Republic of the Philippines
OFFICE OF THE PRESIDENT
COMMISSION ON HIGHER EDUCATION
CHED MEMORANDUM ORDER
No. 46
Series of 2012
SUBJECT:
POLICY-STANDARD TO ENHANCE QUALITY ASSURANCE (QA)
IN PHILIPPINE HIGHER EDUCATION THROUGH AN OUTCOMESBASED AND TYPOLOGY-BASED QA
In accordance with pertinent provisions of the 1987 Philippine Constitution which
assert that the state “shall protect and promote the right of all citizens to quality education at
all levels...” (Article XIV Section 1); “establish, maintain, and support a complete, adequate,
and integrated system of education relevant to the needs of the people and society” (Article
XIV Section 2); and “exercise reasonable supervision and regulation of all educational
institutions” while recognizing the complementary roles of private and public institutions
(Article XIV Section 4)—provisions that are reiterated in Batas Pambansa Blg. 232 and
Republic Act 7722 otherwise known as the Higher Education Act of 1994 which state that
“the State shall protect, foster and promote the right of all citizens to affordable quality
education at all levels” (Section 2); “its coverage shall be both public and private institutions
of higher education as well as degree granting programs in all post-secondary education
institutions, public and private” (Section 3); and that the Commission “shall set minimum
standards for programs and institutions of higher learning” (Section 8d);
In furtherance of the ongoing paradigm shift to learning competency based standards
in Philippine higher education that underlies the provisions of CHED Memorandum Order
Number 2 Series of 2011;
Pursuant to the Commission en Banc Resolution No. 508-2012 dated 26 November
2012 approving this CMO and its appended Implementation Guidelines as substantially
revised in response to the criticisms articulated by stakeholders in five rounds of zonal
consultations and public hearings held within the period from 19 January 2011 to 15 October
2012;
This policy-standard, which applies to private and public Higher Education
Institutions (HEIs) in the country, is issued to enhance the quality assurance system of
Philippine higher education through learning competency based standards and an outcomesbased system of quality assurance that is differentiated by type of HEI.
Appended to this CMO are the revised guidelines for its implementation.
ARTICLE I.
RATIONALE FOR ENHANCING QA
Section 1. Philippine higher education 1s mandated to contribute to building a quality nation
capable of transcending the social, political, economic, cultural and ethical issues that
constrain the country's human development, productivity and global competitiveness.
1
Higher Education Development Center Building, C.P. Garcia Ave., UP Campus, Diliman, Quezon City, Philippines
Web Site: www.ched.gov ph Tel. Nos. 441-1177, 385-4391, 441-1169, 441-1149, 441-1170, 441-1216, 392-5296
Section 2.
system:
This mandate translates to multiple missions for the Philippine higher education
•
To produce thoughtful graduates imbued with 1) values reflective of a
humanist orientation (e.g., fundamental respect for others as human beings
with intrinsic rights, cultural rootedness. an avocation to serve);. 2) ana1ytical
and problem solving skills: 3) the ability to think through the ethical and social
implications of a given course of action. and 4) the competency to learn
continuously throughout life—that will enable them to live meaningfully in a
complex, rapidly changing and globalized w orld while engaging their’
community and the nation’s development issues and concerns;
•
To produce graduates with high levels of academic, thinking, behavioral, and
technical skills/competencies that are alig n ed with national academic
and industry standards and needs and international standards, when applicable;
•
To provide focused support to the research required for technological
innovation, economic growth and global competitiveness. on the one hand,
and for crafting the country's strategic directions and policies, on the other.
and
•
To help improve the quality of human life of Filipinos. respond effectively to
changing societal needs and conditions; and provide solutions to problems at
the local community, regional and national levels.
Section 3. The fulfilment of this mission entails a critical mass of diverse HEIs offeri•s
Vitality programs that Nlcet national standards, and international standards for
disciplines/professions (e.e., engineering. information technology and computing; maritiiiie
education: accounting; nursing) with such widely acceptcd standard.
Section 4. The impr›rtance of quality and quality assurance is highlighted hy the urgent need
to move significant populations of l"ilipinos out of poverty and to address local, iegional and
flatÎOllal deYelopmeiit concerne lij educating quality leaders, tliinkei's, planneis, researchers,
technological innovalors. entrepreneurs, and the inuch-need5d work force to lauiich the
national econom j .
Section 5. The fÔcus on quality and quality assurance is furthcr underscored by the
fblJowing:
•
Research findinss suggesting that the lack of a critical pool of graduates with
the necessary thinking. technical and behavioural competencies are among the
factors constraining the rc•-launching of’ the Philippine manufacturing sector
and the achievement ot’the full potentials of the service sector;
•
the reality t›f an ›\SEAN community by 201 i which will facilitate the free
flow of qualitied laboi’ iii the i'egion alid either open up opportunities for
graduates of Philippine HEIs or threaten their erriployment even in their own
cotlIIt1’*'.
