2005 AACCUP ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION
February 16-17, 2005
PROGRAM OF ACTIVITIES
FEBRUARY 16, 2005 (Wednesday)
A.M.
6:00 – 8:50
REGISTRATION OF PARTICIPANTS
8:50 – 9:00
PARTICIPANTS and GUESTS ASSEMBLE
9:00 – 10:30
OPENING PROGRAM
Dr. Nora J. Claravall
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees
Coordinator
Invocation
Saring Himig
Bulacan State University
Pambansang Awit
Saring Himig
Bulacan State University
Opening Statement and Welcome
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel
President, AACCUP and
Bulacan State University
Message
Dr. Eldigario D. Gonzales
President, PASUC and
Western Mindanao State University
Keynote Address
Fr. Rolando V. dela Rosa
Chair
Commission on Higher Education
Entertainment Number
Saring Himig
Bulacan State University
Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang
Vice-President, AACCUP, and
President, Cavite State University
Presiding
10:30 – 11:00
BREAK
11:00 – 12:00
CHED POLICIES ON ACCREDITATION
Dr. Maria Cristina D. Padolina
Commissioner, In-charge of Quality
Assurance – Higher Education
Development Project, CHED
Dr. Ester B. Velasquez
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees, and
President, Cebu Normal University
Presiding
P.M.
12:00 – 1:00
LUNCH BREAK
1:15 – 2:30
THE PROPOSED SCHEME OF
INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION
FOR SUCs
and
THE PROPOSED HANDBOOOK ON
ACCREDITATION
Dr. Manuel T. Corpus
Executive Director, AACCUP
Dr. John S. Imlan
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees,
and Director for Accreditation, and
Internal Assessment, Technological
University of the Philippines
Dr. Danilo S. Hilario
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees,
and Presidential Assistant on External
Affairs, Bulacan State University
Dr. Nilo L. Rosas
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees, and
President, Philippine Normal University
Presiding
2:30 – 3:00
BREAK
3:00 – 5:00
SIMULTANEOUS SESSIONS TO DISCUSS
Session 1 – Institutional Accreditation Scheme
Dr. Nelson T. Binag
President, Sultan Kudarat Polytechnic
State College
Chair
Dr. Nora J. Claravall
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees
Rapporteur
Session2 – The Handbook on Accreditation
Dr. Soledad M. Roguel
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees,
and Professor, Central Luzon State
University
Chair
Dr. Marcela T. Caluscosin
Member, AACCUP Board of Trustees,
and Director of Instruction, Don
Mariano Marcos Memorial State
University
Rapporteur
FEBRUARY 17, 2005 (Thursday)
A.M.
8:00 – 10:00
PLENARY SESSION (Break-Out Session Reports)
Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang
Presiding
P.M.
10:00 – 10:30
BREAK
10:30 – 11:30
BUSINESS MEETING
The President’s Report
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel
Presiding
11:30 – 12:00
ELECTION OF 2005 – 2007
BOARD OF TRUSTEES
Atty. Pablo T. Mateo
Former PUP and PASUC President
Chair, Election Committee
12:00 – 1:00
LUNCH BREAK
1:15 – 4:30
CLOSING SESSION
Summation
Dr. Nilo E. Colinares
Consultant, AACCUP
Announcement of Election Results
Atty. Pablo T. Mateo
Awarding of Certificates
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel
Closing Remarks
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel
Dr. John S. Imlan
Presiding
2005 AACCUP ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION
Century Park Hotel, Manila
February 16-17, 2005
PROCEEDINGS
February 16, 2005
Morning
Registration
Registration started in the afternoon of February 15, 2005, to
accommodate early arrivals and continued in the morning of February 16. Dr.
Nora J. Claravall, AACCUP Trustee and Auditor, supervised the activity.
Opening Program
The opening program, presided over by Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang,
President of Cavite State University and Vice-President of the AACCUP, featured
Bulacan State University’s Saring Himig Choir who rendered the invocation,
Pambansang Awit and musical entertainment numbers.
Dr. Angel C. Alcala, former Chair of the Commission on Higher Education
and present member of the NNQAA Board representing the private sector,
graced the opening program.
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel, President of the AACCUP and of Bulacan State
University, gave the opening statement and officially welcomed the 473
participants to the convention.
Dr. Manuel T. Corpus, Executive Director of the AACCUP, followed with
some updates on the AACCUP, including the approval by the Asia-Pacific Quality
Network (APQN) of AACCUP’s proposal to conduct the training in Manila on
Institutional Accreditation using subsidy granted by the World Bank Development
Facility; the AACCUP’s elevation to membership in the Extended Board of the
APQN (represented by Dr. Corpus); the revision, updating and improving of the
AACCUP’s Accreditation Scheme; and the conduct of a series of four-day
trainings for new accreditors combined with veteran accreditors’ re-orientation.
Dr. Corpus stressed that the AACCUP’s proposed institutional accreditation does
not eliminate program accreditation. He also announced the granting of grace
period, until December 2005, to all SUCs with overdue accreditation visits.
Keynote Address
Substituting for CHED Chair Fr. Rolando V. de la Rosa as keynote
speaker, Dr. Amelia A. Biglete, CHED Executive Director, read and elaborated
on CHED Memorandum Order No. 01, series of 2005, on the “Revised Policies
and Guidelines on Voluntary Accreditation in Aid of Quality and Excellence in
Higher Education.”
Among the salient items in CMO No. 01 are: (1) CHED’s
acknowledgement of the NNQAA composed of the AACCUP and the ALCUCOA; (2) CHED’s authorization of federations/networks of accrediting agencies
to certify to the CHED the accredited status of programs/institutions granted by
their member accrediting agencies; (3) CHED’s recognition of one
federation/network largely serving the public sector educational institutions and
one for the private sector educational institutions; (4) functions of
federations/networks of accrediting agencies; (5) accreditation levels for program
accreditation; and (6) benefits for program accreditation.
Transitory provisions include: (1) the NNQAA’s submission to the CHED
documents on how the Network is able to do Article III, Section 2, Parts d, e, f, g,
and h within three months of the effectivity of the CMO for certification by the
CHED; (2) CHED’s recognition of accreditation levels on the basis of
certifications by federations/networks under CHED Order No. 31, s. 1995, to
remain in effect until their defined/prescribed expiration period; (3) CHED’s
recognition of all AACCUP-accredited programs as of the date of issuance of
CMO No. 01 upon AACCUP’s submission of a list of such programs within 30
days upon issuance of the CMO; and (4) CHED’s recognition of AACCUPaccredited programs after the date of issuance of the Memo only after all
requirements shall have been fulfilled as required by the CMO; and (5)
AACCUP’s recognition by a recognized federation/network.
Dr. Biglete also announced the approval of CHED’s subsidy of
P300,000.00 for AACCUP’s preparation of a new Accreditation Instrument and
P100,000.00 for a new Accreditation Handbook and Framework.
Immediately following Dr. Biglete’s keynote speech was the signing of the
Memorandum of Agreement by the Presidents (or their representatives) of the 12
SUCs granted CHED’s subsidy for the pre-survey and preliminary survey of their
programs.
Afternoon
The afternoon session was presided over by Dr. Nilo L. Rosas, AACCUP
Trustee and President of the Philippine Normal University. Nolen Cabahug,
acclaimed and popular Filipino tenor, gave a surprise musical intermission with
his rendition of popular Josh Groban songs.
Dr. Carlito S. Puno, CHED Commissioner, attended the afternoon session
and delivered a brief but morale-boosting inspirational message.
Paper Presentation: The Proposed Scheme of
Institutional Accreditation for SUCs
Dr. Manuel T. Corpus, AACCUP Executive Director, presented the
Proposed Scheme of Institutional Accreditation for SUCs.
Dr. Corpus
enumerated some reasons for the AACCUP’s development of the proposed
scheme: high cost of program accreditation; appropriateness of institutional
accreditation in Philippine educational institutions; and usefulness and relevance
of institutional accreditation to the major stakeholders.
Dr. Corpus enumerated and explained the criteria for institutional
assessment which cover: (1) Governance and Management, (2) Academic
Standards, (3) Research, (4) Academic Staffing, (5) Support to Students, (6)
Community Relations and (7) Management of Resources. The evaluation
system was also presented and clarified. Likewise explained was how SUCs can
qualify for institutional accreditation.
Dr. Corpus noted that it would probably take a year’s time before the first
institutional accreditation visit could take place, considering the series of activities
required to enable institutions to comply with requirements.
On the other hand, Dr. Corpus added, the AACCUP must first also
undertake some activities before it could conduct on-site institutional
accreditation visit.
Paper Presentation: Proposed Handbook on Accreditation
The Proposed Handbook on Accreditation was presented by Dr. Corpus;
and by Dr. Danilo S. Hilario and Dr. John S. Imlan, AACCUP Trustees. Six
topics included were: (1) Accreditation Program; (2) Mechanics of Accreditation;
(3) Activities Before the Accreditation Visit; (4) Activities During the Accreditation
Visit; (5) Activities After the Accreditation Visit; and (6) Qualification, Roles,
Functions and Code of Conduct of Accreditors.
Simultaneous Discussion Sessions
Following the two paper presentations were the simultaneous discussion
sessions with Dr. Nelson T. Binag, President of Sultan Kudarat Polytechnic State
College, chairing the group for the Institutional Accreditation Scheme, and Dr.
Soledad, M. Roguel, AACCUP Trustee from the Central Luzon State University,
heading the group for the Handbook on Accreditation.
Among the issues brought up were: how to organize an Institutional
Assessment Body (IAB), the suggested IAB structure, and the relationship of the
IAB with the AACCUP.
The participants also discussed the following: the multi-campus issue,
specifying what a campus exactly is; continuation of program accreditation even
with the implementation and conduct of institutional accreditation; need for
separate accreditation instruments for specialized SUCs and for general
comprehensive SUCs; suggestion for the framing of master and subsidiary
instruments; need for emphasis on research, particularly in accrediting graduate
programs.
Also brought up was the issue on the ISO, with the participants inquiring if
the ISO could be considered as, and take the place of, institutional accreditation.
It was, however, made clear that the ISO was an entirely different evaluation
scheme since its focus was more on systems and procedures; thus, it could not
be considered as a replacement for AACCUP institutional accreditation.
Other concerns raised were the urgent need for the CHED’s recognition of
AACCUP’s proposed institutional accreditation; small and developing SUCs’
need for the AACCUP’s help in securing CHED’s assistance for their
improvements; and group insurance for the accreditors.
Nomination of Candidates for the AACCUP Board
While the participants were discussing various AACCUP and related
concerns, the nomination of candidates for the new AACCUP Board
commenced. Nomination ballots were cast until 4:00 p.m.
The Committee on Elections was chaired by former PUP President Pablo
T. Mateo. For the first time, nomination was done according to geographical
areas – Luzon, the Visayas and Mindanao – for the purpose of better and more
comprehensive representation in the Board.
Of the 21 nominees, 11 were for Luzon, 5 for the Visayas and 5 for
Mindanao.
The nominees for Luzon were: Dr. Susana Cabredo, Dr. Rosario Pimentel,
Dr. Nilo Rosas, Dr. Ruperto Sangalang, Dr. Lauro Tacbas, Dr. Marcela
Caluscosin, Dr. Danilo Hilario, Dr. Hernando Robles, Dr. Edna Chua, Dr. John
Imlan, and Dr. Lydia Lalunio.
For the Visayas: Dr. Rocheller Dadivas, Dr. Ester Velasquez, Dr.
