNESCO) (2011). www.unesco.org
¹²World Bank. Education. 2011. www.worldbank.org
¹³Ministry of Education. Brazil. 2011. www.mec.gov.br
¹⁴Ministry of Education. Sri Lanka. 2011. www.moe.gov.lk
¹⁵Ibid. (CHED)
¹⁶Academic term. (Philippines). en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Academic_term#Philippines
¹⁷Nachmias, C.F. & Nachmias, D. (2000). Research Methods in the Social Sciences, 6^th Ed.