•
the ct»ninitment of the Philippine gc›venament tc› the evolving effoi ts to
recognize and dcvclo|i a st extent of comparable qualifications, degrees, and
2
diplonlñs dCross the .Asia-l°acific region under the auspices of’ the MT SCO
and othci‘ lnu1ti1atera11;r›dies (e.g. ASEAN, APEC). and
•
The acceptance of‘ internationally-agreed-upon frameworks and meclianisiiis
for the 31obal ai'actice of pi ofessions.
ARTICLE II
QUAI.ITY ASSLIC4NCE FlL48IEYt'ORK
Section 6. CHED defines qualit as the alignment and !consistency of the learning
environment with the institution’S vision. mission. and goals deiiionstrated by exceptional
learning and sei‘vice outcomes and the develcapment of a culture of quality. This definition
highlights three perspectives of quality’ :
•
Quality as 'fitness for purpt›se" is generally used by international bodies for
assessment and iiccreditation. his perspective requires the translation of the
institution’s vision, iriission. and goals into fear ning outcomes, pros'=•s, and
sj steins;
•
Quality as “exceptional' means either bei's disiinctive. exceeding very high
standards;. or conformance to standards based on a system of comparability
using criteria and ravines; T'he third chai'acteristic underlies CHED's definition
of “exceptional": and
•
Qualip' as *dcveloping a culturc of qualité” is the transÎtirmational dimension
of thc CHEI3 notion of quality.
Section 7. Quality Assurance (QA) for CHED does not mean merely specifying the standards
or specifications against which to iiieasure or control quality. Rather, QA is about ensuring
that there are mechanisms, procedures and processes in place to ensure that the desired
quality’, however defined and nieasui ed. is delivered'.
Section 8. Any internal Q.A system begins »'itli the HEI’s identity and enteis a quality cycle
of planning, implementation, rcvie»’, and cnliancement. The plan-do-check-act cycle or the
Deming Cycle (Annex 1) is applied to the HEI‘s capacity' 1) to translate vision. mission, and
p•oals (VLIG) into desired learning outcomes: 2) to cstatalish the proper learning environiiient
(implementation of teaching-learning systems as elf as support processes and procedures);
3) to review against performance indicatoivs and standai ds defined in the assessment system;
and 4) to enhance programs and systems. "l“he cj cle ctintinues as the HEI develops into a
mature institution.
Section 9. QA c‹in be caiTiCd cuit U'ith the help of external agencies like CHED and the
accrediting bodies. The role of CHED is to oversee a ralional and cohesive system that
proinotes quality according to the typology tif HEIs. 4ûis rccognizes th‹it different tjpes of
HEIs 1iax'e di ffcient rcquirements in terms of the qnallfications and coiTesponding desircd
= "'l›etencies taf their graduates, their progi‘anis. the qualifications of their faculté. their
learning resources and support structures, and the nature of’ their linkages and outreacli
activities.
Harvey, L, Green D (1993). "Defining quality". Assessment and Evo/uotion in Higher F-ducation 18(1):9-34.
' Church, C.H. (1988). "The Qualities of Validation". Studies ill Higher Education 13:27-43.
3
Sectioii 10. The overall CHED approach to Q.A is ‹lew/opmelfffJf, lth the goal of helping the
HEI develop a culture of quality. CHED ill » oik with /înstitutions to assist them in
strengthening their management of acadeiTrÎc and adiiiinistrative pi ocesses so that they aie
better ablc to acliieve their qualitv goals and ediicational objectives. fi*1iere there are serions
weaknesses or failiires to coup1y 'ith conditions ‹ittached to peimits or recognitions, CHED
will expect reinediaJ action to be iakcii. sid will use ils powers in relation to siicli
shoilcoinings ns appropriate.
ARTIC'LE III
RA rIoNaLE FOR ADOFTIN€i COMPETENCY-JIASEIJ,LEARNING STANDARDS
AND OU"I’CO6'IES-BASED Q.4 4ION1J’ORING D EVALUATION
Section 11. The changing realities spurred by globalization underscore the shift in
leainins. £tfld from
contemporary international education discourse from educat
education as transmission of expert kno›•1edge to
as building leamer
competencies—including learning ho» to lc•arn. This shift is inorc than a iiiere change of
semantics. \Vhen UNESCO's Faurc Report » as »zitten in 1972. the goal of (lifelong)
education was expressed as “developinqz humane indivitluals and communities in the face of
rapid change.”° By 1996, this goal was updated by the Delors Report to take into accoiint the
forces of competition, cooperation and solidarity . "J“he goal of lifelong learning since 1996
has, thus, focused on “retraining and learning new Skills'competencies that »'ould enable
individuals to cope with the deiiiands of a ra›idly changing u orkplace” and a coinplex,
interdependent world5.