Iluminado Nical, Dr. Aladino Leccio, and Dr. Alberto Trinidad.
For Mindanao: Dr. Nelson Binag, Dr. Grace Lopez, Dr. Leoncia Partoza,
Dr. Florinda Garcia, and Dr. Daniel Ugay.
February 17, 2005
Morning
Plenary Session
With Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang presiding, the group discussions during
the preceding afternoon were continued in the early part of February 17.
The President’s Report
After the Plenary session, the business meeting followed, during which Dr.
Rosario P. Pimentel, AACCUP President, delivered his Report for Calendar Year
2004.
The President’s Report included the following accomplishments:
preliminary survey of 42 programs of 19 institutions; formal survey of 22
programs of nine institutions; first resurvey of 30 programs of seven institutions;
second resurvey for Level III of six programs of three institutions; and on-going
assessment for Level III of 21 programs of seven institutions.
Dr. Pimentel also reported the conduct of consultancy visits of both SUCs
and local colleges and the combined four-day training of new accreditors and
reorientation of veteran accreditors held in four SUCs in Luzon and one in the
Visayas, including a total of 123 participants; the AACCUP’s establishment of
linkages and affiliations with national and international accrediting bodies;
publication of a journal, a newsletter and the proceedings of the AACCUPNNQAA Annual National Conference (February 11 – 13, 2004) and the Mid-Year
AACCUP National Seminar Conference (August 25 – 27, 2004); and preparation
of the AACCUP’s Framework of Institutional Accreditation.
Dr. Pimentel revealed that drafting and revision of the survey instruments,
accreditation handbook and the Framework of Institutional Accreditation were
conducted at the Great Eastern Hotel (Quezon City), University of Southeastern
Philippines (Davao City), West Visayas State University (Iloilo City) and Leyte
Normal University (Tacloban City), involving a total of 73 participants.
He further announced that the framework, handbook and master survey
instrument were ready for adoption.
Major AACCUP problems were: the non-release of the CHED subsidy to
the Agency, inability to automate data for efficient records-keeping, limited
resources for the operationalization of the NNQAA, lack of AACCUP office
personnel, and inactive membership of some SUCs.
Dr. Pimentel reported that AACCUP’s P2,695,575.10 income for calendar
year 2004 was generated from annual dues, accreditation and consultancy
services, sale of instruments, annual convention, mid-year conference,
workshops and trainings. After deduction of depreciation expenses, amount
available for 2005 was P137,433.12.
Also announced were the AACCUP’s plans for 2005: (1) launching of the
Insitutional Accreditation Scheme; (2) conduct of institutional accreditation in
qualified SUCs; (3) use of the newly revised instruments for program
accreditation; (4) maximization of efforts for the release of CHED’s subsidy for
AACCUP accreditation; (5) selection and retraining of experienced accreditors;
(6) undertaking of all pre-implementation activities for the revised instruments visà-vis the retraining sessions; (7) helping in the organization and/or strengthening
of the IABs of SUCs; (8) strengthening of AACCUP’s linkages with national and
international quality assurance bodies: (9) dissemination of updates and
information on accreditation; and (10) invitation of foreign accreditation experts
for the training of trainors and accreditors on institutional accreditation.
Election of the 2005-2006 Board of Trustees
The President’s Report was followed with the election of the 2005-2006
Board of Trustees. Atty. Pablo T. Mateo, chaired the election proceedings.
Three separate ballot boxes were prepared for Luzon, the Visayas and
Mindanao, respectively.
Afternoon
Closing Session
Dr. Nilo E. Colinares, AACCUP Consultant, summarized the proceedings
of the two-day convention, highlighting the key and vital points of the speeches,
presentations and discussion sessions.
The election results were then announced, with the following emerging as
winners:
For Luzon- Dr. Rosario Pimentel of Bulacan State University; Dr. Ruperto
S. Sangalang, Cavite State University; Dr. Marcela T. Caluscosin, Don Mariano
Marcos Memorial State University; Dr. Danilo S. Hilario, Bulacan State
University; and Dr. John S. Imlan, Technological University of the Philippines.
For the Visayas- Dr. Ester B. Velazquez, Cebu Normal University; Dr.
Alberto J. Trinidad, West Visayas State University; and Dr. Aladino L. Leccio,
Capiz State University.
For Mindanao- Dr. Nelson T. Binag, Sultan Kudarat Polytechnic State
College, Dr. Grace G. Lopez, University of Southern Mindanao; and Dr. Florinda
V. Garcia, Zamboanga State College of Marine Sciences and Technology.
After the distribution of certificates of attendance and participation, Dr.
Pimentel gave his brief closing remarks.
The newly-elected AACCUP Board held a short meeting to plan for their
oath taking and first regular meeting some time in April 2005.
REVISED POLICIES AND GUIDELINES ON VOLUNTARY ACCREDITATION
IN AID OF QUALITY AND EXCELLENCE IN HIGHER EDUCATION
Presented and Explained by
DR. AMELIA A. BIGLETE
Executive Director, CHED
(representing Dr. Maria Cristina D. Padolina)
In accordance with the pertinent provisions of Republic Act (RA) No. 7722,
otherwise known as the “Higher Education Act of 1994,” the Commission on
Higher Education hereby promulgates the Revised Policies and Guidelines on
Voluntary Accreditation in Aid of Quality and Excellence in Higher Education for
the information and guidance of all concerned:
Article I
Statement of Policies
1.
It is the declared policy of the State to encourage and assist, through the
Commission on Higher Education (CHED), higher education institutions
(HEIs) which desire to attain standards of quality over and above the
minimum required by the State.
2.
For this purpose, the CHED encourages the use of voluntary nongovernmental accreditation systems in aid of the exercise of its regulatory
functions. The CHED will promote a policy environment which supports
the accreditation’s non-governmental and voluntary character and protects
the integrity of the accreditation process.
3.
The CHED acknowledges the pioneering work and efforts of the
accrediting agencies now federated under the Federation of Accrediting
Agencies of the Philippines (FAAP), namely the Association of Christian
Schools, Colleges and Universities Accrediting Agency, Inc. (ACSCUAAI), the Philippine Accrediting Association of Schools, Colleges and
Universities (PAASCU), and the Philippine Association of Colleges and
Universities Commission on Accreditation (PACU-COA).
4.
Further, the CHED acknowledges the existence of the National Network of
Quality Accrediting Agencies (NNQAA), now made up of the Accrediting
Agency of Chartered Colleges and Universities of the Philippines
(AACCUP) and the Association of Local Colleges and Universities
Commission on Accreditation (ALCUCOA).
5.
The CHED shall authorize federations/networks of accrediting agencies
which shall certify to the CHED the accredited status of
programs/institutions granted by their member accrediting agencies and in
accordance with their own standards, as accepted by the CHED, for
granting benefits to institutions/programs at various accredited levels, and
as contained in Article V of this CHED Memorandum Order (CMO).
6.
The CHED shall recognize one federation/network largely serving the
public sector educational institutions and one for the private sector
educational institutions, without restricting the freedom of any educational
institution, public or private, to choose an accrediting agency for various
educational programs which may belong to either federation/network.
7.
The CHED demands responsibility and accountability from federations/ or
networks for their certification of the quality of education offered in
accredited programs/institutions.
Article II
Institutional and Program Accreditation
1.
Accreditation is a process for assessing and upgrading the educational
quality of higher education institutions and programs through selfevaluation and peer judgment. It leads to the grant of accredited status by
an accrediting agency and provides public recognition and information on
educational quality
2.
Program Accreditation refers to the evaluation of individual programs of a
higher education institution.
3.
Institutional Accreditation refers to the evaluation of a whole educational
institution of which the guidelines and standards shall be formulated in
collaboration with the existing federations/networks of accrediting
agencies to be approved by the CHED.
Article III
Federations/Networks of Accrediting Agencies
1.
Accrediting agencies shall join either of the above-mentioned
federations/networks; the federation/network must have procedures and
guidelines in accepting accrediting agencies as members, following this
CMO.
2.
Federations/networks of accrediting agencies shall have the following
functions:
a. Accept and recognize its member accrediting agencies. The
applicant accrediting agency must be required to have the
following:
(1) standards for accreditation which are adequately rigorous,
competitive and reflect current acceptable practice;
(2) appropriate survey and assessment instruments and
processes;
(3) effective mechanism for assessing compliance of
programs/institutions with its own standards;
(4) policies and procedures for the grant, suspension or
revocation of accredited status of programs/institutions in
accordance with the federation/network policies and
procedures.
Furthermore, the accrediting agency shall submit required annual
reports and documents to the federation/network.
b. Monitor the operations of member agencies, including their
processes and procedures, and training and selection of
accreditors;
c. Certify to the CHED the accreditation status of programs/institutions
accredited by its member agencies;
d. Assure the comparability of standards of member accrediting
agencies;
e. Upgrade and update standards, procedures and criteria for
accreditation;
f. Contribute to quality education through the enhancement and
development of the accreditation movement;
g. Establish procedures for addressing complaints by higher
education institutions regarding procedures and processes of
accrediting agencies;
h. Maintain a valid and reliable data management and analysis
system relating to their member accrediting agencies; and
i. Submit annual reports to the CHED on its operations, especially
programs/institutions accredited.
3.
Federations/networks seeking CHED recognition should show evidence
acceptable to the CHED that they are able to undertake the functions as
indicated in Article III, Section 2 of this CMO;
a. Federations/networks seeking recognition shall submit application
to the CHED and should include the following:
(1)
SEC Registration, Articles of Incorporation and approved
By-Laws;
(2) Listing of officers and members of the governing board;
(3) Board resolution authorizing the submission of
application for CHED recognition;
(4) Short history of the organization and its works;
(5) Listing of the member accrediting agencies;
(6) Description of accreditation process as done by member
agencies;
(7) Full set of accreditation instruments used by its member
agencies;
(8) Sample self-evaluation reports and sample of the
Chairman’s report of actual survey;
(9) Description of training processes and procedures of
accreditors of its member agencies; and
(10) If a network/federation is new and has not functioned yet,
it should submit documentations to show the CHED that
it is able to do functions specified in Article III, Section 2.
b. Within two (2) months from application and submission of all the
required documents, the CHED, for valid reasons, may grant
provisional recognition to federation/network subject to annual
review.
c. The federations/networks recognized by the CHED shall be subject
to periodic review every five years after recognition or as the need
arises;
d. Federations/networks found not conforming with the policies and
guidelines of this CMO shall be required by the CHED to comply
within six (6) months after notification;
e. After due process is observed, the CHED may limit, suspend or
withdraw recognition of a federation/network.
Article IV
Accreditation Levels for Program Accreditation
1.
For purposes of receiving benefits, educational programs are classified as
candidate and one of four (4) accredited levels.
a. Candidate status: for programs which have undergone a preliminary
survey visit and are certified by the federation/network as being
capable of acquiring accredited status within two years;
b. Level I accredited status: for programs which have been granted
initial accreditation after a formal survey by the accrediting agency
and duly certified by the accreditation federation/network, effective for
a period of three years;
c. Level II re-accredited status: for programs which have been reaccredited by the accrediting agency and duly certified by the
accreditation federation/network, effective for a period of three or five
years based on the appraisal of the accrediting agency;
d. Level III re-accredited status: for programs which have been reaccredited and have met the additional criteria/guidelines set by the
federation/network for this level.
Level III re-accredited undergraduate programs must satisfy the first
two of the following criteria and two others of the succeeding ones:
(1) A reasonably high standard of instruction;
(2) A highly visible community extension program. A description of
the programs, the nature and extent of student, faculty and staff
involvement, and other details shall be required documentation for
this indicator;
(3) A highly visible research tradition. The following must be
observable over a reasonable period of time:
(a) provision for a reasonable budget
(b) quality of completed outputs
(c) measurable result such as publication, etc.
(d) involvement of a significant number of faculty members and
(e) visible, tangible and measurable impact on the community
(4) A strong faculty development tradition evidenced by an
appropriate budget allocation and/or systematic plan for faculty
development programs.
(5) A highly creditable performance of its graduates in licensure
examinations over the last three years (will apply only to those
programs where such examinations are required)
(6) Existence of working consortia or linkages with other schools
and/or agencies.
Documentary evidence shall include a
description of the nature, mechanism, working agreements and
other details of consortia.
(7) Extensive and functional library and other learning resource
facilities.
Level III accredited graduate programs must satisfy (1) and (3) and
any two of (2), (4), (5), (6) and (7) above.
The institutions should submit pictorial and documentary evidence to
support its claims.
Only programs that have been granted “clean” re-accreditation,
meaning that no progress report or interim visit is required within the
five-year accreditation period, may apply for Level III status.
e. Level IV accredited status: accredited programs which are highly
respected as very high quality academic programs in the Philippines
and with prestige and authority comparable to similar programs in
excellent foreign universities.
These programs
criteria/guidelines:
must
have
met
the
following
additional
Excellent outcomes in –
(1) Research as seen in the number, scope and impact of
scholarly publications in refereed national and international
journals;
(2) Teaching and learning as proven in excellent performance of
graduates and continuing assessment of student achievement;
(3) Community service and the impact of contributions to the
economic and social upliftment, on both regional and national
levels;
(4) Evidence of international linkages and consortia; and
(5) Well developed planning processes which support quality
assurance mechanisms.
HEIs should provide adequate documentation in support of
application for Level IV accredited status.
Article V
Benefits for Program Accreditation
The following benefits for the different accreditation levels shall be
provided:
A. For Private Sector Insitutions:
Level I/Level II
(1) Full administrative deregulation, provided that reports of
promotion of students and lists of graduates are available for
review by the CHED at all times
(2) Financial deregulation in terms of setting of tuition and other
school fees and charges.
(3) Authority to revise the curriculum with CHED approval
provided that the CHED and the Professional Regulation
Commission minimum requirements and guidelines, where
applicable, are complied with and the revised curriculum is
submitted to the CHED Regional Offices.
(4) Authority to graduate students from accredited courses or
programs of study in the levels accredited without prior
approval of the CHED and without need for Special Orders.
(5) Priority in the awards of grants/subsidies or funding assistance
from the CHED-Higher Education Development Fund (HEDF)
for scholarships and faculty development, facilities
improvement and other development programs.
(6) Right to use on its publications or advertisements the word
“ACCREDITED” pursuant to CHED policies and rules.
(7) Limited visitation, inspection and/.or supervision by the CHED
supervisory personnel or representatives.
Level III
(1) All benefits for Level I/II
(2) Authority to offer new courses allied to existing Level III
courses without need for prior approval, provided that the
concerned CHED Regional Office (CHEDRO) is duly informed.
(3) Privilege to apply for authority to offer new graduate programs,
open learning/distance education, extension classes and to
participate in the transnational education.
Level IV
(1) All benefits for Levels I, II and III.
(2) Grant of full autonomy for the program for the duration of its
Level IV accredited status.
(3) Authority to offer new graduate programs allied to existing
Level IV courses, open learning/distance education and
extension classes without need for prior approval by the
CHED provided that the concerned CHEDRO is duly informed.
B. For Public Sector Institutions
1. Though public sector institutions already possess most, if not all, of
the benefits related to curricular and administrative deregulation
granted to private sector institutions at various accreditation levels,
accreditation level will be used by the CHED and the Department of
Budget and Management in recommending budgetary allocation for
public sector institutions.
2. As for accredited private sector institutions, accredited public sector
institutions shall also enjoy priority in terms of available funding
assistance from the CHED for scholarships and faculty
development, facilities improvement and other development
programs.
3. Right to use on its publications or advertisements the word
“ACCREDITED” pursuant to CHED policies and rules.
Article VI
Transitory Provisions
1.
Pursuant to Article III, Section 3, the FAAP, a federation recognized by the
CHED, shall submit to the CHED documents on their existence,
membership, procedures, accredited programs and summary on how the
federations/networks are able to do Article III, Section 2, Parts d, e, f, g
and h within three (3) months of the effectivity of this CMO for recertification by the CHED.
2.
Likewise, pursuant to Article III, Section 3, the NNQAA, a network that has
not been recognized by the CHED, shall submit to the CHED documents
on their existence, membership, procedures, accredited programs and
summary on how the federation/network is able to do Article III, Section 2,
Parts d, e, f, g, and h within three (3) months of the effectivity of this CMO
for certification by the CHED.
3.
Accreditation levels recognized by the CHED, on the basis of certifications
by federations/networks under the previous CHED Order No. 31, s. 1995,
shall remain in effect until their defined/prescribed expiration period.
4.
All programs accredited by the AACCUP, as of the date of issuance of this
CMO, shall be deemed recognized by the CHED upon submission of a list
of such programs by the AACCUP within thirty (30) days upon issuance of
this CMO.
5.
Programs accredited by the AACCUP, after the date of issuance of this
CMO, shall be recognized by the CHED only after all requirements shall
have been fulfilled as required by this CMO. The AACCUP should
therefore seek recognition from a recognized federation/network.
Article VII
Effectivity
This CMO supercedes CHED Order No. 31, s. 1995 and shall take effect
immediately.
Pasig City, Philippines, February 15, 2005.
(Sgd.) FR. ROLANDO V. DE LA ROSA, O.P.
Chair
PROPOSED INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION SCHEME
FOR STATE UNIVERSITIES AND COLLEGES
Dr. Manuel T. Corpus
Executive Director, AACCUP
INTRODUCTION
This scheme of Institutional Accreditation is not an instant thought. It is
the product of a long and rigorous study through a series of workshops
participated in by knowledgeable top educators, references to local and foreign
experts met at international fora, a workshop on the subject conducted by a
consultant sponsored by the British Council, and observation studies of
institutional accreditation at the United Kingdom and Australia not to mention
almost daily visits to the website.
Since September 1992, when the Accrediting Agency of Chartered
Colleges and Universities in the Philippines (AACCUP) held its first accreditation
visit, assessment has always been by program.
Accreditation by program is good. It is focused but it also has limitations.
Institutions hosting accreditation survey started feeling that there was too
much fragmentation into programs. It was costly. Attendance in international
fora, particularly in the biennial and annual conferences of the International
Network of Quality Assurance Agencies, (INQAAHE), of which the AACCUP is a
full member, created the awareness that there are alternative models to program
accreditation.
Thus, in its Annual National Conference in January 2001, AACCUP
members recommended that serious study be made on the potential of adopting
a model of institutional accreditation.
Two months after the annual conference, the AACCUP Board of Trustees
in its regular meeting on March 1, 2002, authorized a study and designated the
Executive Director as leader.
UNITS OF ASSESSMENT
Some countries use program as the unit of assessment. To date, it is
adopted in the Philippines by all accrediting agencies. Accrediting by program
enjoys the advantage of reviewing a small unit. As it looks into details, it is wellfocused. However, in our country, accrediting programs of over a thousand
higher education institutions would take many years, perhaps even a century, to
accredit all programs even in just one cycle. This may be one of the major
explanations why, in spite of a history spanning a period of almost half a century,
we can claim coverage of about 20%. Obviously, sticking to programs alone is
not the practical approach suited in the Philippines unless we are prepared to
accept the continued weakening of our educational system.
Institutional accreditation is more appropriate in more mature educational
institutions and in countries where many operate as in the Philippines.
One practical advantage of accreditation by institution is that the academic
quality is defined by its collective impact. Indeed, in accreditation surveys, it is
operationally strenuous to segregate the evaluation of certain inputs to the
academic program as these are not used exclusively by the program under
survey but are shared with other units or programs of the institution.
Another advantage of using the institution as the unit of assessment is its
usefulness and relevance to the major stakeholders, such as the government
which provides the funds to state-supported institutions.
CRITERIA IN INSTITUTIONAL ASSESSMENT
There is no single model of what constitutes an accredited university or
college. But, it is still possible to identify certain defining and globally accepted
characteristics like its fostering and support of scholarly activity and creative
research; its regard of its accountability to its stakeholders on the integrity of its
scholarship; its maintenance of academic standard; the impartiality of its
judgments; the effectiveness of its systems; and the competence of its
graduates.
Specifically, it should be able to demonstrate its active commitment to and
achievement of:
the creation, transmission and conservation of knowledge;
the development of a constantly high level of knowledge and in
appropriate fields of study of expert knowledge, skills and
understanding among students and staff;
the exchange of knowledge across disciplines and geographic
boundaries.
an ethos of critical and self-centered inquiry in all its areas of activity;
a consciously professional approval to research and the facilitation of
learning;
recognition, by academic peers and other appropriate organizations, of
the academic standards of its research activities, degrees, other
awards and programs of study.
substantial participation by, and recognition of, its staff in national and
international scholarly activities, the latter including participation in pure
and applied research and scholarship, pedagogical developments and
research consultants;
regular dialogue on its performance with students, employers and
other stakeholders;
the contribution of expertise to broader local, national or international
affairs; and
continual improvement of its way of doing things.
The criteria in conducting institutional accreditation follows:
Governance and Management
Criterion. The institution’s governance, management, financial control
and quality assurance arrangements are sufficient to manage existing
operations and to respond to development and change.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. Its academic and financial planning, quality assurance and
resource allocation policies are coherent and relate to its
missions, aims and objectives;
b. There is a clarity of function and responsibility in relation to its
governance and managements systems;
c. Across the full range of its activities, there is demonstrated depth
and strength of academic leadership;
d. Policies and systems are developed and implemented in a
manner that involves staff and where appropriate, students;
e. Its mission and associated policies and systems are understood,
accepted and actively applied by staff;
f. It is managing successfully its existing responsibilities for the
qualifications to which its programs lead;
g. Its operational policies and systems are monitored, and that it
identifies where, when, why and how changes might need to be
made;
h. Its administrative systems provide effective support to its
academic programs; and
i. There is demonstrable information to indicate continued
confidence and stability over an extended period of time in its
governance,
financial
control
and
quality
assurance
arrangements, and organizational structure.
Academic Standards
Criterion A. The institution sets its academic objectives and learning
outcomes at appropriate level in a clear and consistent manner; and
has effective mechanisms to ensure that its academic programs meet
those objectives and enable students to achieve the intended
outcomes.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. Its program of study is offered at levels that correspond to the
levels of any applicable national qualifications;
b. It establishes and maintains comparability of standards with other
providers of equivalent level program, seeking advice from
academic peers in other higher education institutions nationally
and internationally and, where appropriate, from professional
bodies and other employment interests;
c. It has in place effective systems of periodic self-evaluation of
institutional systems and individual academic programs;
d. It has in place robust procedure for the initial approval and
periodic review of academic programs so as:
− to ensure that they remain current and valid in the light of
developments in the relevant field of study;
− to ensure that the coherence of program with multiple
elements or alternative pathways is secured and
maintained;
− to evaluate the continuing effectiveness of the curriculum
and assessment in relation to the intended learning
outcomes, and to current developments in pedagogy;
and
− to evaluate the extent to which the intended learning
outcomes are being achieved by students;
e. It takes active steps to ensure that its arrangements for student
assessment are valid, reliable, secure and externally verified; and
f. There is an effective link between academic planning and
resource allocation.