Section 12. I.,eaming throughout life is the kej in the glc›balized woi ld tif the 21" cents to
the evol›!iiig re.ipiii ciments o/ the lah$r mai kct” and better master
“the changing time-frames and t Îfj.’thune of’ inclii•iduc 1 exi,itencè. ” UNFSCO's 1996 Delois
Repcait assert that lifelong learning 'iiiti,ii constitute ci continuous proce 's of forming B'hole
beings—their kno» ledge. cittitvdes. o.s Tv«// a‹ tile cl itical facult)• cmd ahilitv to act. It ,should
c•ncihle people to devel‹op ‹iivcireness oftlieittselvrs cmd ttie.ir environment end gncotir‹ige them
to y/nJ' tli‹iir social rofe ard i 'on iii the ‹oiiimiinih'”.
Section 13. CHED is committed to developing competency-based learning standards that
comply » ith existing international standards when applicable (e.g. outcoiiies-based education
for fields like engineering and maritime education) to achieve qil,ality and enable an effective
integration of the intellectual discipline, ethos and values associated »‘ith liberal education.
Section 14: CHED is committed to developing and implementing an outcomes-based
a›proac1i to Q.4 iiionitoring and evaluation because it has thc potcntial to greatl y increase
both the effectiveness of’ the QA systeln, and the quality, ef‘Tiéiency. and effectiv'eness of
higher education. Stature evaluation systems are based upon outcomes, looking particularly
into the ii1ten‹le‹l, f/1iy/emeiired, ‹incl ocl1ic›'ed learning outcomes.
Faure, E et al (1972). Learning to Be: the World of Ed‹icutioii Today and Tom'orrow. Paris: UNESCO.
Delors, J. et al. (1996). Learning. r/›e TreaSure Within. Report to UNESCO of the International Commission on
Education for the Twenty-First Century.
Medel-Anoi uevo, C et al (2001). Revisiting Lifelong Learning for the 21st Century. Hamburg: UNESCO Institute
of Education.
4
Section 15. While CHED adi›pts an outcr›iiie›-based apprr›ach t‹/ me nitorinyc and evaluation,
specific inputs (e.g., qualified teachers) and pl ocesses remain il'nportant, as they cieat• the
environment and shape the learning cxperiencc that is made available to students.
Section 16. CHED adopts t •o different appi oaches to outcomes-based evaluation of
prograiris and ef institutions:
•
A direct assessment of educational outcomes, w'ith evaluation of the individual
programs that lead to those outcomes. In this approach, the p1’O3fd1n Outc-oines are
largely measured against the policies. .standards, and suidelines of the discipline.
•
Ali audit of the quality system.s of an institution, to determine whether these are
sufficientlJ' robust and effective to ensure that all programs are well designed and
deliver appropi iate outcomes. SU0h Bill ttudit will not normsally make direct judgments
on acadeitiic program.s. but it will consider program-Ie\•e[ evidence to the extent
necessary to esutblish that institutional sjsteiiis are functioning properly. This
approach thus takes into considei‘ation the vision, missioli. and goals of the HEI.
ARTICLE IV
RATIONALE FOR .4 TITOI.OGM'-HAS£D QA
Section 17. The notion of quality as fitness for purpose and the adopticaii of an outcomesbased Q.4 fiaiiiework presuppose quality goals that are anchoi;ed to the individual HEIs’
vision and mission statements. Since HEIS define their instituti,ons’ vision and mission in
response to the particularities of local or rcgional needs and opportunities. and in
considcration of specific institutitinal strengths and » eakneéses, the quality goals of
individual HEIs Hecessai ily differ from each otliei. 3“hus. if 1•liilippine HEIs arc true to their
institutional vision alid mission staieiTients. they are likely' to identif unique and different
attributes and quality outcoiiies. Likeu'ise, Hals witli similar institutional vision and mission
statements may have similar and overlapping atti ibutes and quality outcomes.
Section 18: In order to enhance quality assurance and improve the higher education system,
UC Commission has to change its true-size-tit.s-all QA system. T,he existing one-size-fits-all
Q.A of CHED, which is based on the JHA for universities, imposes a common set of quality
inJicat‹ars for all Philippine HEIs regardless of their
Thus, institutions are compelled
to direct their QA efforts tc›fi”dIds meeting CHED quality indicators that are not aligned with
their qualit outcomes, which prevent them from iinprovingl the quality of Philippine
education as a whole. .Among the consequences of the existing one-size-fits-all Q.A system
are the fo1lo»'ing:
•
It creates inefficiencies ithin HEIs as they are. ,in effect, being required to
channel limited resorts ces to qualit y outcomes that may be irrelevant four their
mission and context. For the hlgher education sector, these inefficicncles are
multiplied by tin number of HEI who pursue thc colilinon QA mcti ics of
CHED, which were meant Air universities. On tire other hand. the common
rneti ics, which are intended fen iniiveisities. are atered down in their
implementation by issues of coiiipliance or the major ity ot the counti y’.« more
than 1800 FIEIs.
•
It reinforces z Neneh.‹nt for universit}' status th¿4t Results in a crisis of purpose.
itt HEIs “Jalliny hurl ol’ l›einy ’[ at they’ could, he. aitd, in the pi'ocess, net
S