Criterion B. The institution has effective arrangements for monitoring
the performance of its academic programs.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. The effectiveness of teaching and learning is monitored in relation
to curriculum content and the learning outcomes of the program;
b. There is effective matching of the abilities of students to the
demands of the programs to which they are recruited;
c. There is sufficient academic support to students to enable them to
progress within their programs of study;
d. Students receive timely and effective feedback on their progress;
e. There are adequate learning resources available to support each
program; and
f. There is a culture of continuous improvement in the delivery of
program.
Criterion C. The institution takes effective action to address weakness,
build on strengths, and to enhance performance by the dissemination
of good practice.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. Effective action is taken in response to matters raised through
self-evaluation or external review;
b. Feedback from staff, students and employees is secured,
evaluated and acted upon;
c. Effective mechanism exists for disseminating good practice
throughout the institution; and
d. Weaknesses in student performance identified through student
assessment are acted upon.
Research
Criterion. The institution has an environment of academic staff, post
graduates and postdoctoral workers that fosters and actively supports
creative research and scholarly activity.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. It exercises prudent management of its portfolio of research and
consultancy activities;
b. A substantial proportion of its academic staff are engaged in
research and scholarship;
c. In the majority of academic areas within which it undertakes
research, or other forms of advanced scholarship consistent with
its mission, it demonstrates achievement of national and/or
international standing;
d. It is successful in securing income for its research activities; and
e. It provides effective support to its postgraduate research students.
Academic Staffing
Criterion A. The qualities and competencies of staff are appropriate for
an institution with accredited title.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that a
significant proportion of its academic staff have:
a. Higher degrees, doctorates, relevant professional qualifications,
and fellowship of learned societies;
b. Teaching and/or research experience in other universities in the
country and abroad;
c. Experience of curriculum development, assessment design and
research management, including experience gained in other
universities; and
d. Relevant experience outside education; for example in
professional practice or in industrial research and development.
Criterion B. The institution’s staff are actively engaged in the
pedagogic development of their discipline and the development of their
own skills.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. A significant proportion of its academic staff are active in subject
associations, learned societies and relevant professional bodies;
b. A significant proportion of its academic staff participate in
professional development schemes; and
c. There are effective institutional strategies of staff development
designed to establish, develop and enhance staff competences.
Criterion C.
expertise.
Staff of the institution have acknowledged academic
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. A significant proportion of its academic staff is engaged in
research, academic reviews and scholarly commentary, produce
article, conference papers, textbooks and other academic-related
materials;
b. It has academic staff who are invited to contribute to the work of
expert committees, either as advisers, expert reviewers or
commentators;
c. It is able to attract individual or institutional commissioned
research and/or consultancy;
d. It is valued as a partner in collaborative projects; and
e. It it is involved in research partnerships and knowledge transfers
schemes with outside enterprises.
Criterion D. Staff maintain high professional standards and willingly
accept the professional responsibilities associated with operating in an
accredited environment.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. Individuals welcome and act upon feedback on their performance;
b. The outcomes of external scrutiny exercises are considered
positively, and are acted upon;
c. A significant proportion of its staff act as external examiners, or
equivalent roles, in other higher education institutions; and
d. A number of its staff act as external members of accreditation or
other review bodies.
Support to Students
Criterion. The institution operates effective arrangements to direct
scholarships and study to support the best and brightest students on
programs that develop competence needed to complete in global labor
markets.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. Its eligibility criteria and procedures for the selection of students
for the award of scholarships and study grants are clearly defined
and are understood by potential applicants;
b. Adequate resources are available to support beneficiaries for the
duration of their studies;
c. Beneficiaries receive appropriate guidance during their studies to
ensure that they gain maximum benefit from the support they
receive;
d. Beneficiaries complete their studies successfully within the
prescribed period; and
e. Beneficiaries enter employment that is appropriate to the aims of
the scholarship programs.
Community Relations
Criterion A. The institution offers program that take into consideration
the economic and developmental need of the country at local, regional
and national levels; and the need for the country to compete effectively
in global markets.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. It offers programs that contribute to the achievement of national
priorities in fields such as poverty alleviation, environmental
management and health;
b. It has partnership and arrangements for dialogue, with
professional organizations and industry, and that these inform the
content and design of programs;
c. It has program development and approval procedures that are
responsive to changing patterns and requirements of
employment; and
d. A significant proportion of its graduates enter employment in
which the abilities developed through their higher education are
utilized.
Criterion B. The institution is valued as a partner by other higher
education
institutions,
professional
institutions,
government
organizations and industry within the Philippines and internationally.
Evidence. The institutions should be able to demonstrate that:
a. It has a range of partner organizations and consortium
arrangements appropriate to its mission and programs;
b. It has faculty and student exchange and placement projects with
partner organizations;
c. It participates in academic networks at subject and institutional
levels;
d. It is able to access expertise through its partnership; and
e. It is able to secure project funding through its partnerships.
Criterion C. The institution is valued by its local community as a
provider of extension programs that are responsive to the need of the
community for people empowerment and self-reliance.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. It contributes to the local community through programs designed
to transfer technology and know-how to individuals and
organizations;
b. Extension programs are provided as a part of sustainable strategy
of working with the local community and responding to local
needs;
c. It has effective links with local government and community
organizations, and these are used to define the priorities for
extension programs;
d. It has adequate resources in place to support its extension
programs; and
e. Lessons from extension programs are used to inform the design
of research projects and the content of related mainstreams
academic programs.
Management of Resources
Criterion A. The institution has an adequate number of faculty with the
appropriate expertise and competence to teach the courses offered by
the institutions.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. Significant proportion of faculty have relevant master’s or doctoral
degrees, relevant professional qualifications, or relevant industrial
experience;
b. All faculty are fully updated with developments in their academic
field and have mastery of the content and contexts of the
programs they teach;
c. It has in place a faculty development program that provides
training in pedagogy and offers formal qualifications in teaching;
d. It has in place arrangements for the systematic evaluation of the
performance of teachers and for identifying training needs;
e. It has in place appropriate incentives for staff to undertake
professional development; and
f. Faculty are active in professional organizations and inter-agency
committees.
Criterion B. The institution makes effective use of information and
communications technology to support student learning and to manage
its academic affairs.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. There is effective linkage between academic planning and the
allocation of ICT resources;
b. It gives active consideration to ways in which ICT might support
student learning;
c. There is training available for faculty in which they might use ICT
to support learning;
d. There is training available for students on the use of the ICT
facilities of the institution; and
e. Where programs are supported by ICT, there is adequate student
access to terminals and other equipment.
Criterion C. The institution has a viable, sustainable and appropriate
income-generating strategy to support its development plans.
Evidence. The institution should be able to demonstrate that:
a. It has succeeded in generating income from programs and
projects, and that there can be confidence that its forward plans
will maintain and increase its income;
b. It is active in appraising potential sources of new income;
c. It takes a prudent attitude to management of risk in financial
matters;
d. It has a network of strong and active links with government and
non-government funding agencies in the Philippines and
overseas;
e. Funds gained for specific projects produce the outcomes
specified by the funder; and
f. It carries out effective monitoring and evaluation of its income
generating activities.
EVALUATION SYSTEM
As in program accreditation, an institutional accreditation instrument or
aide memoire needs to be constructed. The instrument will contain the criteria,
the evidence (benchmark statements) to demonstrate the criteria, and the rating
system. As institutional accreditation focuses more on systems than inputs,
evaluation will be more qualitative.
An example of a portion of the accreditation instrument may be made as
follows:
Academic Standards
Criterion. The institution has effective arrangements for monitoring the
performance of its academic programs
Evidence (Benchmark Statement)
The effectiveness of task and learning as
monitored in relation to curriculum
content and the learning outcomes.
Rating/Comments
The judgment to be made, using the institutional accreditation instrument,
will be made on the adequacy and effectiveness of the evidence shown by the
institution.
The decisions of the different demonstrated evidence will be in the form of
three major judgments on the provisions.
•
Provision is very substantial to achieve the intended outcome with
most elements demonstrating good practice. The adjective rating is
“commendable”. As in the 5-point scale used by the AACCUP in the
rating or programs, this “commendable” rating is equivalent to
numerical adjective rating of:
5 – Excellent
4 – Very Satisfactory
•
•
Provision is adequate to enable intended outcomes to be achieved but
improvements should be made to overcome deficiencies.
The
adjective rating is “adequate”. The numerical rating is 3; the adjective
rating is “satisfactory”.
Provision is less than adequate.
Significant improvements are
required to make the provision at least adequate. The numerical
ratings are:
2 – Poor
1 – Very Poor
These two ratings are not acceptable to be able to award an accredited
status.
QUALIFYING FOR INSTITUTIONAL ACCREDITATION
Accreditation by program continues in state universities and colleges
inasmuch as accreditation of programs at various levels is an entry requirement
for institutional accreditation. Accredited programs will be credited to the SUC
when it decides to apply for the accreditation of the institution. Besides, SUCs
which feel that they are not yet ready for the accreditation of the whole institution
may as well opt for the accreditation of their programs.
Institutional accreditation is not an undertaking that any entity can rush
into. Institutional accreditation will be pursued under two pre-conditions:
•
•
There are higher education institutions that can already qualify and are
interested and ready; and
There is an accrediting agency that possesses the capability and
expertise to conduct accreditation by institution.
Entry requirements should be defined to qualify for accreditation of the
institution.
Coverage. What is the institution? The following may constitute it:
a. the
whole
state/university/college
including
all
its
branches/campuses;
b. the main campus; or
c. an individual campus or cluster of campuses, provided that
it/they;
• house at least 50% of the curricular programs; or
• enroll at least 50% of the college students in the whole
state college/university.
Status of Accredited Programs. The accreditation status of the program is
pre-requisite before the SUC could qualify to be subjected to institutional
accreditation. The requirement will be enforced in the following manner:
•
To qualify for Level 1 status:
All programs are accredited Level I; or, at least, 75%
of the programs are accredited Level I and the rest
are at the candidate status;
•
To qualify for Level II
All programs are accredited Level II; or, at least, 75%
are accredited Level II; and all other programs are
accredited Level I.
•
To qualify for Level III
All programs are accredited Level III; or 75% are
accredited Level III; and all the rest are Level II.
•
To qualify for Level IV
All programs are accredited Level IV; or 75% are
accredited Level IV; and all the rest are Level III.
There will be four institutional accreditation levels.
Level I – Good maturing institutions
Level II – Good mature institutions
Level III – Very good and very mature institutions comparable with
the best in the Philippines
Level IV – Outstanding institutions, comparable with the best
globally.
STRATEGY: GO INSTITUTIONAL
It will probably take a year before the first institutional accreditation visit
takes place, considering the series of activities required of higher education
institutions to enable them to comply with requirements, and of the AACCUP to
help the former and to further develop its capability to conduct the first
institutional accreditation to visit by external accreditations.
On the part of the AACCUP, it must undertake the following activities
before the on-site institutional accreditation visit could take place:
•
Finalization of the draft “Handbook on Institutional Accreditation”;
•
Preparation of the Aide Memoire or Accreditation Instrument;
•
Conduct of nation-wide seminars to orient SUC members on the
mechanics and requirements of institutional accreditation;
•
Close and rigid consultancies to SUCs who have applied for, or
registered intent to go institutional; and
•
Recruit and train accreditors who will be drawn from:
a. Senior AACCUP accreditors,
b. Members from the private sector and
c. Foreign accreditors who will be engaged particularly in the initial
on-site visits.
A training of AACCUP accreditors, together with foreign accreditors from
the Asia-Pacific, is scheduled in May 2005 to be held in Manila with experts and
with financial subsidy from the Development Grant Facility of the World Bank
granted to the Asia Pacific Quality Network.
On the part of SUCs going institutional, they will be engaged in the
following preparatory activities:
•
Filing of application for institutional accreditation with the AACCUP, or
register “intent-to-go institutional”;
•
Attendance in AACCUP – sponsored seminars on the subject;
•
Inviting AACCUP experts for consultancies on the requirements and
mechanics of institutional accreditation;
•
Creation/strengthening
University/College;
•
Preparation Institutional Performance Profile; and
•
Preparation for the on-site visit.
of
the
Internal
Assessment
Body
of
the
YEAR-END REPORT OF THE PRESIDENT
CALENDAR YEAR 2005
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel
President, AACCUP
This report has six parts, to wit: (1.) Introduction; (2.) Accomplishments;
(3.) Major Problems; (4.) Governance; (5.) Finance; and (6.) Plans for the
Ensuing Calendar Year
I. INTRODUCTION
The Year 2004 paved the way for the introduction of a breakthrough in
Philippine accreditation, a milestone in the history of AACCUP – Institutional
Accreditation. Where evaluation by programs was the order of the day,
institutional accreditation, to be launched at this year’s Annual Conference, is a
product of a series of consultations, brainstorming sessions, seminarsworkshops, trainings and retrainings. The new scheme will find initial success
with the present leadership of the CHED, the Hon. Rolando De La Rosa, who not
only makes pronouncements on quality education as an offshoot of accreditation
but puts more teeth to such policies through concrete actions as the closure of
non-performing institutions.
II. ACCOMPLISHMENTS
A. MAJOR CONCERN
As an accrediting agency, the principal activities of the AACCUP centered
on the accreditation survey visits, with quality education reaching up to global
standards as major concern. The schools visited and the programs surveyed
were as follows:
1. Preliminary Survey
REGION
INSTITUTION/ADDRESS
PROGRAM
I
City College of Urdaneta (CCU)
Urdaneta City
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
III
Bataan Polytechnic State College Secondary Teacher Education
(BPSC) Balanga City
Industrial Technology
Nursing
Bulacan State University (BSU)
Bustos, Bulacan
Secondary Teacher Education
Industrial Technology
Tarlac College of Agriculture
(TCA) Camiling, Tarlac
Agriculture
Engineering
Entrepreneurship
Geodetic Engineering
Tarlac State University (TSU)
Tarlac City
Nutrition and Food Technology
IV-A
Laguna State Polytechnic
College (LSPC)
Los Baños, Laguna
Secondary Teacher Education
Fishery Education
Fisheries
IV-B
Mindoro State College of
Agriculture and Technology
(MinSCAT)
Victoria, Oriental Mindoro
Secondary Teacher Education
Agri-Bus./Economics
Palawan State University (PSU) Engineering (CE, ME & EE)
Puerto Princesa City
V
VI
Camarines Norte State College Elementary Teacher Education
(CNSC) Daet, Camarines Norte Secondary Teacher Education
Camarines Sur Polytechnic
Colleges (CSPC)
Nabua Campus
Electrical Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electronics and Communications
Engineering
Computer Engineering
Camarines Sur Polytechnic
College (CSPC)
Naga Campus
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Partido State University (PSU)
Goa Campus
Business Administration
Entrepreneurship
Office Administration
Partido State University (PSU)
Sañgay Campus
Fisheries
Negros State College of
Agriculture (NSCA)
Kabankalan City
Agriculture
Agricultural Teacher Education
Animal Science
Northern Iloilo Polytechnic
State College (NIPSC)
Barotac Viejo, Iloilo
Secondary Teacher Education
Agriculture
VIII
Eastern Samar State University
(ESSU)
Salcedo, Eastern Samar
Agribusiness
XII
Cotabato Foundation College
of Science and Technology
(CFCST)
Arakan, Cotabato
Home Economics
Forestry
Mindanao State University (MSU) Elementary Teacher Education
General Santos City
Secondary Teacher Education
CAR
Ifugao State College of
Elementary Teacher Education
Agriculture and Forestry (ISCAF) Secondary Teacher Education
Potia, Ifugao
2. Formal Survey
I
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial
State University (DMMMSU)
Agoo, La Union
Computer Science
Science (Psychology)
Science (Biology)
Science (Mathematics)
III
Bulacan State University (BSU)
Malolos City
Computer Engineering
Electronics and Comm. Eng’g.
Tarlac State University (TSU)
Tarlac City
Computer Science
Industrial Technology
Cavite State University (CvSU)
Indang, Cavite
Computer Engineering
Civil Engineering
Laguna State Polytechnic
College (LSPC)
Siniloan, Laguna
Agricultural Technology
Partido State University (PSU)
Goa, Camarines Sur
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
IV-A
V
X
Central Mindanao University
(CMU) Musuan, Bikidnon
Graduate: Doctoral (Edu.-Ed.
Adm.)
Graduate: Doctoral (Agriculture)
Graduate: Master’s (Education &
MAT)
Graduate: Master’s (Agriculture)
XI
University of Southeastern
Philippines (USEP)
Obrero, Davao City
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
XII
Cotabato Foundation College
of Science and Technology
(CFCST) Arakan, Cotabato
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Agriculture
3. First Resurvey
III
Tarlac College of Agriculture
(TCA) Camiling, Tarlac
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Agriculture
Animal Science
Arts (Economics)
Arts (Psychology)
Graduate: Master’s (MAEd,
Agriculture)
Tarlac State University (TSU)
Tarlac City
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Industrial Teacher Education
Science (Chemistry)
Civil Engineering
Mechanical Engineering
Electrical Engineering
Business Administration
Accountancy
IV-B
Palawan State University (PSU) Elementary Teacher Education
Puerto Princesa City
Secondary Teacher Education
Accountancy
Business Administration
VI
Capiz State University
(Capiz SU)
Mambusao, Capiz
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Agricultural Engineering
Forestry
Iloilo State College of Fisheries
(ISCOF) Barotac Nuevo, Iloilo
Secondary Teacher Education
VIII
Eastern Samar State University Elementary Teacher Education
(ESSU) Salcedo, Eastern Samar Secondary Teacher Education
NCR
Technological University of the
Philippines (TUP)
Ayala Street, Manila
Industrial Technology
Electronics and Communications
Engineering
4. 2nd Resurvey – Level III
I
IV-A
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial
State University (DMMMSU)
Agoo, La Union
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
University of the Northern
Philippines (UNP)
Vigan City
Graduate: Doctoral (Educ. and
Public Adm.)
Graduate: Master’s (MAEd, MST,
MAT)
Graduate: Master’s (MAME and
Public Adm.)
Cavite State University (CvSU)
Indang, Cavite
Agriculture
5. On-going Assessment of Level III
I
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial
State University (DMMMSU)
Bacnotan, La Union
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Agriculture (w/ Agro-forestry)
Forestry
Agribusiness
Agricultural Engineering
Benguet State University (BSU) Science (Applied Science)
La Trinidad, Benguet
Mariano Marcos State University Elementary Teacher Education
(MMSU) Laoag City
Secondary Teacher Education
Pangasinan State University
Elementary Teacher Education
(PSU) Bayambang, Pangasinan Secondary Teacher Education
II
Nueva Viscaya State University
(NVSU)
Bambang, Nueva Vizcaya
Elementary Teacher Education
Secondary Teacher Education
Industrial Teacher Education
Graduate: Master’s (MPA)
Graduate: Master’s (MAEd)
Graduate: Master’s (MAT)
V
Bicol University (BU)
Legaspi Campus
Graduate: Master’s (Public Adm.)
Graduate: Master’s (MAEd)
Graduate: Master’s (MAIE)
Bicol University (BU)
Daraga Campus
Graduate: Doctoral (Ed. Mgt.)
B. ACTIVITIES
1. Consultancy Visits
The strategy serves as a cost-cutting measure and aborted expectations
brought about by an imprudent and premature haste to submit for accreditation.
While the local task force makes the decision to determine the readiness for
evaluation, advice by an outside party eliminates any bias in the institution
concerned.
Pre-survey visit consultancies are conducted primarily for the following
reasons: (1) to guide SUCs on what individual or cluster programs to assess; (2)
to clarify some procedural matters; (3) to facilitate the evaluation of Teacher
Education programs with the end-in-view of helping their graduates whose
qualifications for employment partly hinge on their schools’ level of accreditation;
and (4) to ease apprehensions on reversion to lower status of schools with
expired accreditation levels.
The AACCUP undertook a number of pre-survey consulting visits in SUCs
and local colleges in 2004.
2. Training/Reorientation of Accreditors
Vis-à-vis the decision of the AACCUP Board of Trustees and the general
membership to embrace Institutional Accreditation, the reorientation of the
regular accreditors to the new scheme came into full swing. This was
undertaken simultaneously with the training of the new accreditors, where the
veteran accreditors assisted in the training of the new ones even as they were
also undergoing reorientation.
These 4-day training programs were:
Island
Region
Luzon
III
III
III
I
Visayas
VI
SUC
Participants
Tarlac State University
Bataan Polytechnic State College
Tarlac College of Agriculture
Don Mariano Marcos Memorial
State University
Negros State College of Agriculture
21
16
38
23
25
3. Linkages with and Affiliations to National and
International Accrediting Bodies
To boost its image as a dynamic organization the AACCUP, ever willing to
learn even as it shares its expertise with others, had a few of its officials attend
national and international conferences. Attendance ensued in linkages that
proved mutually advantageous to both parties concerned, among which are the
following:
a. INQAAHE conference held at Muscat, Oman, on March 2224, 2004.
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel, Dr. Ruperto S.
Sangalang and Dr. Manuel T. Corpus, President, Vice
President and Executive Director of the AACCUP
respectively, attended the international assembly of quality
assurance agencies;
b. Consultation on institutional accreditation with Dr. David
Woodhouse, Australian Quality Assurance Agency
President;
c. Sponsorship, by Dr. Pimentel and other AACCUP
representatives to the 2003 international gathering at the
Sheraton in Hongkong, of the organization of the
Subnetwork Project on University Qualifications Framework
which resulted in the 2004 initial steps toward institutional
accreditation;
d. Elevation of the AACCUP, represented by its Executive
Director, to the membership of the Asian Pacific Quality
Network of INQAAHE Governing Board where the agency
would sit. Later, the same official would lead in the study of
the qualifications framework and present papers on the issue
as they affect INQAAHE members and agencies in the
Philippines; and
e. Incorporation with the ALCU-COA to form the NNQAA.
In the very first month of the subject year of this report, the Securities and
Exchange Commission issued the Certificate of Incorporation of the National
Network of Quality Assurance Agencies (NNQAA) on January 8, 2004. It is
composed of the AACCUP and the Association of Local Colleges and
Universities Commission on Accreditation (ALCU-COA). The initial officers of the
Board of Trustees are as follows: Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel – Chairman; Dr.
Benjamin G. Tayabs – Vice Chairman; Dr. Ceferina C.P. Taringting – Secretary;
and Dr. Carolina P. Danao – Treasurer. The Executive Director is Dr. Manuel T.
Corpus. Later, former CHED Chair Angel C. Alcala and former FAPE President
Abraham I. Felipe joined as members of the Board.
4. Publication of a Journal and a Newsletter
Pursuant to its goal to provide a forum for national and international issues
on accreditation and to have a venue for selected papers of conference
presentors, the AACCUP publishes a journal at least once every two years. This
is supplemented with a Newsletter which comes out semi-annually, the latest of
which will be released during the Annual Conference on February 16-17, 2005.
5. Preparation of Its Framework of Institutional Accreditation
In anticipation of the full implementation of Institutional Accreditation,
consultations and workshops had been conducted in various parts of the country
regarding the revised instruments for the new scheme. This year, they were
pilot-tested and later fine-tuned by the Board of Trustees, consultants and faculty
experts in time for the historic launch in February 2005.
Specifically, drafting/revision of the Survey Instrument, Handbook on
Accreditation and the Framework of Institutional Accreditation for this year was
conducted at the –
Great Eastern Hotel
Quezon Avenue, Quezon City
May 24-27, 2004
27 participants
University of Southeastern
Philippines, Davao City
July 22-23, 2004
16 participants
West Visayas State University
Iloilo City, July 26-27, 2004
17 participants
Leyte Normal University
Tacloban City
August 3-4, 2004
13 participants
To date, the following are ready for adoption during the conference:
(1) Framework of Institutional Accreditation; (2) Handbook on Accreditation;
(3) Master Survey Instrument (with minimum standards).
III. MAJOR PROBLEMS
The AACCUP found the following weak points/links as major hindrances
for its successful operation:
1. The non-release of the long-awaited CHED subsidy which the
AACCUP feels it is entitled to, just like the private agencies;
2. Inability to automate data to maximize spatial utilization to effect
efficient records-keeping;
3. Limited resources for the operationalization of the NNQAA; and
4. Lack of personnel to meet the demands of the increasing
number of SUCs for accreditation services.
IV. GOVERNANCE
The AACCUP is an autonomous body in accordance with law and as
registered with the Securities and Exchange Commission. Governance rests on
the AACCUP Board of Trustees, the policy making body of the Agency mandated
to meet regularly at least every quarter outside the special/emergency meetings
conducted as the need arises. The officials are as follows:
A. Officers and Members of the Board of Trustees (2003-2005)
Dr. Rosario P. Pimentel
Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang
-
Dr. Marcela T. Caluscosin
Dr. Nora J. Claravall
Dr. Soledad M. Roguel
Dr. Danilo S. Hilario
Dr. John S. Imlan
Dr. Nilo L. Rosas
Dr. Alberto J. Trinidad
Dr. Ester B. Velasquez
-
President and Chairman
Vice President and Vice
Chairman
Treasurer
Auditor
Secretary
Trustee (2004-2005)
Trustee
Trustee
Trustee (2003-2004)
Trustee
-
Executive Director
IT Specialist
Cashier
Clerk
Bookkeeper
B. Secretariat
Dr. Manuel T. Corpus
Dr. Dominic T. Martinez
Ms. Teresita Fe T. Luzano
Mr. Segundo R. Rogelio, Jr.
Ms. Marites S. Bolanos
C. Consultants
Dr. Mariano J. Guillermo
Dr. Catalino P. Rivera
Dr. Nilo E. Colinares
V. FINANCE
In the past year, four member institutions were observed to have been
inactive. Activation of membership is most encouraged to strengthen the
AACCUP bond among SUCs and to augment the collection of the accreditation
fees which has become the sole source of funding for accreditation visits and
projects. This measure has been resorted to because, in the past four years, the
AACCUP has not received any CHED subsidy. Despite this inadequacy,
however, the AACCUP has maintained its normal operations, its financial
requirements answered by the annual dues; and the membership, accreditation,
and training fees.
The income realized for calendar year 2004 consisted of the annual dues,
accreditation and consultancy fees, sale of instruments, annual convention,
midyear conference, workshops and trainings. The income statement as of
December 31, 2004 shows a total income of P 2,695,575.10. The excess of
income over expenses of P 533,933.68 is explained as follows:
Excess of income over expenses CY 2003
Add: Depreciation expense CY 2003
Amount available for CY 2004
Excess of income over expenses CY 2004 (P 533,933.68)
Add: Depreciation expense 2004
73,510.14
Amount available for 2005
P 455,472.22
142,384.44
597,856.66
(460,423.54)
P 137,433.12
Fixed assets were reported with 10% of cost and depreciation using the
straight line method with 10% salvage value of all properties, plant and
equipment.
VI. PLANS FOR THE ENSUING CALENDAR YEAR
1. Launch the Institutional Accreditation Scheme to present a more robust
image for the AACCUP and to reveal to the whole accreditation world
the advanced stage SUCs have reached;
2. Begin with institutional accreditation for SUCs;
3. Use the newly-revised instrument to continue with accreditation by
program;
4. Maximize efforts in the work for the release of the AACCUP’s share of
the CHED subsidy for accreditation;
5. Select and retrain experienced accreditors;
6. Undertake all pre-implementation activities for the revised instruments
vis-à-vis the retraining sessions;
7. Help organize and/or strengthen the internal assessment bodies of
SUCs;
8. Strengthen the AACCUP’s linkages with national and international
quality assurance bodies;
9. Continue with the dissemination of updates and information on
accreditation;
10. Invite foreign experts of accreditation for the training of trainors; and
accreditors on institutional accreditation.
ACCREDITING AGENCY FOR CHARTERED COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
(AACCUP)
812 Future Point Plaza I, 112 Panay Avenue, South Triangle, Q.C.
INCOME STATEMENT
As of December 31, 2004
INCOME/REVENUE
ANNUAL DUES
ACCREDITATION & CONSULTANCY FEE
INSTRUMENT & OTHER INCOME
NATIONAL CONVENTION
Registration Fees & Materials
Less: Convention Expenses
Mid Year Conference
Registration Fees & Materials
Less: Conference Expenses
Workshops and Trainings
Registration Fees & Materials
Less: Workshop/Training Expenses
TOTAL INCOME/REVENUE
LESS: OPERATING EXPENSES
Salaries & Wages
Other Personnel Benefits
Honoraria/Token
Meals & Snacks
Traveling Expenses
Telephone, Telegraph & Internet
Contributions
Supplies & Materials
Electricity
Taxes & Licenses
Professional Fees
Repairs & Maintenance
Membership & Financial Assistance
Printing Expenses
Association Dues
Depreciation-Office Equipment
Depreciation-IT Equipment
Depreciation-Office Furniture and Fixtures
Miscellaneous
EXCESS INCOME OVER EXPENSES
1,010,000.00
1,262,000.00
78,678.09
1,818,600.00
1,600,109.68
218,490.32
920,200.00
821,371.41
98,828.59
388,000.00
360,421.90
27,578.10
2,695,575.10
489,260.98
46,400.00
865,127.64
135,492.43
1,088,804.71
181,066.70
30,688.10
82,460.99
80,442.85
500.00
4,000.00
7,052.00
61,500.50
37,328.00
25,490.34
38,925.54
21,081.00
13,503.60
20,383.40
Audited by:
Certified Correct:
DR. NORA J. CLARAVALL
Auditor
MARITES S. BOLANOS
Accountant/Bookkeeper
3,229,508.78
(533,933.68)
ACCREDITING AGENCY FOR CHARTERED COLLEGES AND
UNIVERSITIES IN THE PHILIPPINES, INC.
(AACCUP)
812 Future Point Plaza I, 112 Panay Avenue, South Triangle, Q.C.
BALANCE SHEET
December 31, 2004
ASSETS
CURRENT ASSETS:
Cash in Bank (LBP)
Cash Advance for Accreditation & Operation
FIXED ASSETS
Office Equipment (net)
Office Furnitures & Fixtures (net)
IT Equipment (net)
Real Property
TOTAL ASSETS
LIABILITIES
199,689.11
203,902.65
403,591.76
230.063.74
103,744.00
61,844.00
1,921,563.94
LIABILITIES & EQUITY
SSS Premium Payable
Philhealth Payable
Pag-ibig Premium Payable
EQUITY
AACCUP Equity
Add: Excess of Income over Expenses
TOTAL LIABILITIES AND EQUITY
2,709.00
650.00
1,800.00
3,249,582.12
(533,933.68)
2,317,215.68
2,720,807.44
5,159.00
2,715,648.44
2,720,807.44
Audited:
Certified Correct:
(Sgd.) DR. NORA J. CLARAVALL
Auditor
(Sgd.) MARITES S. BOLANOS
Accountant/Bookkeeper
TOMAS M MANINAG, C.P.A.
C.P.A. Cert. # 11451
TIN # 139-242-634
1129 Quiricada St.,
Tondo, Manila
REPORT OF INDEPENDENT CERTIFIED PUBLIC ACCOUNTANT
THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS
ACCREDITING AGENCY OF CHARTERED
COLLEGES AND UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL., INC.
AACCUP
#812 Future Point Plaza !
112 Panay Ave. South Triangle
Quezon City
I have examined the accompanying balance sheet of ACCREDITING
AGENCY OF CHARTERED COLLEGES & UNIVERSITY OF THE PHIL., INC.
as of December 31, 2004 and the related statements of income and retained
earnings for the year that ended.
These financial statements are the
responsibility of the Company’s management. My responsibility is to express an
opinion on these financial statements based on my audit.
I conducted my audits in accordance with generally accepted auditing
standards. Those standards required that I plan and perform the audits to obtain
reasonable assurance about whether the financial statements are free of material
misstatement. An audit includes examining the test basis evidence supporting
the amount and disclosures in the financial statement. An audit also includes
assessing the accounting principles used and significant estimates made by
management, as well as evaluating the overall financial statement presentation.
I believe that my audits provide reasonable basis for my opinion.
In my opinion, the financial statements referred to above present fairly, in
all material respects, the financial position of ACCREDITING AGENCY OF
CHARTERED COLLEGES & UNIVERSITIES OF THE PHIL., INC. as of
December 31, 2004 and the result of its operation for the period then ended in
conformity with generally accepted accounting principles.
(Sgd) TOMAS M. MANINANG
CPA CERT # 11451
PTR # 3590506
Issued on: 01/06/05
City of Manila
February, 2005
Manila Philippines
2005 AACCUP ANNUAL NATIONAL CONVENTION
February 16-17, 2005
PARTICIPANTS
REGION I
DON MARIANO MARCOS MEMORIAL
STATE UNIVERSITY
ILOCOS SUR POLYTECHNIC STATE
COLLEGE
Dr. Amelia O Bacungan
Dr. Marcela T. Caluscosin
Dr. Miriam S. Cervantes
Prof. Marina S. Quesada
Dr. Manuel T. Libao
Dr. Julie N. Mazon
Dr. Editha T. Vasay
Dr. Honorio C. Buccat
Dr. Salvacion C. Loyola
Dr. Elsie M. Pacho
Dr. Grace D. Runas
Dr. Lilito D. Gavina
Dr. Mario B. Mendoza
Prof. Estrella Rizalino
Dr. Virginia O. Rudio
Dr. Gil de la Vega
Dr. Merlyn H. Caoile
Dr. Eduardo C. Corpuz
Dr. Clarita O. Manzano
Dr. Rogelio C. Tanagon
Dr. Leticia B. Tinaza
Engr. Elson H. Yumul
Dr. Eufemia D. Calica
Dr. Salvador H. Jucar
Dr. Concepcion L. Bederio
Dr. Eric F. Salamanca
Dr. Alejandro V. Directo
Dr. Florante O. Vizcarra
Dr. Fernando C. Calibuso
Dr. Olivia C. Directo
Dr. Wilma M. Ponce
CITY COLLEGE OF URDANETA
Ester A. Froda
Librada E. Tablada
Maria Loreta A. Lozano
Elizabeth A. Montera
MARIANO MARCOS STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Nancy GB. Balantac
Dr. Joselito L. Nolinco
Dr. Eduardo T. Borja
PANGASINAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Rodolfo V. Asanion
Dr. Monolito C. Manuel
Dr. Zenaida Suyat
Dr. Melendre Esguerra
Dr. Rodrigo Javier
UNIVERSITY OF NORTHERN PHILIPPINES
Dr. Lauro B. Tacbas
Dr. Lumen H. Almachar
Dr. Cerefina S. Ambre
Engr. Rey M. Basilio
Dr. Milagros Remular
Dr. Wilma F. Medrano
Dr. Jimmy Soria
Prof. Gilbert R. Arce
CAR
ABRA STATE INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
BENGUET STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Percyveranda A. Lubrica
Dr. Marian Grace A. Gascon
Dr. Edna Chua
Dr. Hambelina B. Molina
Dr. Gloria C. Banganan
Dr. Eusebia R. Pagluanan
Prof. Estrelita M. Vasquez
Prof. Noel B. Begnalen
Prof. Norma V. Viernes
IFUGAO STATE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND FORESTRY
Dr. Lourdes P. Baliguat
MOUNTAIN PROVINCE STATE
POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
PHILIPPINE MILITARY ACADEMY
Atty. Florentino Manalatas
Dr. Edarlina A. Fakat
REGION II
ISABELA STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Romeo R. Quilang
Dr. Emerenciana B. Claravall
Dr. Thelma A. Lanuza
Dr. Robinson M. Perez
Dr. Editha F. Ausa
Dr. Janet B. Quilang
Prof. Richard C. Ramirez
William R. Eustaquio
Aurea A. Dela Cruz
Leticia O. Gaño
Wilfredo G. Lim
Quirino G. Lucas
Clarinda C. Galiza
Felipe P. Ammugauan
Joel L. Reyes
Julpha M. Agustin
Dr. Arthur L. Razon
Prof. Rutelia L. Pascual
Dr. Susan C. Vallejo
Prof. CLarina S. Sarmiento
Dr. Lorelie T. Taggueg
NUEVA VIZCAYA STATE UNIVERSITY
QUIRINO STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Evelacio M. Corpuz
Dr. Juan V. Fontanilla, Jr.
Sabas B. Padua
REGION III
BATAAN STATE COLLEGE
BATAAN POLYTECHNIC STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Bonifacio R. Dumlao
Dr. Maximo Eisma
Dr. Maria Fe V. Roman
Mrs. Alicia Estrella
Dr. Herminio L. Miguel
Dr. Mercedes G. Sanchez
Mrs. Mary Ann V. Casupanan
BULACAN NATIONAL AGRICULTURAL
STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Danilo S. Faustino
Dr. Danilo S. Hilario
Ms. Rosario Poniado
Dr. Antonio del Rosario
Dr. Cecile Geronimo
Dr. Evelina Exconde
Mr. Jaime Pulumbarit
Ms. Teresita Hitosis
Dr. Josie A. Valdez
Dr. Gerardo I. Mendoza
Dr. Herminio B. Giron
Prof. Roberto C. Wagan
Dr. Susan C. Santos
CENTRAL LUZON STATE UNIVERSITY
DON HONORIO VENTURA COLLEGE OF
ARTS AND TRADES
Dr. Rodolfo C. Undan
Dr. Marilou G. Abon
Dr. Soledad M. Roguel
Dr. Melissa E. Agulto
Dr. Laura Miriam B. Buenviaje
Arch. Hermel S. Sotiangco
Prof., Francisca M. Carreon
Engr. Reden M. Hernandez
NUEVA ECIJA UNIVERSITY OF SCIENCE
AND TECHNOLOGY
PAMPANGA AGRICULTURAL COLLEGE
Dr. Emelita C. Kempis
Dr. Epifania S. Gosioco
Dr. Teresita S. Teodoro
Dr. Gemiliano C. Calling
Dr. Angel A. Pangilinan
Dr. Juan R. Aglubat
Mr. Reynaldo J. Morales
Dr. Leonardo L. Navarro
Prof. Rodolfo M. Soriano
Dr. Hilario C. Ortiz
Dr. Nenita L. Pongco
PHILIPPINE MERCHANT MARINE
ACADEMY
Capt. Norberto C. Mora
Cdr. Emmanuel B. Santos
RAMON MAGSAYSAY TECHNOLOGICAL
UNIVERSITY
Dr. Irene M. Ebal
Dr. Domingo C. Edaño
Prof. Cornelio Garcia
Dr. Thelma Meer
Dr. Ricardo Reyes
Dr. Feliciano Rosete
Dr. Iluminda Castor
Dr. Renato Ruba
BULACAN STATE UNIVERSITY
TARLAC COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
Dr. Philip B. Ibarra
Dr. Maria Teresa S.J. Valdez
Dr. Max P. Guillermo
Dr. Ester L. Mercado
TARLAC STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Dolores G. Matias
Dr. Priscila Viuya
Dr. Myrna Mallari
REGION IV-A
BATANGAS STATE UNIVERSITY
LIPA CITY PUBLIC COLLEGE
Dr. Rolando L. Lontoc, Sr.
Dr. Marites Manlungat
Prof. Ma. Carmen L. Vidal
Prof. Araceli H. Luna
Prof. Benedicto S. Noriega
Prof. Myrna A. Coliat
Dr. Edelito C. Dimailig
Prof. Rosalinda M. Mendoza
Mrs. Imelda Biasbas
Prof. Felicisimo B. Diadio
CAVITE STATE UNIVERSITY
UNIVERSITY OF RIZAL SYSTEM
Dr. Ruperto S. Sangalang
Dr. Lorna I. Penales
Dr. Constancia G. Cueno
Dr. Yolanda A. Ilagan
Dr. Celso S. Crucido
Mrs. Leonita Costa
Eleanor M. Vibar
LAGUNA STATE POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
Dr. Ricardo A. Wagan
Dr. Olivia P. Magpily
Dr. Ruperto C. Espinueva
Dir. Roman V. Austria
Dr. Teresa M. Yambao
Dr. Mario Pasion
Dr. Edith Olan
Dean Lydia R. Chavez
SOUTHERN LUZON POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE
Dr. Teresita Gascon
Dr. Walberto A. Macaraan
Dr. Conrado L. Abraham
Dr. Clarissa D. Maguyon
MARINDUQUE STATE COLLEGE
OCCIDENTAL MINDORO NATIONAL
COLLEGE
Dr. Victor S. Vitto, Sr.
Dr. Rosalina J. Villero
Eulogio R. Medina
Leonida O. Insigne
Dr. Meldina R. Regio
Mrs. Judith G. Gamit
Mr. Reynaldo F. Escalada
Engr. Francisco L. Felipe
Mrs. Nimfa B. Pastraña
MINDORO STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE
AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Angelito A. Bacudo
Dr. Cecilia G. Salazar
Dr. Levy B. Arago, Jr.
Dr. Jesse T. Zamora
Mrs. Edna G. Piol
Mrs. Gregoria C. Pesigan
Mr. Vicente Hernandez
Mrs. Consuelo M. Untalan
REGION IV-B
PALAWAN STATE UNIVERSITY
WESTERN PHILIPPINES UNIVERSITY
Dr. Erlinda A. Ganapin
Prof. Lily Ocapan
Dr. Concepto Magay
Judith Madarcos
Dr. Estrella Ponce de Leon
ROMBLON STATE COLLEGE
Amada Mayuga
Edgar F. Fadallan
REGION V
BICOL UNIVERSITY
CAMARINES NORTE STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Susana C. Cabredo
Dr. Epifania B. Nuñez
Dr. Ofelia S. Vega
Dr. Heidi C. Dyangko
Dr. Antonio P. Payonga
Dr. Leonila B. Barbacena
Dr. Julieta B. Borres
Prof. Wilhelmina M. Nerveza
Prof. Manolo A. Carbonell
Dr. Ela N. Regondola
Dr. Erlinda J. Porcincula
Dr. Lydia R. Salamero
Dr. Nora B. Abarca
CAMARINES SUR POLYTECHNIC COLLEGE
Pres. Wilfredo G. Olano
Dr. Yolanda L. Castroverde
Dr. Belen A. Relleno
Prof. Lorena F. Hernandez
Dr. Monsito G. Ilarde
Mr. Ferdinand B. Valencia
Mrs. Luzviminda A. Fajardo
Dr. Amparo A. Nieves
Dr. Araceli E. Carreras
Dr. Richard Cordial
Dr. Arly B. Balingbing
Engr. Lino D. Berango
CATANDUANES STATE COLLEGES
Dr. Asuncion V. Asetre
Dr. Evelyn Bagadiong
Dr. Rosario T. Azanza
Dr. Lilia V. Briñes
Dr. Asuncion V. San Juan
Prof. Josefina A. Buena
Prof. Ruben A. Velasco
SORSOGON STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Augusto R. Nieves
Dr. Ruby L. Leander
Mr. Alfredo D. Donor
CAMARINES SUR STATE AGRICULTURAL
COLLEGE
PARTIDO STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Modesto D. Detera
Dr. Minda P. Formalejo
Dr. Seneca Z. Tacurda
Mr. Dennis D. Pena
Mrs. Agnes R. Pesimo
Engr. Jose D. Paat
Mrs. Salvacion S. Enrile
Dr. Nita V. Morallo
Dr. Erlinda P. Orgaya
DR. EMILIO B. ESPINOSA, SR. MEMORIAL
STATE COLLEGE OF AGRICULTURE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Salvador T. Turco
Dr. Magno S. Onag, Jr.
Alfredo B. Atendido
BICOL INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Ernesto A. Pamada
REGION VI
AKLAN STATE UNIVERSITY
Mrs. Lea I Dulla
Dr. Elenita B. Andrade
Dr. Benny A. Palma
CARLOS HILADO MEMORIAL STATE
COLLEGE
Dr. Remia J. Tipon
Dr. Victoria L. Ojas
Dr. Orlando Z. Benales
Dr. Renato B. Salmingo
GUIMARAS STATE COLLEGE
ILOILO STATE COLLEGE OF FISHERIES
Prof. Josephine G. Piodena
Instr. Josie H. Gaitano
Prof. Jose A. Villasis
Dr. Milagros Motillano
Dr. Elvira C. Delgado
Dr. Marlon L. Barinos
Nenita M. Barido
Leonora O. Billena
NEGROS STATE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE
NORTHERN ILOILO POLYTECHNIC STATE
COLLEGE
Dr. Marcelino A. Dechavez
Dr. Joel A. Perez
Dr. Wenceslao O. Sison
Mrs. Hilda A. Magtiza
Dr. Edna T. Suganob
Dr. Francis B. Gasapo
Dr. Severa M. Francisco
Mr. Juan A. Longno
Mrs. Araceli F. Habaradas
Mr. Ricardo R. Ayupan
Mrs. Tessie A. Masongsong
Dr. Hermogene R. Guangco
Mrs. Magelia P. Cubar
CAPIZ STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Rochellir D. Dadivas
Dr. Annabell E. Villaruel
Dr. Nicolas A. Braña, Jr.
Dr. Merlita Navarra
Dr. Aladino L. Leccio
Dr. Geronimo Gregorio
Dr. Nenita Beluso
Ms. Herminia Gomez
Dr. Lucy A. Beluso
Dr. Sykum Legarda
Dr. Evaristo Magoncia
Dr. Primitivo V. Bangcoyo
WEST VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Eda C.Ticao
Dr. Lourdes N. Morano
Dr. Alberto J. Trinidad
Dr. Purita P. Bilbao
Dr. Henry J. Andora
Dr. Merna R. Lopez
Dr. Merline S. Pocesion
Ms. Rosita R. Luntao
Prof. Eleanor C. Bugante
Dr. Jeremias L. Convocar
Prof. Lucy L. Cadiz
Prof. Raymond B. Gemora
Dr. Antonio S. Urbano
Dr. Eleodoro Alicante
Dr. Oscar R. Jaballa
Prof. Gabriel C. Delariarte
Prof. Ophelia F. Julit
NORTHERN NEGROS STATE COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Romulo Sismo
Dr. Rogelio Aktajo
WESTERN VISAYAS COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Luis M. Sorolla, Jr.
Dr. Antonio D. Sanica
Dr. Marjorie A. Caipang
Dr.Emma Q. Quidato
Dr. Nehema K. Misola
Mrs. Nida T. Gomez
Dr. Raul F. Muyong
Dr. Ma. Eugenita C. Capaciete
POLYTECHNIC STATE COLLEGE OF
ANTIQUE
Mr. Vicente V. Aguilar
Mrs. Nelida A. Alecando
Dr. Lauro G. Peralez
Dr. Yolanda T. Garcesa
Mrs. Solita T. Atienza
LA CARLOTA CITY COLLEGE
Dr. Amelia I. Valera
Dr. Fatima G. Bullos
Prof. Lydia Peñafiel
Prof. Rasel G. Reyes
REGION VII
CEBU NORMAL UNIVERSITY
CEBU STATE COLLEGE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Ester B. Velasquez
Dr. Zosimo A. Pañares
Dr. Marilou B. Ong
Dr. Pedrito C. Pontillas
Dr. Severino R. Romano
Dr. Florencio L. Ramos
Engr. Edgar O. Emphasis
NEGROS ORIENTAL STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Henry A. Sojor
Dr. Winhelda N. Baquilta
Dr. Bernardina E. Dueñas
Dr. Juanita B. Solis
Dr. Arsenia A. ALbito
Dr. Libertine C. de Guzman
Dr. Ponciano O. Julom
CENTRAL VISAYAS STATE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE, FORESTRY AND
TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Elpidio T. Magante
Dr. Louis T. Palapar
Dr. Dioscoro A. Avergonzado
Dr. Inocencio L. Cosare
Mr. Arnulfo C. Olandria
Prof. Ramon A. Poyos
SIQUIJOR STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Dominador Q. Cabanganan
Dr. Rosita T. Bidad
Dr. Virgie B. Maquibas
REGION VIII
EASTERN SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY
EASTERN VISAYAS STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Teresita B. Caharop
Dr. Elpidio M. Cabacaba
Dr. Emilia L. Baquilod
Dr. Ma. Socorro C. Gicain
Dr. Danilo M. Quinto
Dr. Gualberto V. Gariando
Dr. Josie Y. Refuerzo
Dr. Lilian D. Estorninos
Dr. Leonita Herrera
Dr. Iluminado C. Nical
LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Manuel K. Palomar
Dr. Justiniano L. Seroy
NAVAL INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
SAMAR STATE UNIVERSITY
Engr. Rossini B. Romero
Dr. Susan Bentor
Dr. Nenita Sereño
Dr. Simon Babalcon
Dr. Eusebio Pacolor
Dr. Marilyn Cardoso
Dr. Meldrito B. Valles
LEYTE NORMAL UNIVERSITY
PALOMPON INSTITUTE OF TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Leonardo G. Oñate
Dr. Delia T. Combista
Dr. Flordeliza M. Sison
Prof. Mateo B. Duites
Dr. Norberto C. Olavides
Dr. Erlinda I. Igot
Dr. Ludivina C. Labtic
SOUTHERN LEYTE STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Leonardo L. Manalo
Dr. Stella Marie Consul
Dr. Bernardo B. Cabahug
Ms. Annabelle M. Hufalar
Dr. Demetria J. Linguaje
Dr. Lamberto Badeo
Dr. Pablo V. Suarez
UNIVERSITY OF EASTERN PHILIPPINES
Dr. Mindanilla B. Broto
Dr. Zenaida S. Lucero
TIBURCIO TANCINCO MEMORIAL
INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Ms. Sofia L. Broncano
Dr. Aida L. Tobes
Dr. Remedios T. Tomnob
Dr. Avelina N. Bergado
Dr. Fe C. Montecalvo
Dr. Lorna O. de Veyra
Engr. Romeo Santos
Dr. Lydia delos Reyes
REGION IX
JOSE RIZAL MEMORIAL STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Edgar S. Balbuena
Dr. Cecilia S. Saguin
ZAMBOANGA CITY STATE POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE
ZAMBOANGA STATE COLLEGE OF
MARINE SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Ernie A. Caraecle
Dr. Patricia L. Manejero
Ms. Evelyn B. Campos
Prof. Edgar N. Atilano
Ms. Florinda V. Garcia
Dr. Lionel R. Villavieja
Dr. David T. Taleon
Dr. Edwin L. Evangelista
REGION X
BUKIDNON STATE COLLEGE
CENTRAL MINDANAO UNIVERSITY
Dr. Victor M. Barroso
Prof. Leonardo C. Eduave
Dr. Remedios G.T. Barroso
Dr. Sol G. Simbulan
Dr. Cornelia T. Partosa
Dr. Emmanuel A. Lariosa
MIDANAO POLYTECHNIC STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Montano F. Salvador
Mr. Ivanhoe S. Oñate
MISAMIS ORIENTAL STATE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Juan A. Nagtalon
Dr. Elizar M. Elmundo
Prof. Elvira T. Salatan
REGION XI
DAVAO DEL NORTE STATE COLLEGE
DAVAO ORIENTAL STATE COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Prof. Rosario B. Saligan
Prof. Julieta S. Abarquez
Prof. Genelyn C. Lim
Prof. Carmela N. Hadia
SOUTHERN PHILIPPINES AGRI-BUSINESS,
MARINE AND AQUATIC SCHOOL OF
TECHNOLOGY
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHEASTERN
PHILIPPINES
Dr. Apolinar D. Cenabre
Dr. Milagros D. Arquillano
Dr. Daniel T. Ugay, Jr.
Dr. Rosario Garcia
Prof. Sevilla S. Yobueno
REGION XII
COTABATO FOUNDATION OF COLLEGE OF
SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
COTABATO CITY STATE POLYTECHNIC
COLLEGE
Dr. Makalutang B. Luna
Dr. Zacaria E. Dalam
Dr. Rebecca M. Colcol
Prof. Norodin C. Ali
Dr. Dingan C. Ali
Dr. Francisco P. Balucas, Jr.
SULTAN KUDARAT POLYTECHNIC STATE
COLLEGE
MINDANAO STATE UNIVERSITY
Dr. Nelson T. Binag
Dr. Rolando F. Hechanova
Dr. Remedios P. Dellera
Dr. Rebecca L. Loja
Dr. Dolorcita E. Pauya
Dr. Alberto T. Barquilla
Dr. Jesusa O. Ortuoste
Dr. Modesto S. Agaylan
Dr. Chita M. Mosquera
Dr. Jerry L. Marquez
Dr. Jazer O. Castañeda
Dr. Alicia L. Manondog
Dr. Jerson N. Orejudos
Dr. Sergio P. Revuelta
UNIVERSITY OF SOUTHERN MINDANAO
Dr. Virgilio G. Oliva
Dr. Grace G. Lopez
Dr. Ma. Minda A. Yap
Dr. Joy Gloria P. Sabutan
Dr. Riceli C. Mendoza
Dr. Evelyn T. Cabading
CARAGA
AGUSAN DEL SUR STATE COLLEGE OF
AGRICULTURE AND TECHNOLOGY
SURIGAO DEL SUR POLYTECHNIC
STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Doroteo E. Jaquias
Dr. Juarlito V. Garcines
Dr. Estrella S. Dinopol
Prof. Nilda G. Abangolan
Prof. Cherry J. Amador
Dr. Remegita C. Olvida
Dr. Rebecca S. Sanchez
Dr. Elenita S. Santamaria
Mrs. Trindad E. Laguesma
Mr. Rene Q. Diaz
NORTHERN MINDANAO STATE INSTITUTE
OF SCIENCE AND TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Edgar W. Ignacio
ARMM
SULU STATE COLLEGE
ADIONG MEMORIAL POLYTECHNIC
STATE COLLEGE
Dr. Sururia A. Abad
Dr. Abdurasa S. Arasid
Prof. Gregorio P. Concepcion
Dr. Mangigin B. Adiong
NCR
EULOGIO “AMANG” RODRIGUEZ
INSTITUTE OF SCIENCE AND
TECHNOLOGY
Dr. Reynaldo P. Roca
Dr. Bernard R. Ramirez
Dr. Maura V. Bautista
Dr. Elizabeth E. Soriano
Prof. Violeta M. Reyes
Dr. Noel B. Cabrera
TECHNOLOGICAL UNIVERSITY OF THE
PHILIPPINES
PHILIPPINE NORMAL UNIVERSITY
Dr. Lydia P. Lalunio
Dr. Estefania S. De Guzman
Prof. Marites C. Geronimo
Dr. Lolita H. Nava
Dr. Angelita D. Romero
Dr. Lucila B. Langanlangan
Dr. Daylinda J. Tampus
Dr. Alberto A. Rico
Prof. Lualhati I. Dotano
PHILIPPINE STATE COLLEGE OF
AERONAUTICS
Mrs. Darla C. Diamante
Prof. Cenon B. Arrieta II
Dr. Milagros I. Cachola
Prof. Fe D. Ramos
Dr. Emiliana VR. Tadeo
Prof. Teodines P. Garcia
Arch. Vicente Daulong
Dr. Ma. Dolores T. Tabanera
Ms. Belen S. Junia
Prof. Susan Nuñez
POLYTECHNIC UNIVERSITY
OF THE PHILIPPINES
Dr. Samuel M. Salvador
Dr. Gloria T. Baysa
Dr. Victoria C. Naval
Dr. Milagrina A. Gomez
OFFICERS AND MEMBERS OF THE BOARD OF TRUSTEES
2005-2007
DR. ROSARIO P. PIMENTEL
President and Chairman of the Board
DR. ESTER B. VELASQUEZ
Trustee
DR. NELSON T. BINAG
Vice President and Vice-Chairman
DR. ALBERTO J. TRINIDAD
Trustee
DR. JOHN S. IMLAN
Trustee
DR. GRACE G. LOPEZ
Trustee
DR. DANILO S. HILARIO
Auditor and Trustee
DR. ALADINO L. LECCIO
Trustee
DR. MARCELA T. CALUSCOSIN
Secretary and Trustee
DR FLORINDA V. GARCIA
Trustee
DR. RUPERTO S. SANGALANG
Trustee
DR. MANUEL T. CORPUS
Ex-Officio
SECRETARIAT AND CONSULTANTS GROUP
DR. MANUEL T. CORPUS
Executive Director
DR. PABLO T. MATEO
Consultant
DR. CATALINO P. RIVERA
Consultant
DR. NILO E. COLINARES
Consultant
MS. FE TERESITA T. LUZANO
Cashier
MS. MARITES S. BOLANOS
Bookkeeper
MR. PAUL JOHN L. CABUGAO
Part-time Staff
MR. DOMINIC T. MARTINEZ
IT Specialist
MR. SEGUNDO R. ROGELIO, JR
Program Officer
MR. MARK L. REYES
Part-time Staff